The Research Training Group 2589, ‘Practicing Place: Socio-Cultural Practices and Epistemic Configurations’ is dedicated to critically reflecting on the concepts of ‘place’ and ‘placing’ from an interdisciplinary perspective. Places and placings are at the heart of discussions about complex global interrelations, especially in an era of deepening transnational interdependencies and seemingly borderless communication networks. The research group’s guiding principle is that places can only be analyzed dynamically as practicing places.
From this vantage point, we consider the specific practices of placing, as well as their concomitant epistemic configurations, such as comprehending, mapping, locating, imagining, writing, experiencing and redefining places, and the situatedness and specific locality of any practice. Every practice is informed by particular places, while simultaneously producing place in an ongoing, performative process. Consequently, places can never be conceived as static, singular entities in the sense of ‘Heimat’ or a closed life-world. Rather, they must be considered as dynamic, multifaceted, dialogical, often controversial, affective and participatory systems of relations informed by performance, construction, perception, production, experience, recognition and inscription. Further, recognition of non-human beings and entities impel us to no longer conceptualise place and location from the perspective of a unified subject. The ways in which every practice of placing is connected to strategies of relating superordinate, subordinate, and secondary strands of place, space, and time need to be examined in a complex manner.
Our Practicing Place lens combines two approaches to tease out complex relational formations. The first focuses on the practices of place-making to examine the material, medial, and epistemic aspects. The second approach complements the first one, centring on epistemic configurations to analyse the situated knowledges that always already underlie the practices of place. The key interdisciplinary questions of Practicing Place thus revolve around the ‘how’ of place; that is, how places are (re)produced, (de)stabilized, modified, and also destroyed in configurations of sedimented and lived practice, as well as how such (dis)localizations in turn shape or even condition future (localization) practices. Our group comprises scholars from sociology, geography, philosophy, as well as literary and cultural studies, which ensures the program’s interdisciplinary orientation, exploring the innovative cross-fertilization between social science approaches and the humanities.
In the context of new geopolitical confrontations, ecological challenges and heightened social polarization, the conflictuality of practicings of place has emerged as the central direction of our second funding phase, from October 2025. Our emphasis is on place and placing processes as central figurations of conflict, which we are pursuing through three thematic research areas: (1) Placings of the political and place-based conceptions of the public sphere; (2) the co-production of contested places by humans and non-human entities; and (3) imaginaries of place in the context of post- and decoloniality, geo- and ecopoetics. You can read more about our research program below.
The starting point for the development of our Practicing Place research program is the observation that places, in the context of contemporary crises, are becoming increasingly relevant, but also ambiguous, contentious, and volatile. Such dynamics are evident in radical right-wing mobilizations around nation, ‘homeland’ or ‘Heimat’, which are met with waves of large-scale and often coalitional counter-demonstrations; in the protests and interventionist actions of the climate movement facing the threats posed by environmental crisis; global labour disputes ignited across various industries, workplaces, and supply chains; disputes around the proliferation and militarization of border regimes; controversies surrounding the real and imagined security of urban public places and spaces; as well as in de- and postcolonial discourse and various forms of activism, to name but a few. We contend that the multiple conflicts of the present can be understood as sites of practicing place and as contested placings of the political.
Our Practicing Place perspective sheds new light on the relationship between place and space, which have traditionally been thought as opposites. This can be highlighted through reference to spatial research (associated with Bachelard, Lefebvre, Foucault and de Certeau: see, Harvey, 2000; Löw, 2001; Schroer, 2006; Soja, 2003), characterised by contrasting overarching models, or ‘world concepts’ of space with the concrete, practically developed and everyday lived plane of place. Such a determining distinction can also be observed from the perspective of (Anglo-American dominated) approaches to the philosophy of place (e.g. Casey, 1997; Malpas, 1999), where this central contrast has been further entrenched by re-emphasising the necessity to differentiate place from space against the backdrop of the phenomenological discussion. For example, Edward Casey describes the centrality of place and localization with the now almost canonical sentence: ‘To be in the world, to be situated at all, is to be in place’ (1993, p. xv). However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that such a comparison is too rigid to do justice to the observed virulence of localizations and the multi-layered social, media, and cultural/artistic practices and possibilities of producing places. In more recent contributions to this literature, one can already observe efforts to overcome the overly schematic juxtaposition of place and space in favour of a dynamic and mutually interdependent relationship; as Casey has stated, ‘It remains that place and space are […] co-constitutive and co-ordinate’ (2012, p. 208). We propose practice theory as a lens to make such dynamism visible and thus observable.
