I am a cultural geographer with broad research interests in cultural theory, material culture and landscape. Over the last decade, these interests have distilled into three distinct but related strands of research.

Negative Geographies: over the last two decades, contemporary cultural geography has championed the emancipatory potential of the affirmative. Drawing upon thinkers such as Nietzsche, Deleuze, Haraway, Spinoza, Latour, Negri and others, these ontologies emphasise creativity, relationality and a generative capacity imminent to a living world; a world whose nature is thought to be vital, open, plastic and becoming. My interest in the negative stems from those thresholds of living that withdraw from relationality and refuse to become. While conditions like hunger, disease, lethargy and pain can be understood through a lens of positive relationality, to do so misses something essential about their nature and the manner in which they shadow the problem of being a living being. This concern operates as a red thread throughout my work, whether it be on culture, governmentality, indigeneity, democracy or heritage landscapes in Egypt.

Key publications
• Bissell, D., Rose, M. and Harrison, P. (eds) Negative geographies: exploring the politics of limits. University of Nebraska Press. 2021
• Joronen, M. and Rose, M. Vulnerability and its politics: precarity and the woundedness of power. PiHG 45(6) 1402-1418. 2021
• Rose, M. Negative governance: vulnerability, biopolitics and the origins of government. TIBG 39(22) pp. 209-223. 2014

The Question of Culture: I have a long-standing interest in rehabilitating the culture concept from its current condition of intellectual penury. The key problem with the way culture has been theorised is that it stood as a placeholder for the problem of difference. The aim of my work has been to emancipate the concept from these constraints by arguing that difference is essentially unknowable. While difference is an obvious and empirical fact of life, emerging and receding at various scales, the nature of difference itself defies explanation. Yet rather than seeing this as an obstacle to theorising culture, my work uses it as an invitation to think culture differently: culture not as an explanation for difference but as an elucidation of a phenomenon I term ‘claiming’.

Key publications
• Dreams of Presence: a Geographic Theory of Culture. University of Toronto Press. 2024
• Rose, M. The question of culture in cultural geography: latent legacies and potential futures. PiHG 45(5) 951-971. 2021

Landscape: historically the landscape was understood as a visual representation reflecting the inner ideologies, values, and norms of dominant social groups. My contribution to this conversation has been to argue that landscape does not reflect already interiorized identities but marks an ambition to make identity real by externalising it – i.e., building it in the world. In this framing, landscape is the materialisation of a desire; it marks an ambition to lay claim to an identity by making it visible. Indeed, it is precisely because identity has no ontological anchor that landscape is needed. It is the materiality of landscape that allows imaginations of identity to transpire.

Key publications
• Rose, M. and Olwig, K. Landscape in The International Encyclopaedia of Geography, Richardson (ed) Washington DC, AAG. 2022
• Rose, M. and Wylie, J. Landscape in Companion to Human Geography, Agnew, J. and Duncan, J. (eds) Oxford, Blackwell pp. 221-234. 2011
• Rose, M. The problem of power and the politics of landscape: stopping the Greater Cairo Ring-Road. TIBG 32(4) pp. 460-476. 2007

I am a cultural geographer with broad research interests in cultural theory, material culture and landscape. Over the last decade, these interests have distilled into three distinct but related strands of research.

Negative Geographies: over the last two decades, contemporary cultural geography has championed the emancipatory potential of the affirmative. Drawing upon thinkers such as Nietzsche, Deleuze, Haraway, Spinoza, Latour, Negri and others, these ontologies emphasise creativity, relationality and a generative capacity imminent to a living world; a world whose nature is thought to be vital, open, plastic and becoming. My interest in the negative stems from those thresholds of living that withdraw from relationality and refuse to become. While conditions like hunger, disease, lethargy and pain can be understood through a lens of positive relationality, to do so misses something essential about their nature and the manner in which they shadow the problem of being a living being. This concern operates as a red thread throughout my work, whether it be on culture, governmentality, indigeneity, democracy or heritage landscapes in Egypt.

Key publications
• Bissell, D., Rose, M. and Harrison, P. (eds) Negative geographies: exploring the politics of limits. University of Nebraska Press. 2021
• Joronen, M. and Rose, M. Vulnerability and its politics: precarity and the woundedness of power. PiHG 45(6) 1402-1418. 2021
• Rose, M. Negative governance: vulnerability, biopolitics and the origins of government. TIBG 39(22) pp. 209-223. 2014

The Question of Culture: I have a long-standing interest in rehabilitating the culture concept from its current condition of intellectual penury. The key problem with the way culture has been theorised is that it stood as a placeholder for the problem of difference. The aim of my work has been to emancipate the concept from these constraints by arguing that difference is essentially unknowable. While difference is an obvious and empirical fact of life, emerging and receding at various scales, the nature of difference itself defies explanation. Yet rather than seeing this as an obstacle to theorising culture, my work uses it as an invitation to think culture differently: culture not as an explanation for difference but as an elucidation of a phenomenon I term ‘claiming’.

