Jordan Schreer

Hunter Hoskins

26 September 2016

Reading Analysis One


Flemings carries Part 2 into a quite real environment, especially with what’s going on in the political world today. “The Placelessness of Political Theory” is concluded by saying we require social spaces. We need places that are “open to hybridity, pluralism, and mobility but still allow us to make a livable world for ourselves, where we can disclose our differences to one another but also solve our shared problems, where we can encounter conflict and opposition but still feel that we belong and matter. ” (Flemings 34). What kind of society is needed to create these and what does Fleming talk about in terms of how we are now?

I personally do not believe that our society fits the criteria or the standards that Flemings believes in. Our social spaces are not open to hybridity. We can’t seem to all work together. Expressing our opinions to others ends up poorly, especially in politics. Pluralism fits in the same category as hybridity, two or more systems do not coexist. A place that is open to mobility is a place that is open to change, but living in a country that relies it’s beliefs from the Constitution written in the late 1700’s, change doesn’t seem imminent.

Every man and woman is put on this earth, whether it be by nature or God, and the people are given certain freedoms and rights. As ludicrous as this may sound, having certain freedoms and rights will come with a price. Although Flemings doesn’t write this, the readers can take a lot of negatives from what is written in this chapter. Citizens cannot publicly say what they want to say, regardless of what that may be, and regardless of how exclusive one’s life may be.

Fleming talks about liberalism on page 23. She says, “what we most obviously have in common is not some godlike reason but this experience, at once mundane and extraordinary, of being grounded in the physical world” (Fleming 23).  After digging deep into what the passage of text means, it is safe to say that we share more than we realize, however what separates us are differences in gender, race, age, and class. However, Liberalism is the opposite of Republicanism. Liberalism relies on too little politics and politicians. Republicanism is different. Politics, according to Fleming, is essential and the most important part in everyday life. However, this is the problem. Because it is “too demanding” and “too consuming” (Fleming 25), there is little room left between the views of republicans.

A space is anything. It could be “a building, neighborhood, city, state, nation,   or the globe itself” (Fleming 35). These spaces are all difficult to be defined, which is what Fleming is trying to get at. There is no self identification due to the different views, different races, different genders, and different classes. There needs to be spaces that are grounded, unitary, and official so society can function together as a whole.