As Andreas Reckwitz (2003) notes, practice-theoretical approaches form a heterogeneous assembly of perspectives and vocabularies which can offer a fruitful pool of ideas (p. 289). Yet, a common thread lies in refusing to put ‘ideas, values, norms, communication, sign and symbol systems’ at the centre of analysis, and focusing rather on ‘social practices in their situatedness, their material anchoring in bodies and artefacts as well as in their dependence on practical skills and tacit knowledge’ (Schmidt, 2012, p. 24). In contrast to conventional theories of action, praxeological social theory does not understand social action as punctuated individual activity guided by ‘underlying’ interests, motives, objectives, values, and norms. Practices are instead seen as a concatenation of reproducing and actualising doings and sayings which are materially and physically anchored and socially understandable precisely because they are held together by specific forms of shared practical implicit knowledge (Schatzki, 2001, 2002). Such approaches thus undermine dualistic juxtapositions of action and structure, actor and institution, individual and society: they describe social practices as observable regularities that are produced in meaningful processes and cannot be assigned to either an isolated actor or an institution (see Reckwitz, 2004; Rüb, 2009; Schatzki, 1996, 2002; Schmidt, 2012).
What is the role of place in practice theory? From a practice-theoretical perspective, situatedness and localization can be understood and made visible as fundamental characteristics of all practical actions and realities of action. Practices never take place ‘atopos, placeless, as Plato said of Socrates, nor “rootless and free-floating”’ (Bourdieu, 2000, p.131). This situatedness, as a process of em-/displacement, can be seen to characterize both routinised everyday social practices, as well as theoretical, scientific, literary, and artistic practices in equal measure. However, the exploration of such placing is still largely sorely lacking; only a few approaches to date focus on textual, theoretical, or literary practices as localized and localizing ‘practical, human-sensuous activity’ [‘gegenständliche Tätigkeit’] (Marx, 1980; see also, Zembylas, 2014; Schmidt, 2016). Our shared research focus on the material, epistemic, artistic, literary, imaginative, and political practicings of place thus addresses a central desideratum of current interdisciplinary research.
Having observed ongoing and intensifying conflicts over practicings of place in many empirical scenarios in the first phase of our research project, we contend this reveals a fundamental, ontological conflictuality. In our second phase, our overarching conceptual focus is on places and localization processes as central figurations, density zones, and relational formations of conflict and confrontation. This orientation is structured around three thematic areas of empirical conflicts and fundamental conflictuality, which often intersect.:
(1) Placings of the political and site-specific conceptions of the public sphere
(2) The co-production of contested places and locations by humans and non-human beings and entities
(3) Conflictive imaginations of places in the context of post- and decoloniality, geo- and ecopoetics
The conflictuality of practices of placing initially refers to the role of places as sites of conflict (Endres & Senda-Cook, 2011; R. Schmidt, 2021; Tilly, 2003). Such sites can profitably be seen as configurations of the public sphere where contestability becomes evident, as ‘terrains of contestation’ (Mouffe, 1993, p.149). Placings of the political ensure that public affairs are ‘seen’ by many in a multitude of perspectives (as Hannah Arendt (1958, p. 57) puts it), and are the object of shared, constantly updated and yet plural attention (Schmidt & Volbers, 2011).
In conflictual (placement) processes, assemblies, demonstrations or occupations, for example, confront existing political power relations and interact with the practical and strategic possibilities and restrictions of existing material, architectural, infrastructural, geological and ecological conditions. Based on this, it seems promising to expand the central concept of ‘assembly’ in Hannah Arendt’s political philosophy (Butler, 2018) with (materialist) concepts and perspectives of post-structuralist and neo-materialist ‘assemblage theory’ (DeLanda, Latour, Callon, Deleuze, Guattari, etc.). The connections and dependencies between human and non-human life – made overt by the climate crisis – disavow dualistic notions of materiality and sociality, nature and culture. The more precarious these structures and assemblages become, the more a fundamental politicality of our planet as a generalized living space becomes obvious. What was previously taken for granted, what was the expected future of human and non-human coexistence, is undermined, exposed in its questionability, politically disputed and challenged by protest movements.
