(Re)narrating the societal cyborg: a definition of infrastructure, an interrogation of integration
(Re)narrating the societal cyborg: a definition of infrastructure, an interrogation of integration
复制标题
（重新）叙述社会赛博格：基础设施的定义，整合的质疑
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Raven
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Raven
对这一期特刊的呼吁邀请我们考虑“综合基础设施作为应对气候变化的措施”。在这样做的过程中，它重述了一个规范性的叙述，其中人类在对抗气候变化的斗争中扮演主角，而基础设施无论是一体化的还是其他的，都是人类对抗气候变化的工具。基础设施“一体化”意味着什么？如此定义的基础设施的集成是否可取，甚至是否可以实现？它还引出了一个进一步的问题，即：基础设施，无论是一体化的还是其他的，在多大程度上已经成为人为气候变化的同谋？通过解决这些问题，本文提供了一个功能的基础设施的定义，并继续在该术语的技术和社会意义上的整合问题，重新叙述基础设施的历史，以揭示基础设施不是人为气候变化的堡垒，而是人为气候变化产生的工具。它的结论是，进一步的技术整合的好处是未经证实的，特别是在没有一个全面的了解（已经显着集成和相互依存）的系统，我们目前依赖的，进一步的技术整合可能实际上是危险的，导致意想不到的路径依赖性和“技术锁定”，并进一步巩固了这些系统固有的习惯化和抹去效果。此外，它的结论是，在基础设施系统的技术整合量可以使任何差异气候变化本身，除非伴随着消费的做法，这是一个更好地服务于基础设施的社会整合的目标的重新配置。
The call for this special issue invites us to consider “integrated infrastructure as a response to climate change”. In doing so, it recapitulates a normative narrative wherein human beings play the protagonist in a struggle against climate change in the antagonistic role, and where infrastructure integrated or otherwise is the instrument of human action against it. This narrative raises important questions, some of which are definitive: what exactly do we mean when we say “infrastructure”? What does it mean for an infrastructure to be “integrated”? And is the integration of infrastructure so defined desirable, or even achievable? It also begs a further question, namely: to what extent is infrastructure, integrated or otherwise, already complicit in anthropogenic climate change? Through addressing these questions, this paper offers a functional definition of infrastructure, and goes on to problematise the question of integration in both the technical and social senses of that term, before renarrating the history of infrastructure in such a way as to reveal infrastructure not as a bulwark against anthropogenic climate change, but as the instrument through which anthropogenic climate change is produced. It concludes that the benefits of further technical integration are unproven, particularly in the absence of a comprehensive understanding of the (already significantly integrated and interdependent) systems on which we currently rely, and that further technical integration may in fact be hazardous, resulting in unexpected path-dependencies and “technological lock-ins”, and further consolidating the habituation and effacement effects inherent to these systems. Furthermore, it concludes that no amount of technical integration in infrastructural systems can make any difference to climate change in and of itself, unless accompanied by the reconfiguration of consumptive practices which is a goal far better served by the social integration of infrastructure.
影响因子：
9
作者：
F. Karaca;F. Camci;P. Raven
通讯作者：
F. Karaca;F. Camci;P. Raven