Here. He writes:
In general, much of this discussion of sovereignty, as it’s been framed after Agamben has been, at least for me, has been conceptually suffocating. Too much sovereignty and theology, as if there weren’t other important problems lurking behind the sovereign. Elden, to his credit, avoids this kind of talk.
The last line here is hilarious, though it’s a bit of a in joke for those who were at the RPA:
I would suggest, for a reader with a background in philosophy, that you start with the fifth chapter, “Territorial Integrity and Contingent Sovereignty,” to get the historical background on the problems raised by Elden’s analysis, and then return to the start. You might also find the first chapter, analyzing the rhetoric of the Bush adminstration and other neo-cons a bit too historically close to home, for we are familiar with much of the details (though it’s there to contrast with the territorial strategies of Islamism). However, historians and geographers will one day need to see what progressive thinkers thought about such rhetoric–and for those of you familiar with one of the talks at the RPA–it’s better Elden than Bob Woodward.