{"title":"From dissonant dominance to synchronic sanctity: Relational extraction as counter-resonance to extractivism","authors":"James E. Woods II","doi":"10.1111/dial.12798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is a growing tendency within various disciplines of the humanities to conflate the terms extraction and extractivism. While the first word has many everyday uses—tooth extraction, vanilla “extract”—the latter term was specifically coined to identify a malevolent imaginary that indemnifies the removal of so-called “resources,” especially when that displacement involves layers of violence and/or looks solely to satisfy a particular economic aim. Given these disparate denotations, the unqualified use of “extraction” synonymously with “extractivism” introduces unnecessary ambiguity, inviting divergent arguments that ultimately diminish an otherwise worthy discussion and losing sight of the grave issues that underlie the conversation's original intent. As such, this essay investigates the biblical origins of this false equivalency and suggests how this usage might be disentangled to properly recenter the malevolence its users are attempting to describe.</p>","PeriodicalId":42769,"journal":{"name":"Dialog-A Journal of Theology","volume":"62 2","pages":"156-164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialog-A Journal of Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dial.12798","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
There is a growing tendency within various disciplines of the humanities to conflate the terms extraction and extractivism. While the first word has many everyday uses—tooth extraction, vanilla “extract”—the latter term was specifically coined to identify a malevolent imaginary that indemnifies the removal of so-called “resources,” especially when that displacement involves layers of violence and/or looks solely to satisfy a particular economic aim. Given these disparate denotations, the unqualified use of “extraction” synonymously with “extractivism” introduces unnecessary ambiguity, inviting divergent arguments that ultimately diminish an otherwise worthy discussion and losing sight of the grave issues that underlie the conversation's original intent. As such, this essay investigates the biblical origins of this false equivalency and suggests how this usage might be disentangled to properly recenter the malevolence its users are attempting to describe.