Infrastructure: Back to the Basics

If we are to answer the question proposed by Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” or Bernward Joerges’s question, “Do Politics Have Artefacts,” it is important to look at the ethnography of infrastructure. ‘Infrastructure’ must be defined along with the context in which it is to be addressed. This blog will draw on a controversial example of the design and use of technology in the context of infrastructure for development. The issues addressed in this blog include: defining the term ‘infrastructure’ and analysing whether artefacts have intentional or unintentional actions associated with them.

‘Infrastructure’ is an elusive term, if not defined in a particular context the term could have several meanings. Star (1999) states, “Infrastructure is both relational and ecological—it means different things to different groups and it is part of the balance of action, tools, and the built environment, inseparable from them.” If we agree that this is the case, this blog defines ‘infrastructure’ as an architectural (not always physical and usually hidden) framework (or structure) in which technology is embedded for use by the society in which its structure was designed. Look to Winner’s example of the low-hanging overpasses of New York which he states were built (in the 1950’s) to discourage buses from using these parkways. Due to these overpasses designed by Robert Moses, Winner (1980) states “Poor people and blacks, who normally used public transit, were kept off the roads because the twelve-foot tall buses could not get through the overpasses.” This provides an example of infrastructure as a technology in the context of development which was inscribed a value by design. Conversely, Joerges argues Moses overpasses in fact did not control the social environment in which they were constructed and Winner’s argument could be made from almost any physical set-up. Furthermore, Joerges (1999) states “Theories of social change can be divided, in an heroic simplication, between the two grand discourses of control and contingency.” Control being viewed as an intentional action that results in the social order or disorder of a society, while contingency is viewed as the unintentional action on many small actors that result in the social order or disorder of a society. Both Winner and Joerges arguments are relevant and illustrate the need for more research regarding infrastructure and its impact on society.

In the example above, Winner provides an illustration of how a value was inscribed in technology by design. However, it must be understood that though an artefact (or technology) is designed, its value is inscribed by its local use. The local use of an artefact is the space, time and frame in which the artefact was designed. Thus, Winner’s example of the low-hanging overpasses which he stated Moses designed to keep poor people and blacks from reaching Long Beach is no longer true. In fact, the overpasses in their present state do not control the social environment but are in Joerges words, a contingency.