Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica

I added a presentation of the article with some political questions about the weaknesses and ambiguities of COARA and the EU that promoted it.

La presentazione dell’articolo contiene anche un primo commento al testo,

In this paper, maps use points as the main way of representation, but I often get the impression that the text thinks in polygons.

The geography of the path is remarkable. I really liked the way the text slowly shows how the path makes politics and politics makes the path.

Fig. 1 is really nice!

“Quando l’idea del volume è venuta a maturazione mi sono chiesta quale tipo di prodotto editoriale poteva rispecchiare con coerenza i percorsi di ricerca che vi venivano documentati e anche le scelte di campo che la Public History richiede.”

This doubt is a genuine concern, and the final output is absolutely satisfying.

Even though the entire text has an excellent concern with complexity and plurality, I understand that the focus on “confines” (thus, limits, or “polygons”) ended up (somehow) pointing more to a modern morphology (such as countries, with their limits and relative internal homogeneities) than what I understand to be medieval geography, more centered on “points” from which a particular diffuse space of power departs. It is more of an impression than a certainty.

I thought the text “Il fegato del vescovo” was simply brilliant. It manages to masterfully fuse the distant past and present, always facing political issues and different scales, not to forget how the text analyzes the real and the mythical. It is an exercise, I understand, of total history, as the historiography of the 1970s aspired to, but without the determinisms that persisted at the time. The text results from a long research process to which many people contributed. However, it is the author’s exclusive merit to see how all the different elements that make up the work interrelate, forming an extremely sophisticated mosaic. The way in which digital resources are used is remarkable, with the use of analysis and digital publication tools, Geographic Information Systems, and interactive (and collaborative) platforms with surveys (and visualization of results).
Regarding geographic analysis, the explanation presented is very well articulated and points to a complex analysis. I have some slight disagreements, but they are not that significant. The important thing is that political disputes and historical processes were considered with finesse in the analysis, thus being very far from a “flat” analysis of historical geography, as is often seen in the works of historians. There is, therefore, a plurality of geographies competing and interacting in the analysis, which seems very important to highlight. The subsequent comments will be less complimentary, and I will try (respectfully) to point out a few disagreements I have.

Piè di pagina 3: (quidni invece di quindi)

Inserire spazio in curiositàdelle