Assemblies, occupations and other public localizations of protest point to the contentious distinction between ‘the political’ and ‘politics’ (Bedorf, 2010). Various theoretical vocabularies (Nancy, Lefort, Badiou, Laclau, Rancière, etc.) have criticised prevailing conceptions of ‘politics’ as ‘good governance’ and ‘institutionalized rule’, and we build upon these thinkers to explore conflictual public localizations of the political beyond the usual places and model cases of politics, i.e. institutions, parliaments and salons (see Habermas, 1989). Our emphasis draws attention to arenas and assemblages of event-driven public political semiosis (see Wagner-Pacifici, 2017); the creation of meaning on streets and squares, on picket lines and in counter-planning strategies of the Undercommons (Moton & Haney, 2013), or in threatened forests and occupied coal mining areas; and how ‘the political’ is articulated in the corresponding conflictual socio-material practices of placing. Containment strategies of political conflictuality often rely on built places and objects, such as government and administrative buildings, prisons, barracks, walls or border installations, which reveal the intention of materially stabilizing institutions, making them permanent and durable. In contrast, placements of the political in protest events always have an ephemeral and provisional quality. Places are usually only taken and occupied in order to politically move beyond them. Event-driven mobilizations, protests and uprisings are therefore always articulated as de-localizations and de-territorializations.
In our current research orientation then, we focus on phenomena and processes of de- and dislocation, de-identification and de-foundation. We address implications of practice less explored in the initial Practicing Place phase: namely, undoing, questioning, abandonment, and destruction. Arendt (1958) famously explained her understanding of the political with reference to the Aristotelian concept of ‘praxis’ (in her terminology: political action) (see Rebentisch, 2022) and distinguished between ‘praxis’ and ‘poiesis’ (artisanal production, in her terminology: labor). Under the heading of placings of the political, we build upon this distinction to accentuate the Aristotelian meaning of ‘praxis’ in investigating practices of place and explore the transitory and surplus, excessive and eventful nature of (dis)placements. This accentuation also allows a critical perspective on contemporary efforts at demarcation, inclusion and re-nationalization, which find expression in contemporary political and cultural discourses. A more comprehensive examination of the concept of ‘practice’ can bring phenomena into focus that are in danger of being marginalized and overlooked in the course of restorative political developments of the present.
The outlined politicality and conflictuality of human and human-non-human coexistence brings new epistemologies into focus, which undermine the dualistic separation of meaning and matter. What has been characterised as ‘nature’ facing society, culture, or man can then be understood as socio-cultural nature (see Castree and Braun, 2001) or as the ‘double internality’ (Moore, 2015, p. 1) of nature in capitalism and capitalism in nature. Relatedly, ontological reconceptualisations of human relations to nature on a planetary scale have proliferated, condensed in terms such as the Anthropocene (see Crutzen, 2002), Capitalocene (see Moore, 2016), Plantagenocene (see Davis et al., 2019; Tsing, 2015), Negocene (Ferdinand, 2019) or Chthulocene (see Haraway, 2015, 2016).
In the context of Practicing Place, these reframings draw attention to the non-human elements intertwined in place productions as well as in dislocations and displacings. They make clear that practicings of place always include a material and more-than-human dimension alongside the discursive-cultural and social, expanding anthropocentric understandings of place and localization. Places are not just backdrops for human activities, but should be understood as complex, cross-species assemblages (Dovey, 2020) or actor networks (Martin, 2020). In this sense, a more-than-human, posthuman or new materialist perspective recognizes that productions of place and space are the result of complex collaborations and – always conflictual – co-productions between humans, animals, microorganisms, plants, various forms of materiality and technologies. Against this background, more-than-human entities and their agency must be thought of as part of social processes (Tsing, 2023) and at the same time refer to a general politicality and conflictuality of human and human-non-human coexistence (see Bennet, 2004, 2010; Braun & Whatmore, 2010).
Such interwoven co-productions by diverse species create a complex situation that undermines the efforts of individual species to create order. The at times contradictory logics and agency inherent to all entities involved in the socio-cultural-material-political structure thus give rise to intrinsically tense, potentially conflictual relationships. On the one hand, these repeatedly call into question the inertial forces of hegemonic localizations and, on the other, reveal (sometimes existential) threats to the various entities. Drawing boundaries plays a special role in such practices, as Fleischmann (2020) points out with regard to the spread of the African swine fever virus in the European Union. The viruses set in motion strong more-than-human border (de)stabilizations by infiltrating the outside and inside of stables and state borders, thus stimulating complex interactions between humans, viruses, animals, objects, technologies and (bio)policies permeated by power relations and thus suggesting that borders should be seen as more than human compositions that encompass a multitude of human and non-human actors (see also Ozguc & Burridge, 2023).
