Topologies of practice
Allen’s (2011) provocative argument on the difference between topographic and topologic ontologies in human geography offers human geographers an important opportunity to re-engage with other similarly spirited arguments about the limitations of the topographic. For example, debate over Marston et al.’s (2005) argument for a ‘site ontology’ has tended to sidestep the question of topological space and has instead dwelled on whether or not their representation of human geography research on scale is accurate. However, if Allen’s research gives human geographers another opportunity to take up the question of sociospatial practice as contingent, site-specific, and self-structuring, it also poses at least two problems. On the one hand, Allen characterizes the topographic and topologic according to a too neat calendar of sociospatial relations. On the other hand, Allen overlooks a long-standing appreciation for the topologic in human geography by drawing a strong distinction between past and newer intellectual approaches to power and space.