LAUSR

This author reply responds to commentaries on the implications of our article, ‘Dignity in Urban Geography: Starting a Conversation’ (2022). It elaborates on four points raised by the commentators: the problematization of the universality of this concept, the nexus of dignity and scale, the road to putting dignity into practice, and the differences between dignity as a scholarly normative concept and as a political inspiration. Overall, we argue and illustrate further one of the core arguments in our original article, namely that dignity needs to be understood as plural, relational, and emotional. Central to this argument is a further elaboration of differences of worth imposed by powerful regimes and related orders of worth experienced by people. The elaboration is also used to further challenge the putative universality of the concept of dignity.