‘Forest passages’: Narratives of withdrawal and ecological thought

J. de Bloois

Social Science Information2025https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184251378882article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

In this essay, I explore how a potential ‘politics of withdrawal’ resonates with current concerns in ecological thought. In particular, I propose that a possible genealogy for such politics of withdrawal may contain authors from across the political spectrum, from revolutionairies to conservatives. In constructing such a genealogy, I pay close attention to parallels between the work of Pier Paolo Pasolini, Ernst Jünger, Guy Debord, and Giorgio Agamben: four writers from seemingly opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. All, however, express their criticism of (political) modernity, understood as governed by the logic of technocracy, extractivism, and capitalism. I argue that their common political project constitutes a ‘politics of withdrawal’ which is relevant for today’s environmental politics and thought, as it attempts to move beyond (political) modernity and its topoi of the polis , antagonism and conflict, toward an anti-modern politics of the shelter and the forest.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184251378882

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{j.2025,
  title        = {{‘Forest passages’: Narratives of withdrawal and ecological thought}},
  author       = {J. de Bloois},
  journal      = {Social Science Information},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184251378882},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

‘Forest passages’: Narratives of withdrawal and ecological thought

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.