[2010] infrastructure as world-building

8/9/2019 [2010] Infrastructure as world-building

1/14

Infrastructure as world-building

Stephen Read

Patrizia Sulis

Introduction

Movement infrastructures are often understood as engineering as theapplication, and therefore theoretically uninteresting (and politically neutral),side of a city reduced to sets of abstract propositions. The city is reducedagain, below the level of the abstractions, to a Lego set of expensive but inprinciple unproblematic physical-functional objects and elements, whose inter-accessibility needs are met, again unproblematically, by physical networks of highways, railways, tramways, streets and paths. Space here is self-evident,

and the speed, reach and simultaneity of high-tech connections the means toits overcoming. We suggest that any notion of the dynamic materiality of thecity and its self-productive or self-generative power is lost in this loss of theobject of the city in itself. And we are concerned here with reversing thisemphasis on the abstract or theoretical before the material, and want toinstead see the physical as already embedding and embodying its owntheory. Were interested in trying to illuminate the objects nature, or, if youwill the objects relationship to nature, and reconstitut[ing] the process of itsgenesis and the development of its meaning (Lefebvre 1991: 113).

We attempt to track, in this way, some of the concerns of Henri Lefebvre who

attempted to get beyond the abstraction and closure of social theory byproposing an urban society born in the relation between people and city. Weare concerned, as Lefebvre was, to find sources of intrinsic creativity andgenesis in this urban society as an alternative and possible counter to theabsolute politics of the state and its knowledge institutions, in which we are,according to him, transformed into subjects of power. We seek instruments tobegin to understand the formative processes of this urban society, as a stepto eventually finding strategies to understand and build the city as more or less the oeuvre of its citizens instead of imposing itself upon them as asystem, as an already closed book (Lefebvre 1996: 117).

As part of this process of finding instruments, we are interested here inunderstanding infrastructures as material, socio-technological frames thatlocate urban life, and urban subjects as knowing bodies. This takes us beyonda functional determination but also beyond the simple subjectivities of individual points of view and into the objectivities of immersive socio-technical co-constructions where we live and understand ourselves and theworld, between things and other people. The spaces established are not onlyof being and action but also of appearance and politics (Arendt 1970), and wewant to understand better how the city conditions and forms urban life inpractice, ultimately to inform our design and planning practice.

Beyond the zenith view


2/14

We stand usually outside the world to imagine it. Doreen Massey, in a classicpaper, zooms in from terrestrial orbit, describing more and more geometries of movement and flow as these flash into and out of focus. From the movementof data between satellites, she zooms in to the traces of aircraft, people,money and goods between continents and regions, on to trains, cars and

trams between and within cities and eventually to a woman in sub-SaharanAfrica, transporting water on foot. Massey sees a power geometry here, linkedto what she calls time-space compression (Massey 1994).

We map and imagine (and select, equalise and flatten) connections and thethings we see connected from the view from outside, and wonder from abovewhat causes what and from where? The history of these questions, and thespeculative abstractions (to quote Lefebvre) in which they are framed, fillsmany libraries. We still dont have clear answers, but are learning to distrustthe instincts that lead us into problems of what Lefebvre used to call theillusion of transparency the idea that our thought is adequate to the task as

it is illuminated by our own designs on it. The way we frame questions hasalso become less cut and dried as the big categories, like society, economy,technology, are increasingly problematised by new viewpoints whichemphasise material processes connected to real people and places. Thenotion of the social construction of reality has of course a relatively longhistory in urban thinking, but the idea that society (or any other big category)is already there and determining of other things is itself problematic,especially in the context of contemporary changes that suggest society isitself being remade in these processes.

We need to shift our viewpoint and find the worlds we practically inhabit rather

than try to see and command things from above. The surface of the shrinkingglobal world is not the space in which these questions are answered; rather,we propose, this will be in a topology of situations, historically equipped andpractically inhabited by the people to whom the knowledge matters. Our concern will be these other spaces, and the power geometries of differentiated views on the world from within. Our starting point will be that theworld appears to all of us as something more or less coherent. It also appearsin different and particular ways depending on where we are and in whatcollective construction we find and maintain our view on it. Then it is also, wesuggest, the practical context for life and action and for a practical knowingand doing as these appear to someone, somewhere.

