Paradoxical Infrastructures: Ruins, Retrofit, and Risk

Simple item page
dc.citation.journalTitleScience, Technology & Human Values
dc.contributor.authorHowe, Cymene
dc.contributor.authorLockrem, Jessica
dc.contributor.authorAppel, Hannah
dc.contributor.authorHackett, Edward
dc.contributor.authorBoyer, Dominic
dc.contributor.authorHall, Randal
dc.contributor.authorSchneider-Mayerson, Matthew
dc.contributor.authorPope, Albert
dc.contributor.authorGupta, Akhil
dc.contributor.authorRodwell, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorBallestero, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorDurbin, Trevor
dc.contributor.authorel-Dahdah, Farès
dc.contributor.authorLong, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorMody, Cyrus C.M.
dc.contributor.orgCenter for Energy and Environmental Research in the Human Sciences
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-10T20:04:14Z
dc.date.available2016-02-10T20:04:14Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.description.abstractIn recent years, a dramatic increase in the study of infrastructure has occurred in the social sciences and humanities, following upon foundational work in the physical sciences, architecture, planning, information science, and engineering. This article, authored by a multidisciplinary group of scholars, probes the generative potential of infrastructure at this historical juncture. Accounting for the conceptual and material capacities of infrastructure, the article argues for the importance of paradox in understanding infrastructure. Thematically the article is organized around three key points that speak to the study of infrastructure: ruin, retrofit, and risk. The first paradox of infrastructure, ruin, suggests that even as infrastructure is generative, it degenerates. A second paradox is found in retrofit, an apparent ontological oxymoron that attempts to bridge temporality from the present to the future and yet ultimately reveals that infrastructural solidity, in material and symbolic terms, is more apparent than actual. Finally, a third paradox of infrastructure, risk, demonstrates that while a key purpose of infrastructure is to mitigate risk, it also involves new risks as it comes to fruition. The article concludes with a series of suggestions and provocations to view the study of infrastructure in more contingent and paradoxical forms.
dc.identifier.citationHowe, Cymene, Lockrem, Jessica, Appel, Hannah, et al.. "Paradoxical Infrastructures: Ruins, Retrofit, and Risk." <i>Science, Technology & Human Values,</i> (2015) Sage: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243915620017.
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243915620017
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/88453
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSage
dc.rightsThis is an author's peer-reviewed final manuscript, as accepted by the publisher.
dc.subject.keyworddevelopment
dc.subject.keywordenvironmental practices
dc.subject.keywordfutures
dc.subject.keywordalternative life forms
dc.subject.keywordmarkets/economies
dc.subject.keywordpolitics
dc.subject.keywordpower
dc.subject.keywordgovernance
dc.subject.keywordspace/place/scale dynamics
dc.titleParadoxical Infrastructures: Ruins, Retrofit, and Risk
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.dcmiText
dc.type.publicationpost-print
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
ParadoxicalInfrastructures.pdf
Size:
628.97 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Faculty Publications
Anthropology Publications
History Faculty Publications
Sociology Publications