sutton074

The bad thing about the walking seminar is that, in order to participate, bodies have to be present at specific places at certain times. The good thing, however, is that the question, we discuss while walking, travel very easily. So, this is what we discussed the last times: Writing about what it not good. Detached. Calm. Angry. Sad. Argumentative. Empathic. Clinical. What else? Which difference does it make whether this non-good seems irreducible (e.g. we all die) or someone’s fault (e.g. X killed Y) or puzzling (e.g. why did Y die?) or a social fact (e.g. Y lived in a country in war or with lack of food) – or something else yet again? Neglect, failure, disaster, agression, what have you... How do you know, assess, judge, feel, find out – that in your field you hit upon something that is ‘not-good’? What are interesting examples in the literature of ways of writing about what is not good? What makes them interesting? And the month before: Comparing: what is it to compare? What do ...

‘Dutchness’ as an effect of walking Rogier wrote that we were walking in the ‘heart of Dutchness’. But what is ‘Dutchness’? The polders? The windmill? The light? Great work on the question on difference is currently undertaken by Amade M’charek . In looking at ‘race’ and ‘Dutchness’, she conceives of differences not as given, but as effects that come about in relational practices. In that sense, walking enacts a very specific version of ‘Dutchness’. Vorarlberger Boden Dutch Soil What do you wear? Hiking boots – all other kinds of shoes would be dangerous Whatever you like – from hiking boots to flip flop How do you get there? Take the car for, at least, half an hour in order to go from 500 meters to 1000 meters or 1500 meters above sea level. Take the train for 15 minutes. What do you see? In the beginning trees, later other mountain ranges, in the end...