In the debate on place, such perspectives oriented towards the new epistemologies have so far had little impact. The most detailed theoretical publication in this regard (Thrift, 1999) is more than 20 years old and conceptualizes place as a relational and interwoven hybrid, while others certainly conceptualize place empirically as a heterogeneous assemblage or network (see Dovey, 2020; Martin, 2020), but without taking the theoretical understanding of place further on this basis – and without reference to the conflictuality of localizations. The further elaboration of our research program starts here and aims to develop a nuanced understanding of the always conflictual co-production of places by humans and non-human entities based on the materiality of the practicings of place. We focus on the potentially conflictual work of non-human entities in the production, ‘de-formation’, ‘de-localization’, ‘de-coupling’ and ‘de-embedding’ of places and include the more-than-human world, especially in its political dimensions.
While the investigation of epistemic, artistic or literary productions and imaginations of places has been a central concern of Practicing Place from the outset, this aspect is conceptually developed further in the second phase with our focus on conflictuality. Physical-material places are charged with meanings through individual and collective practices, which are of an imaginary nature and are produced in a constant and unfinished creative process (Castoriadis, 1975, pp. 7-8, 208). In relation to the production of places, ‘imagination’ has been used primarily in the sense of the concept of ‘geographical imagination(s)’ (Gregory, 1994), which draws on phenomenological (Bachelard 1957), Marxist (Lefebvre 1974) and postcolonial (Said, 1997, pp. 65-90) approaches to place and space. In line with Gregory, we give preference to those approaches that emphasize ‘lived spaces’ (Lefebvre, 1974), including (conflictive) aesthetic practices of placing, over a politically functionalised imaginary, for example in the sense of nation as an ‘imaginary community’ (Anderson, 1991). In contrast to the formless ‘radical imaginary’ (Castoriadis, 1975) or the psychoanalytically conceived imaginary bound to structures of desire in Lacan (1973, pp. 61-70), our focus is on concrete imaginative practices, in that we describe and decode aesthetic, literary, artistic, etc. operationalizations and symbolizations of places.
This also includes processes of dislocation: the (violent) loss of a place, for example through migration, flight, expulsion, deportation or occupation, sets in motion practices of narrating, visualizing, imagining, painting, envisioning and (de)constructing and, conversely, is only marked as loss or displacement through these. Place-related imaginations are not only embedded in social practices, but also form practices themselves, which are concretized in written and oral, acoustic and visual forms of expression.
In this way, cities, for example, can be understood as historically changeable places of knowledge and action, imagined with the help of certain cultural techniques (see Lay Brander, 2011). However, they can also be seen as places where different claims on their use come into conflict. In such debates about places, a reactivation and reinterpretation of collective knowledge about the past often takes place, from which visions of the future are then derived. For this reason, we also investigate the significance of memory practices for the production and imagination of places. Conflicts over places in (post-)colonial contact zones often arise from the fact that different actors involved in structures of power, dominance and subjugation bring different, often conflicting versions of the past into the field in order to legitimize and maintain existing orders or to fight against them.
Post- and decolonial debates and contexts thus form a third field from which we explore conflictual practices of place. Characteristic of decolonial approaches to place-making is the turning away from the nation state, combined with a shift towards transnational, transregional and transoceanic imaginaries.The term geopoetics, originally coined by the Scottish-French poet and philosopher Kenneth White (1989), is currently being discussed anew in connection with alternative and non-Eurocentric forms of place reference that question the geopolitical and epistemological paradigms of privileged regions. While the reception of White’s concept of geopoetics after the Cold War initially aimed to counteract a geopolitical reorganization of post-Soviet space with the help of a poetic-creative configuration of places (Marzalek & Sasse, 2010, p. 45), post- and decolonial as well as feminist authors, intellectuals and activists have made the concept their own in order to deconstruct hegemonic geographical imaginaries and resituate themselves in the global geopolitical structure. Geopoetics formulate emotional-cognitive approaches to place (see White, 1989; Maximin, 2006; Balasopoulos, 2008; Modeen & Biggs, 2021), which are often closely linked to ecological issues – in this case, literary scholars also speak of ecopoetics (see Skinner, 2001; Nolan, 2017; Rauscher, 2023) or ecopoetry (Fisher-Wirth & Street, 2013). Of central importance for geopoetic formulations is Glissant’s Poetics of Relation (1990, 1997). This approach implies a non-systematic and relational way of thinking that goes beyond national borders, as transnational regions have formed over the centuries of accelerated globalization, in which hybridization and creolization processes have taken place with particularly high intensity (see Glissant, 1996, 2020, pp. 43-44; see also Lay Brander, 2020).
