serendipityoucity

Ok! Here it is! I am finally starting to write about what I am supposed to be writing about – community communication infrastructures for contested territories. A topic inspired by a long term interaction and intellectual discussion with Michael Lenczner.  We have been thinking about infrastructures in general, communication infrastructures in particular and it is really through these conversations and ongoing interactions that the significance these ‘entities’, ‘artifacts’, ‘large socio-technical systems’ - bref Infrastructures - in our societies have become obvious. 

Infrastructures are both fascinating and frightening.  Fascinating because technologies and social systems have evolved to a point where groups of citizens/communities are participating in the creation and maintenance of their own infrastructures in real terms.  Appointed technocrats be aware - this is what a democracy looks like!  Further, community wireless networks (CWNs) are emerging social technical systems that I believe are changing the way a subset of society is engaging with and are taking charge of elements of the larger communication infrastructure as a whole. By doing so I believe changing presuppositions about infrastructure ownership, organization, and use - therefore changing the nature of infrastructures themselves.  Frightening because I have no clue what I am talking about and so far, to the best of my current knowledge, not too many other people are talking out loud about these ideas either - certainly not from the perspective of infrastructures.

Infrastructure determinism is a term I used a year or so ago when discussing issues related to wifi communication systems being infrastructures that determine how mobile technology users interact with their urban environments.  The term emerged during one of the first conversations about infrastructures Michael and I had. 

Technologies - infrastructures are considered to be large technological systems - have embedded within them the values and norms of their creators (See mtl3p - search, feminism, values and infrastructures for some great discussion on these topics!).  These values and norms reflect to some extent the class, gender composition, locale, and specialilization of individual creators.  Also, broader societal values found in the institutions and organizations that build, fund and maintain them.  Infrastructures also reflect the cultural context, history, power structures and broader ideals such as nationalism and economic interests.  Geography also matters both in how a given infrastructure will actually physically be built but also because of the people and groups found in those places.  Finally, Michael always comes back to the users, and usage, and I agree, users are critical since they embody and reflect all of the societal values and norms discussed above, and in addition they are those that change, redesign, engage with, put demands upon, pay for, test and stress infrastructures.  Further, users are the ones who decide as agents of free will if they will blindly use the mostly invisible or taken for granted infrastructures around them, if they will challenge norms, and demand for change.  And as Michael would say, the greater their use, the more important they become to the functioning of a given society at a given point and time.  Therefore in my assessment, infrastructures as large technological systems are not the determinants of how society is shaped nor is society the determinant of how infrastructures are shaped.  They mutually shape each other.  I know I know! Obvious! But let me tell you the obvious is sometimes the hardest thing to figure out.

I reluctantly use the term, even if it holds an element of truth, since I no longer believe that infrastructures or technologies are the driving forces shaping society.  I also do not believe that scientists, engineers, financiers, corporations, urban planners and politicians, namely those who construct infrastructures are separate from society.  Large technological systems / infrastructures are not autonomous agents determining how the blind masses behave, they are however important actors in a massive network of actors that influence and shape society.  Infrastructures do however influence and constrain individual and group behaviours and choices.  More on that later!

The term infrastructure determinism I used at the time of the conversation was inspired by the concept of environmental determinism which was used in the early days of colonial exploration/exploitation and by philosophers from Aristotle onwards which suggests that “the environment controls the course of human action” (Dictionary of human Geography 1986:130) thus development trajectories and racial achievement.  Technological determinism is the concept which most closely reflects what I was thinking regarding infrastructure determinism.  The concept suggests that technology is not influenced by cultural or social values and norms, while technology has "effects" on societies that are inherent, rather than socially conditioned” (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism).  Overall these are reductionist approaches to the study of infrastructures and I do not believe that one factor alone explains or can predict how society or a large technological system is/will be shaped.  Additionally determinism is at odds with the concept of free will and human agency.  If infrastructures determine our behaviour does this mean we are not morally free or rational beings able to govern ourselves?  Are we mere automatons operating as the infrastructure structures us to do?

I am not sure which is the best approach to the study of infrastructures, and my guess is that elements of many theories will be helpful.  The following is a list of possible pursuits - actor network theory, social construction theory, organizational theory, systems theory, cultural materialism, Marxism and so on!

Also, as expected, it seems that I did not coin the term, infrastructure determinism, but I can tell you it ain’t that popular and I did use it without ever hearing it before, and it was really inspired from an intense conversation with Michael!  More on what others have said later!