“There seems to be a definite propensity for academics in the field(s) of (geo)politics and critical/radical geographies to (bracket) up as many of the complex [‘general group identification words’] as possible. Is this a case of academic elitism that creates an ‘in-crowd’ by using a shared style of expression? Where the use of (brackets) allows the budding critical/poltico/social/economistic/philso/anthro/geo-graphers to to carve out and perform/create ‘their’ own {multiple} identities? Or perhaps it is to highlight the pluralities (multiple meanings) of self-reflexive and self-critical discourses that seem as resistant to self-identification as they do the labeling of others.
Or perhaps pragmatism holds the key - brackets provide a quick and possibly eloquent way of covering multiple meanings and identities all at once; one that allows academics to sidestep any real commitment to a particular label and so avoid arguments being sidetracked by endless rounds of name calling.
Either way, the written bracket {in relation to the meanings it hopes to convey in these contexts} occupies a rather ambiguous space. The mark itself is inherently divisive and yet its deployment in this manner acts as a point of convergence for multiple (possibly) disparate narratives and discourses.
Or perhaps I’m reading too much into it. Then again, there’s always the “/”.”
what about the <angle> bracket? don’t marginalize it, [(typonormative-) fascist] k? >:|
