Paradoxical Infrastructures: Ruins, Retrofit, and Risk

Simple item page
dc.citation.journalTitleScience, Technology & Human Valuesen_US
dc.contributor.authorHowe, Cymeneen_US
dc.contributor.authorLockrem, Jessicaen_US
dc.contributor.authorAppel, Hannahen_US
dc.contributor.authorHackett, Edwarden_US
dc.contributor.authorBoyer, Dominicen_US
dc.contributor.authorHall, Randalen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchneider-Mayerson, Matthewen_US
dc.contributor.authorPope, Alberten_US
dc.contributor.authorGupta, Akhilen_US
dc.contributor.authorRodwell, Elizabethen_US
dc.contributor.authorBallestero, Andreaen_US
dc.contributor.authorDurbin, Trevoren_US
dc.contributor.authorel-Dahdah, Farèsen_US
dc.contributor.authorLong, Elizabethen_US
dc.contributor.authorMody, Cyrus C.M.en_US
dc.contributor.orgCenter for Energy and Environmental Research in the Human Sciencesen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-10T20:04:14Zen_US
dc.date.available2016-02-10T20:04:14Zen_US
dc.date.issued2015en_US
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.en_US
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.en_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243915620017en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/88453en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSageen_US
dc.rightsThis is an author's peer-reviewed final manuscript, as accepted by the publisher.en_US
dc.subject.keyworddevelopmenten_US
dc.subject.keywordenvironmental practicesen_US
dc.subject.keywordfuturesen_US
dc.subject.keywordalternative life formsen_US
dc.subject.keywordmarkets/economiesen_US
dc.subject.keywordpoliticsen_US
dc.subject.keywordpoweren_US
dc.subject.keywordgovernanceen_US
dc.subject.keywordspace/place/scale dynamicsen_US
dc.titleParadoxical Infrastructures: Ruins, Retrofit, and Risken_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.dcmiTexten_US
dc.type.publicationpost-printen_US
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