Uma A more-than-representational historical geography?

Abstract

The more-than-representational approach has spread as a systematic field of study in British geography, with intercontinental echoes reaching Brazilian geography. Still seen as an incipient field, the more-than-representational style is recognized for presenting a dense theoretical framework and for the wide range of methods that aim at a common point: transcending representations by breaking down ontological approaches to categories and proposing alternatives to metanarratives. Recently, it has been noted attempts to apply more-than-representational assumptions as a means of constructing historiographies that support studies of historical geography. The objective of this work, strictly epistemological, is to evaluate this attempt. For that, we use the work of Miller and Prieto (2020) as a reference, since it is a recent example of the more-than-representational application in historical geography. We are not restricted to analyzing the work of these authors and launch criticisms that go beyond their approach. Criticism encompasses issues associated with the object of analysis as the temporal scale and the use of research sources. It is concluded that the more-than-representational logic tends to be subverted in historical geography studies. Despite the challenges raised, the article points out in its conclusion that the more-than-representational empirical approach is already challenging even in works that focus on modern relational arrangements, which should not intimidate researchers interested in the area to transcend the limits of traditional endeavors representational.