Key publications
• Dreams of Presence: a Geographic Theory of Culture. University of Toronto Press. 2024
• Rose, M. The question of culture in cultural geography: latent legacies and potential futures. PiHG 45(5) 951-971. 2021

Landscape: historically the landscape was understood as a visual representation reflecting the inner ideologies, values, and norms of dominant social groups. My contribution to this conversation has been to argue that landscape does not reflect already interiorized identities but marks an ambition to make identity real by externalising it – i.e., building it in the world. In this framing, landscape is the materialisation of a desire; it marks an ambition to lay claim to an identity by making it visible. Indeed, it is precisely because identity has no ontological anchor that landscape is needed. It is the materiality of landscape that allows imaginations of identity to transpire.

Key publications
• Rose, M. and Olwig, K. Landscape in The International Encyclopaedia of Geography, Richardson (ed) Washington DC, AAG. 2022
• Rose, M. and Wylie, J. Landscape in Companion to Human Geography, Agnew, J. and Duncan, J. (eds) Oxford, Blackwell pp. 221-234. 2011
• Rose, M. The problem of power and the politics of landscape: stopping the Greater Cairo Ring-Road. TIBG 32(4) pp. 460-476. 2007

I am a cultural geographer with broad research interests in cultural theory, material culture and landscape. Over the last decade, these interests have distilled into three distinct but related strands of research.

Negative Geographies: over the last two decades, contemporary cultural geography has championed the emancipatory potential of the affirmative. Drawing upon thinkers such as Nietzsche, Deleuze, Haraway, Spinoza, Latour, Negri and others, these ontologies emphasise creativity, relationality and a generative capacity imminent to a living world; a world whose nature is thought to be vital, open, plastic and becoming. My interest in the negative stems from those thresholds of living that withdraw from relationality and refuse to become. While conditions like hunger, disease, lethargy and pain can be understood through a lens of positive relationality, to do so misses something essential about their nature and the manner in which they shadow the problem of being a living being. This concern operates as a red thread throughout my work, whether it be on culture, governmentality, indigeneity, democracy or heritage landscapes in Egypt.

Key publications
• Bissell, D., Rose, M. and Harrison, P. (eds) Negative geographies: exploring the politics of limits. University of Nebraska Press. 2021
• Joronen, M. and Rose, M. Vulnerability and its politics: precarity and the woundedness of power. PiHG 45(6) 1402-1418. 2021
• Rose, M. Negative governance: vulnerability, biopolitics and the origins of government. TIBG 39(22) pp. 209-223. 2014

The Question of Culture: I have a long-standing interest in rehabilitating the culture concept from its current condition of intellectual penury. The key problem with the way culture has been theorised is that it stood as a placeholder for the problem of difference. The aim of my work has been to emancipate the concept from these constraints by arguing that difference is essentially unknowable. While difference is an obvious and empirical fact of life, emerging and receding at various scales, the nature of difference itself defies explanation. Yet rather than seeing this as an obstacle to theorising culture, my work uses it as an invitation to think culture differently: culture not as an explanation for difference but as an elucidation of a phenomenon I term ‘claiming’.

Key publications
• Dreams of Presence: a Geographic Theory of Culture. University of Toronto Press. 2024
• Rose, M. The question of culture in cultural geography: latent legacies and potential futures. PiHG 45(5) 951-971. 2021

Landscape: historically the landscape was understood as a visual representation reflecting the inner ideologies, values, and norms of dominant social groups. My contribution to this conversation has been to argue that landscape does not reflect already interiorized identities but marks an ambition to make identity real by externalising it – i.e., building it in the world. In this framing, landscape is the materialisation of a desire; it marks an ambition to lay claim to an identity by making it visible. Indeed, it is precisely because identity has no ontological anchor that landscape is needed. It is the materiality of landscape that allows imaginations of identity to transpire.

Key publications
• Rose, M. and Olwig, K. Landscape in The International Encyclopaedia of Geography, Richardson (ed) Washington DC, AAG. 2022
• Rose, M. and Wylie, J. Landscape in Companion to Human Geography, Agnew, J. and Duncan, J. (eds) Oxford, Blackwell pp. 221-234. 2011
• Rose, M. The problem of power and the politics of landscape: stopping the Greater Cairo Ring-Road. TIBG 32(4) pp. 460-476. 2007