Planetary rural geographies, hope and geopolitics: An authors' response

This authors’ response engages with the commentaries of Feng and Dong and Sidaway and Wójcik on our article, ‘Planetary Rural Geographies’. In response to Feng and Dong, we clarify our treatment of ‘hope’ in our planetary rural geographies framework and elaborate our position distinguishing ontological relationality from ethical responsibility, arguing that more-than-human relational ontologies do not diminish the distinctive ethical responsibilities humans bear toward multispecies worlds. Drawing on indigenous worlding, more-than-human geography and agri-food studies, we further argue that planetary rural geographies adopt an inductive and practice-based approach to hope, grounded in situated forms of care rather than abstract ethical prescriptions. In response to Sidaway and Wójcik, we highlight geopolitical dimensions of planetary rural geographies and note correspondences with a parallel planetary turn in geopolitics. Prompted by their vantage point of Singapore, we also discuss the intersection of planetary rural geographies and planetary urban geographies.