Geo- and ecopoetic approaches are inherently transdisciplinary and anchored in current debates on globalisation, colonialism, ecology, and migration. Particularly due to the focus on disruptive and affective aspects, this third research area develops geo- and ecopoetic perspectives to investigate artistic, literary, social and cultural imaginative practices of places that are interwoven with distinct ideologies and epistemologies as well as embedded in non-human and human geographies and thus, complexly antagonistic and contested.
Arendt, H. (1958): The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press
Bachelard, G. (1957) : La poétique de l’espace, Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Balasopoulos, A. (2008): Nesologies: Island form and postcolonial geopoetics, in: Postcolonial Studies Jg. 11, Nr. 1, S. 9-26.
Bedorf, T. (2010): Das Politische und die Politik – Konturen einer Differenz. In: Ders. / K. Röttgers (Hg.): Das Politische und die Politik. Berlin. Suhrkamp 2010. S. 13-37.
Bennett, J. (2010): Vibrant matter. A political ecology of things, Durham: Duke University Press.
Bennet, J. (2004): The Force of Things: Steps to an Ecology of Matter, in: Political Theory Jg. 32, Nr. 3, S. 47-372.
Bourdieu, P. (2001): Meditationen. Zur Kritik der scholastischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Braun, B. und S. Whatmore (Hgg.) (2010): Political Matter. Technoscience, Democracy and Public Life, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butler, J. (2018): Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly, Havard University Press.
Casey, E.S. (2012). “Space” In Luft, Overgaard (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Phenomenology. Routledge.
Casey, E. S. (1997): The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Casey, E. S. (1993): Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Castoriadis, C. (1975): L’institution imaginaire de la société, Paris: Seuil.
Castree, N. und B. Braun (2001): Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Crutzen, P. J. (2002): Geology of Mankind, in: Nature Jg. 415, S. 23.
Davis, J. et al. (2019): Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationocene? A manifesto for ecological justice in an age of global crises, in: Geography Compass.
Dovey, K. (2020): Place as assemblage, in: T. Edensor et al. (Hgg.): The Routledge Handbook of Place, Abingdon: Routledge, S. 21-31.
Endres, D. and Senda-Cook, S (2011) Location matters: the rhetoric of place in protest, in: Quarterly Journal of Speech 97(3): 257–282.
Ferdinand, M. (2019): Une écologie décoloniale: penser l’écologie depuis le monde caribéen, Paris: Seuil.
Fisher-Wirth, A. und L.-G. Street (2013): Editors’ Preface, in: dies. (Hgg.), The Ecopoetry Anthology, San Antonio: Trinity University Press, S. xxvii-xxxi.
Fleischmann, K. (2020): Mehr-als-menschliche Grenzen: Die Neuverhandlung des europäischen Grenzregimes im Kontext der Afrikanischen Schweinepest, in: F. Weber et al. (Hgg.), Geographien der Grenzen. Räume – Ordnungen – Verflechtungen, Wiesbaden: Springer, S. 249-267.
Glissant, E. (2020): Introduction to a poetics of diversity, übersetzt von C. Britton, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Glissant, E. (1997): The Poetics of Relation, übersetzt von B. Wing, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Glissant, E. (1996): Introduction à une poétique du divers, Paris: Gallimard.
Glissant, E. (1990): Poétique de la relation, Paris: Gallimard.
Gregory, D. (1994): Geographical Imaginations, Cambridge: Blackwell.
Habermas, J. (1989): The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Haraway, D. (2016): Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene, Durham: Duke University Press.
Haraway, D. (2015): Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin, in: Environmental Humanities Jg. 6, S. 159–165.
Harvey, D. (2000): Spaces of Hope, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lacan, J. (1973): Schriften, Bd. 1, Olten: Walter.
Lay Brander, M. (2020): Schreiben in Archipelen. Kleine Formen in post-kolonialen Kontexten, Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.
Lay Brander, M. (2011): Raum-Zeiten im Umbruch. Erzählen und Zeigen im Sevilla der Frühen Neuzeit, Bielefeld: transcript.
Lefebvre, H. (1974): La production de l’espace, Paris: Anthropos.
Löw, M. (2001): Raumsoziologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Malpas, J. (1999): Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marszalek, M. und S. Sasse (2010): Geopoetiken: Geographische Entwürfe in den Mittel- und Osteuropäischen Literaturen, Berlin: Kadmos.
