Search

Over the last decade, the Anthropocene has overrun the discourses of the humanities and social sciences. Remarkably, two of the most astute commentators, the cross-disciplinary theorist Barbara Herrnstein Smith and the unorthodox philosopher Isabelle Stengers, find inspiration for grappling with these issues in the same apparently odd place: the work of the Polish microbiologist and comparative epistemologist Ludwik Fleck. The first part of this essay explores the role of Fleck's radical constructivism in Smith's analyses of perplexing Anthropocene realities and Stengers's arguments for slowing down science and learning to “compose with Gaia.” In conjunction, they generate a pattern of speculative, conceptual, practical, and political motifs for dealing with changing climates. The second half of the essay uses those insights to test a divergent series of proposals for how to conceive science, politics, theory, and environmental relations in the Anthropocene.

In Khmer, the word prek designates a connection between things. In Kandal province in Cambodia, preks crisscross the landscape, connecting rivers with floodplains, supporting rich ecologies and a variety of livelihoods. Drawing on science and technology studies (STS) and critical water research, this paper explores prek(s) as a multiplicity. Rather than taking the prek as a passive object around which various practices occur, we examine how prek(s) are enacted as ontologically different: as irrigation infrastructure, as pathway to rice intensification, as device for Cambodian state-making, and as climate-friendly agricultural development. After analyzing interference patterns between enactments and their scale-making effects in- and outside the Mekong floodplains, we make explicit our own ontological politics. Focused on sustaining multiple uses and ecosystems, “our” prek is a socionatural mosaic landscape where many human and more-than-human actors and practices can coexist. This ontological politics, we suggest, has implications for planetary environmental knowledges and delta management far beyond Kandal’s landscape.

Cambodia’s urban environments have changed rapidly over the last decades, and perhaps especially over the last few years. After the 2018 election, democracy was widely perceived as eroding. This ch...

On 27 August 2019, Indonesia’s president Joko Widodo announced that the country’s capital will move from huge, sprawling Jakarta in Java to East Kalimantan. While Widodo emphasized that the reason ...

Early in his career, Bruno Latour’s limited readership consisted mainly of the research community in science and technology studies (STS) that he helped to inaugurate. Today the situation could hardly be more different. Latour is now subject to the “translations”—the processes by which ideas travel—that he has provided such powerful tools for analyzing. He has become a “mutable mobile”—eminently transportable but always changing as he goes—that in different contexts exists as a variety of conceptual characters or figurations. As the Latour network continues to see significant extensions and transformations, it offers an instructive case for understanding the potentials and dynamics of traveling texts and ideas—and of their relation to existing disciplinary formations—as ecologies of knowledge change. This article examines the reception and adaptation of Latour’s ideas in two quite different intellectual contexts: anthropology and literary studies. The proliferation of Latour figurations is shown to be a consequence of interactions between, on the one hand, existing disciplinary constellations of ideas, concerns, and practices, and, on the other hand, his own often ambiguous arguments on topics including theory and method, nonhuman agency and politics, and technical mediation.

Starting from a development pilot project that aimed to introduce new water accounting procedures to Cambodia, this article examines interactions between technical experts from abroad and governmen...

In recent decades, scientists have developed a wide array of hydrological, hydrodynamic, and other models to understand the dynamics of the Mekong River Basin. Indeed, the area has been described as ‘flooded’ with models. Drawing on STS and the philosophy of modeling – which has described models as mediating instruments – the first half of this article discusses how and why this proliferation has occurred, focusing on the Cambodian context. Highlighting that models are developed comparatively, with reference to one another, the analysis shows how they have generated a partially connected ecology of comparisons. As each model makes its own image of the Mekong, the ecology as a whole creates a kaleidoscopic effect. In principle, this ecology is important for that of environmental policy-making. In practice, however, it is tremendously difficult for scientists to bridge the ecologies. Examining two cases of NGO-based modeling aiming to influence policy, the second half of the paper offers a comparative analysis of the challenges modeling knowledge faces in Mekong environmental politics.

