Control, care, and conviviality in the politics of technology for sustainability
Control, care, and conviviality in the politics of technology for sustainability
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/15487733.2020.1816687
复制
发表时间：
2020-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Saurabh Arora;Barbara Van Dyck;D. Sharma;A. Stirling
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Saurabh Arora;Barbara Van Dyck;D. Sharma;A. Stirling
摘要：本文讨论了目前被忽视的控制，护理和娱乐之间的区别，在可持续发展的技术政治。我们将控制概念化为在主体和客体等等级有序的类别之间维持虚构边界的野心。这一雄心壮志体现在广泛的现代技术创新中，包括基因组编辑和深海采矿。与控制相比，我们概念化了构成社会技术实践的关怀价值，其中联系优先于类别，等级制度与平等主义承诺相抗衡。在关怀实践中，客体因此被视为主体，通常是在由控制野心主导的政治背景下。在关怀的基础上，我们探索了作为互惠自治和非殖民化自我实现的欢乐的希望，以确定超越现代性的多元社会技术途径。我们认为，这些途径对于民主转型到可持续性至关重要。我们用农业发展的两个简短案例来说明我们的概念。第一个案例讨论了比利时农业生物技术控制的政治。第二个案例报告了在南印度充满控制的“绿色革命”景观中农村人民应对策略中的护理。总之，我们强调需要在特定的历史时刻将控制、关怀和欢娱的尝试物化。对控制、关怀和享乐之间相互作用的理解有助于实现可持续性，而不是再现现代技术官僚发展的集中、控制驱动的逻辑。
Abstract This article discusses currently neglected distinctions between control, care, and conviviality in the politics of technology for sustainability. We conceptualize control as the ambition to maintain fictitious borders between hierarchically ordered categories such as subjects and objects. This ambition is materialized into a wide range of Modern technological innovations, including genome editing and deep sea mining. Contrasting with control, we conceptualize values of care that constitute socio-technical practices where connections are prioritized over categories and hierarchy is countered with egalitarian commitment. In caring practices, objects are thus treated as subjects, often within political contexts that are dominated by ambitions to control. Building on care, we explore hopes for conviviality as mutualistic autonomy and decolonial self-realization to orient plural socio-technical pathways for moving beyond Modernity. We argue that such pathways are crucial for democratic transformations to sustainability. We illustrate our concepts using two brief case studies of agricultural developments. The first case discusses the politics of control in agricultural biotechnologies in Belgium. The second case reports on care within rural people's coping strategies in a south Indian "green revolution" landscape laden with control. In conclusion, we emphasize the need to situate attempted materializations of control, care, and conviviality in specific historical junctures. Situated understandings of the interplay between control, care, and conviviality can help realize sustainability that does not reproduce the centralizing, control-driven logic of Modern technocratic development.