Martin, D. G. (2020): Place as human–environment network: Tree planting and place-making, in: T. Edensor, A, Kalandides und U. Kothari, The Routledge Handbook of Place, Abingdon: Routledge, S. 109-117.
Marx, K. (1980): Thesen über Feuerbach, In Marx-Engels Werke (MEW), Bd. 3, Berlin, pp. 5-7.
Maximin, D. (2006): Les fruits du cyclone: Une géopoétique de la Caraïbe, Paris: Seuil.
Modeen, M. und I. Biggs (2021): Creative Engagements with Ecologies of Place. Geopoetics, Deep Mapping and Slow Residencies, London and New York: Routledge.
Moore, J. (2016): Anthropocene or Capitalocene?: Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism, Oakland: PM Press.
Moore, J. (2015): Capitalism in the Web of Life. Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, London: Verso.
Moten, F., Harney, S. (2013): The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study. Minor Compositions.
Mouffe, C. (1993): The Return of the Political, London: Verso.
Nolan, S. (2017): Unnatural Ecopoetics: Unlikely Spaces in Contemporary Poetry, Reno: University of Nevada Press.
Ozguc, U. und A. Burridge (2023): More-Than-Human Borders: A New Research Agenda for Posthuman Conversations in Border Studies., in: Geopolitics Jg. 28, Nr. 2, S. 471-489.
Rauscher, J. (2023): Ecopoetic Place-Making. Nature and Mobility in Contemporary American Poetry, Bielefeld: transcript.
Rebentisch, J. (2022): Der Streit um Pluralität. Auseinandersetzungen mit Hannah Arendt, Berlin. Suhrkamp Verlag.
Reckwitz, A. (2004): Die Entwicklung des Vokabulars der Handlungstheorien: Von den zweck- und normorientierten Modellen zu den Kultur- und Praxistheorien, in: Gabriel, M. (Hg.), Paradigmen der akteurszentrierten Soziologie, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 303-328.
Reckwitz A. (2003): Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken – Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive, in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie Jg. 32, Nr. 4, S. 282-301.
Rüb, F. (2009): Über das Organisieren der Regierungsorganisation und über Regierungsstile. Eine praxeologische Perspektive, in: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft Jg. 2009, Nr. 1, S. 43-60.
Said, E. (1997): Götter, die keine sind. Der Ort des Intellektuellen, Berlin: Berlin Verlag.
Schatzki, T. (2002): The Site of the Social. A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change, University Park: Penn State University Press.
Schatzki, T. et al. (Hgg.) (2001): The practice turn in contemporary theory, London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T. (1996): Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2021): Situationalität und Verortung des Politischen. Eine praxeologische Forschungsskizze, in: M. Corsten (Hg.): Praxis. Ausüben. Begreifen, Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, S. 120-136.
Schmidt, R. (2016): Theoretisieren. Fragen und Überlegungen zu einem konzeptionellen und empirischen Desiderat der Soziologie der Praktiken, in: H. Schäfer (Hg.): Praxistheorie. Ein soziologisches Forschungsprogramm, Bielefeld: transcript, S. 245-263.
Schmidt, R. (2012): Soziologie der Praktiken. Konzeptionelle Studien und empirische Analysen, Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Schmidt, R. und J. Volbers (2011): Siting Praxeology. The Methodological Significance of ‚Public’ in Theories of Social Practices, in: Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour Jg. 41, S. 419-440.
Schroer, M. (2006): Räume, Orte, Grenzen. Auf dem Weg zu einer Soziologie des Raums, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Skinner, J. (2001): Editor’s Statement, in: ecopoetics Nr. 1, S. 5–8.
Soja, E. W. (2003): Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory, London: Verso.
Thrift, N. (1999): Steps to an Ecology of Place., in: D. Massey et al. (Hgg.), Human Geography Today, Cambridge: Polity Press, S. 295-322.
Tilly, C. (2003) Contention over space and place, in: Mobilization: An International Quarterly 8(2): 221–225.
Tsing, A. (2023): More-than-Human Sociality. A Call for Critical Description, in: K. Hastrup (Hg.), Anthropology and Nature, New York: Routledge, S. 27-42.
Tsing, A. (2015): The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wagner-Pacifici, R. (2017): What is an Event?, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
White, K. (1989): Presentation of the International Institute of Geopoetics, https://www.institut-geopoetique.org/en/presentation-of-the-institute (abgerufen am 05.01.2024).
Zembylas, T. (Hg.) (2014): Artistic Practices. Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, New York: Routledge.