Since the notion of infrastructures was introduced in social theory (Marx & Engels 2012), and subsequently elaborated by leading anthropologists (Godelier 1979; Harris 1969), it has involved a paradox. On the one hand, human labour, namely the way that people engage with each other and the material world – together with the related technologies and techniques – constituted a crucial component of infrastructures. On the other hand, infrastructures were considered a primarily economic-technical material entity rather than a socio-cultural element. This has set a theoretical paradigm that extends to today, affecting the way social sciences – and related disciplines – approach infrastructures (Edwards 2003:186; Dourish & Bell 2007:417; Graham 2010; Dalakoglou 2009).
Thus infrastructures are often portrayed as an objective economic-material entity that embodies a process of order and control that organizes the social fabric (Humphrey 2006; Edwards 2003). This ideal was related to modern forms of State governance that promoted the mass-scale centralised production of hard and soft infrastructures aimed at economic growth, but also to social control and political consent. So infrastructural development during the second half of the 20th century in Europe was based on this ‘modern infrastructure ideal' (Graham & Marvin 2001; Dalakoglou 2009). We have a growing literature that addresses the relationship between the decrease of infrastructural capacity of the market-state model and citizenship or political subjectivity (Wafer 2012; Schnitzler 2008, 2016; Dalakoglou 2017). Most of these studies examine the connection between state, power and infrastructure (Kooy and Bakker 2008; Mann 2008; McFarlane 2008, Larkin 2013). Infrastructures’ significance in the shaping of this relationship is reflected in terms such as ‘infrastructural citizenship’ (Shelton 2015:2). Hence, while the post-2008 crisis, along with its associated IG, has material consequences, it stands primarily as a socio-political event. However, as mentioned above in the context of the innovative social practices centred around IG, we witness the emergence of technologies that are related to grassroots smart cities, the Internet of Things, ideals of commons, practices and e-infrastructures of shared, social and solidarity economies that merge with novel domains of social participation into an infrastructural world that occupies realms of the IG. Ultimately, these open up new potentialities for a very different (infrastructural) future. The daily challenge made against the established systems leads to fundamental transformations in the divisions between soft and hard infrastructures and socio-technological tactics, calling into question traditional divisions between digital/immaterial networks and physical/material ones. Thus there is in fact a rearticulation of socio-cultural conditions in negotiation with digital and other technological innovations, based on common human and non-human frameworks of participation (Marres 2012; Marres and Lezaun 2011; Latour 2005; Dalakoglou 2017; Dalakoglou & Kallianos 2014). Therefore, employing the notion of infrastructural participation in reference to the relationship between democracy and infrastructure, Infra-Demos project will explain theoretically and empirically the forms and functions of these newly emerging techno-social “hybrid forums and agoras” that emerge reconfiguring democracy in Europe (Latour 2005:23; Callon et al. 2001; Dalakoglou 2016a). Bibliography Callon, M., P. Lascoume & Y. Barthes 2001. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. MIT Press Dalakoglou D. 2009 An Anthropology of the Road. PhD thesis, University of London (UCL) Dalakoglou D. 2017 The Road. Manchester: MUP Dalakoglou D. 2016a Infrastructural Gap: Commons, State and Anthropology. City 20(6) Dalakoglou, D. 2016b Anthropology and Infrastructures: From the State to the Commons. Inaugural Professorial Lecture. Vrije University Amsterdam. Dalakoglou D. and Harvey P. 2012. Roads and Anthropology: Ethnographic Perspectives on Space, Time and (Im)Mobility. Mobilities 7(4) Dalakoglou, D. & Kallianos, Y. 2014. Infrastructural flows, interruptions and stasis in Athens of the crisis In City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 18(4-5) 526-532 Dourish, P. and Bell, G. 2007. The Infrastructure of Experience and the Experience of Infrastructure: Meaning and Structure in Everyday Encounters with Space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 3, 414-430. Edwards, P. N. 2003. ‘Infrastructure and Modernity: Force, Time and Social Organization in the History of Sociotechnical Systems’, In Thomas J. Misa, Philip Brey & Andrew Godelier, M., Bloch, M., Claessen, H.J., Gilmore, D.D., Pi-Sunyer, O. and Tagányi, Z., 1978. Infrastructures, Societies, and History [and Comments]. Current Anthropology, pp.763-771. Graham S. 2010. Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails. Taylor & Francis. Graham, S. and Marvin, S., 2001. Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. Psychology Press. Harris M. 1968 Cultural Materialism. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press Harvey P. and H. Knox 2011 2011 Anticipating Harm. Theory, Culture and Society 28(6): 142-163 Marres N (2012). Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Marres N and Lezaun J (2011) Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society, 40(4): 489–509. McFarlane, C. and Rutherford, J., 2008. Political infrastructures: Governing and experiencing the fabric of the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(2), pp.363-374. Kostakis, V. & M. Bauwens 2014. Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy, Palgrave Macmillan, UK. Latour, Bruno 2005. From RealPolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public.’ In: Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. 14-43. Latour B. 2007 Reassembling the Social. Oxford: OUP Schnitzler, Antina von 2008, "Citizenship Prepaid: Water, Calculability and Techno-Politics in South Africa" Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4. Schnitzler, Antina von 2016. Democracy's Infrastructure: Techno-Politics and Protest after Apartheid. Princeton University Press. Star, S.L. & Bowker, G C, 2006, “How to infrastructure”, in Handbook of new media: social shaping and social consequences of ICTs (SAGE, London; Thousand Oaks [Calif.]), pp 230-245.
4 Comments
17/4/2020 07:15:45
These infrastructures are definitely a lot harder to do. I mean, they are pretty complex, and in fact, there are lots of limitations with our current technology. If you want to do this, then we will have to get some capable workers. I understand that money is not an issue for you, however, the design is simply hard. I know this because I am an architect, and it is my job to inspect and draw up plans like this, ma'am.
Reply
21/2/2024 07:49:28
With flexible leasing options and inclusive rental packages for students who desire a taste of luxury without breaking the bank, these apartments offer the perfect combination of opulence and value.
Reply
21/3/2024 09:02:38
But also improves throughput and productivity, enabling manufacturers to produce more parts in less time. DXF files empower designers and engineers to collaborate seamlessly on plasma cutting projects.
Reply
3/4/2024 07:18:44
I'm amazed by the attention to detail in this property. From the custom moldings to the designer light fixtures, every aspect has been carefully curated.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Authorinfra-demos Archives
January 2022
Categories |