Week 2 Flashcards
infrastructures + practice theory
In this chapter we argue that infrastructures, the social practices they sustain, the devices and appliances involved and the patterns of demand that follow are interlinked and that they mutually influence each other.
infrastructures + practice theory (thee typical formulations)
one in which ever-expanding infrastructures are linked to increasingly demanding practices; one associated with ever-expanding infrastructures, growing resource consumption and increasingly demanding practices;
one in which infrastructures shrink or change, but sustain and stabilise current practices; ; the second with modified and sometimes shrinking infrastructures that sustain and stabilise current practices, but that do so more efficiently and with fewer resources than before;
one in which practices and supporting infrastructures are radically reconstituted. third implying more or less radical changes in practices that entail or that are associated with more or less radical disconnection from some (typically, electricity) but not all (typically, not the internet) infrastructures viewed as being essential to the reproduction of everyday life in old-industrialised Western societies.
mainstream policy and engineering approache
consumers’ needs for resources such as energy, water or data precede the development of infrastructures, and that the task of governments and firms alike is to predict (or uncover) and provide for these needs.
Instead, we contend that infrastructures, the social practices they sustain, the devices and appliances involved and the patterns of demand that follow are interlinked and that they mutually influence each other.
To give a very simple example, being connected to an electricity grid enables people to engage in a multitude of power-dependent practices and hence supports the reproduction of these practices and the energy they call for, in turn justifying the development, perpetual extension and continuous operation of relevant electricity supply infrastructures
rather than simply meeting pre-existing needs, infrastructures
shape relations between practices, material artefacts and related concepts of service (e.g., of comfort, convenience) in time and space; reciprocally, established practices shape and sustain specific infrastructural configurations.
infrastructures are multi-purpose:
they enable many practices at once. Equally, many practices involve the simultaneous or sequential use of several infrastructures: for example, taking a shower typically requires (usually grid-supplied) energy, piped, pressurised water and a connection to a sewer system (or septic tank).
people do not ‘use’ electricity in some raw form.
Instead, demand happens when electrically powered devices or material arrangements become integral to the conduct of specific practices.
Fourth, as networks become an essential part of cooking, lighting, computing or heating, etc.
the need for reliable supply becomes multiply embedded and increasingly important in daily life
As a consequence of these four features, infrastructures, appliances and practices coevolve over time
The diffusion of network-dependent appliances
that is, appliances using grid electricity, tap water or telephone lines – have helped to foster the emergence, the reproduction and the reinforcement of modern domestic standards of comfort, convenience, cleanliness and communication.
Consider electricity supply. In some cases, the need for grid-supplied power arises from a process of delegation typically from a human (or from human labour) to an appliance. This is, for instance, the case with laundry, many aspects of which are now undertaken by a machine, which, incidentally, also requires pressurised water supply.
In addition, some, but not all, of these practices and appliances have no “unpowered” prehistory.
As these various examples suggest, there are significant differences in how powered technologies have (re)constituted practices and in when, in the life of a practice, this (re)shaping occurs.
reliability of supply becomes an important dimension, even a condition,
hence increasing dependence as people (as practitioners) are bound into certain infrastructural/technological systems and into sets of institutional relations that surround and constitute the process of ‘using’ electricity today.
historical development of large infrastructure systems in Western societies
a common pattern of escalating demand, increasing the value of services and/or decreasing unit costs of provision
nor is consumption simply determined by availability, accessibility and affordability
Rather, it is an outcome of complex processes of demand-making and reciprocal influence between supply and demand, in which network-connected appliances and devices become available, accessible, affordable, desirable and then embedded in multiple social practices and hence in the conduct of daily life.
‘labour saving’ technologies co-developed with new, more exacting standards
although energy demand and the use of electrically powered household equipment increased significantly, the time American women spent on domestic chores did not reduce. In effect, the development of new infrastructures and the diffusion of new appliances helped establish new interpretations of ‘normal’ comfort and cleanliness.
In so far as the efficiency agenda is designed to
meet present needs with fewer resources, it has far-reaching and powerful consequences: helping to preserve and reproduce what are treated as taken-for-granted, non-negotiable standards
growing recognition among climate change experts and policy-makers
improvements in energy efficiency will be insufficient to meet carbon emissions targets and that more radical changes may be required.
In this context, it makes sense to wonder whether infrastructures, appliances and practices might be reconfigured in ways that call for very much less consumption
Looking ahead, it is possible to envisage systems and technologies that enable more collective forms of provisioning (for example, shared laundries, district heating systems), increasingly IT-based, partly ‘dematerialised’ services or less energy-intensive systems (unfrozen food chains) or novel forms or standards of provision (wearing insulation, reducing the volume of heated or cooled space).
We conclude that whatever arrangements take hold in the years ahead, one thing is sure:
they will be informed by past and present concepts of progress, by institutions and systems of provision and by a material legacy of buildings, generators, pipes and wires.
We have used this scheme to argue that networked infrastructures
do not necessarily constitute ‘technologies of growth’ (type 1) and in particular that they do not necessarily call for and support ever more service- or resource-intensive practices. Under specific conditions, ‘shrinking’ infrastructures (type 2) may prove profitable for utility companies, users and the environment (in terms of resource use) alike. Both these configurations (type 1 and type 2) help reproduce specific concepts of ‘normal’ practice, laying down multiple, sometimes reinforcing, tracks of ‘path dependence’; representing ‘sunk costs’ in terms of hardware and – perhaps more powerfully – anchoring normative visions of everyday life. By contrast, the third formulation (‘reconfiguring infrastructures’ (type 3)) entails and depends on establishing practices that are positioned in opposition or at least as an alternative to those associated with mainstream infrastructural provision
Energy vs. GDP
correlated, but there is no clear relationship
Higher GDP through access to energy
• Higher GDP can drive higher consumption
• Energy rarely changes on its own
(health, education, transportation, sanitation, etc)
Energy as “driver”.
skill? tech? meaning?
skill –> technology –> meaning
Sometimes people do not see the meaning of practices, you have to make policies
Sometimes people do not think they have the skill to do it