Signalling that ‘humanity’ has radically changed the Earth’s environmental parameters, the Anthropocene currently generates debate across the socio-cultural sciences. In this context, neo-Marxist and new materialist approaches stand out for the way they oblige social theory to catch up with new material realities. We share the conviction that the Anthropocene might constitute a genuine event for social theory and practice. However, we argue that the search for alternative ways of problematizing and ‘dramatizing’ our eco-political predicament confronts these approaches with unresolved issues of scientism and economic totalization. Looking for another path, we turn to Science and Technology Studies (STS), and especially Actor-Network Theory (ANT). We relay the long-standing focus on nonhuman agency characteristic of this field via Isabelle Stengers’ argument that we must ‘accept’ the reality of Gaia’s intrusion into collective historicity. The challenge posed by Stengers, we suggest, requires the development of an art of immanent attention to the politics of varied matters as they unfold across diverse ecologies of practice. Extending further than the present preoccupations of Euro-American social theory, other areas within and across environmental history, activism and politics offer sites of resistance as well as experimentation whose conceptual possibilities and practical efficacies have yet to be explored. Slowing down theory sufficiently to learn from these multiple sites, we argue, is the starting point for an approach more adequate to the problems posed by the Anthropocene event.

“Where Is East Asia in STS?” contributes to the ongoing conversation about the distinctiveness of East Asian STS (see also, e.g., Anderson 2009; Chen 2012; Fan 2007, 2012; Fu 2007; Tsukahara 2009)....

This paper explores “how ethnographic collaboration configures its data” via examination of three relations: between ethnography as method and writing, between leaky empirical and conceptual sets, and between ethnographic and rhetorical effects. I suggest that writing entails keeping the research imagination alive to two simultaneous processes of scaling—of the empirical within the text, and of diverse sets of literature in mutual relation—always with a specific focus and orientation. What emerges is an image of both ‘ethnographer’ and ‘data’ as hybrid and transformable companions. I illustrate with reference to two quite different texts about emerging Mekong realities. Both are elicited as experimental additions to worlds. In that capacity, they are capable of generating reality effects but those effects cannot be preordained. I conclude that ethnographic collaborations find no other grounds than dic cur hic—why, here, now—or as Isabelle Stengers has formulated it “say why you say it.”

In science and technology studies (STS) practice has become predominant both as analytical focus and as empirical object. Taking our point of departure in a brief genealogy of the ‘practice turn’, the central aim of this paper is to identify some analytical problems with current uses of ‘practice’. Centrally, we argue, the concept of practice has come to be inscribed with a certain kind of ‘magical’ explanatory power. In contrast, to current practice theory, we suggest that, rather than providing an explanatory framework, practice is what needs to be explained. We further suggest that this requires a simultaneous expansion of the concept, which will enable it to include thinking and theorizing as part of practice, and a theoretical practice minimalism. Finally, we suggest that these requirements are consequential for the political and practical implications of practice theory.

In recent years, climate fiction has exploded on the literary scene. Meanwhile, climate change is occurring in the Mekong river basin. In this paper, I put these phenomena into contact in a...

This paper discusses the recent emergence of ontological approaches in science and technology studies (STS), anthropology and philosophy. Although it is common to hear of a turn, or the turn, to ontology, more than one line of intellectual development is at stake. In reality, we are witness to a plural set of partly overlapping, partly divergent, turns.

This article examines attempts by professionals in the Danish branch of the environmental NGO NatureAid to optimize their practice by developing a local standard. Describing these efforts as an experiment in optimization, we outline a post-critical alternative to critiques that centre on the reductive effects of management and audit. The notion that reduction is inherently negative fails to recognize that achieving specific forms of reduction is often the reflexive aim of standardization. Rather than resisting monitoring and evaluation, the environmental consultants we study try to create a system capable of constraining their work in the right way. Focusing on this experiment in optimization allows us to redescribe audit as a varied set of practices and aspirations, embedded in standards that generate relative, forms of organizational transparency and opacity. This offers a view of management as ‘broken up;’ as a distributed, ambient activity, variably performed by different actors using different standards.