This multiplication and differentiation of coherent and perceived worldsproblematises space of course, but it problematises also what we think of asworld. Lefebvre began (but did not complete) a move to a different idea of world beyond the totalising tendencies of modern and Marxist thought.Inspired indirectly by Heidegger, he proposed globalisation was better understood as something he called mondialisation or the way the worldbecomes world for people. He was interested particularly in the way theworld worlds differently in different places and for different people. This isclearly not the world as it might be understood by a physical geographer, assomething standing apart from human practices and processes of knowledge.Here, our understanding and the sense of our being, become thoroughlylinked to the world; the being of beings and the being worldly of things are


3/14

almost synonyms. The human and the world are not related as two separatethings, but are both enclosed and disclosed together (Elden 2008: 51;53). 1

It is a character of the patterns of thinking we have been bequeathed that we

overestimate the locus of coherency, intelligence and action in the mind of theindividual. We also underestimate the productive force of time on structures of power and experience. Our most basic experience is not of an abstracted anduniversal space and time, it is of the world, or worlds, we construct andaccumulate and share as objective between us. These are worlds intowhich we are thrown to use Heideggers expression whose rationales welearn, often as unquestioned normativities, and whose structures make not

just our individual but also our collective understandings of our existencecoherent. These public objectivities, embedded in the world, include theorganisational structures and infrastructures that constitute spheres of coherence which are the means to our seeing and knowing our place in the

world.But we need to ask first what are the natures of these spaces and places, andwhat is the structure that already articulates them? Perhaps the first cluecomes from political geography, where there is a view that networks of citiesare somehow and at some level more fundamental than cities alone. It is anidea that Peter Taylor has made the centre of his work cities, for him, comein packs. We are going to generalise this to say that an interesting way of characterising places or urban objects and elements in general, because ina relational view of the world the where and the what of things collapse intoone another would be by saying that places and other urban things come in

whole arrangements or networks. And these whole arrangements and theindividual things that make them up co-constitute one another and supporteach others identities and meanings. This is like saying, everything needs acontext to be what it is, and that there are bounds to that context.

Urban relations

We are also saying that all generic urban entities cities, neighbourhoods,buildings come in networks of related entities, and indeed that their statusas genera depends on this. The relation between genus and particular isinteresting. A city is a city through relating to other cities, and, Amsterdam iswhat it is through the fact that it relates to Rotterdam and Utrecht. But it isneither Rotterdam nor Utrecht; it is different. It is this sort of difference thatholds worlds together by making things meaningful. The particularisation andrealisation of a generic adds richness and detail rather than diminishing theconcept, or becoming an imperfect version of an ideal. The generic is, in fact,as network and context, as real as the particular and is a necessary part of the way we engage reality. It is a factor of coherence and sense, part of theknowability factor in the real. In relationality, a particular is a development.We can reject the idea that we can define any place or object in vacuo . The

point about networks is not the connecting of already made and known1 Eugen Fink, Spiel als Weltsymbol , quoted in Elden 2008.


4/14

objects, it is about objects becoming what they are in networks. The emphasisshifts from questions of fact and function, understood and defined fromoutside the system, to questions of coherence and sense and the seeing of things as what they are from the inside. Things and ideas about them come tobe together are produced , and co-constitute one another in whole networks

that are something like what Thomas Kuhn called paradigms.

The Greek concept of tekhne emphasises the inseparability of skill,procedures, knowledge and attention (Ingold 1996), and it is through our technique of the built environment that we find a way to answer questions of order and coherence. The genesis of things depends on technique (which isalso to say making), interpretation and embeddedness. The view we outlinehere does not deal with experience through an interior mentality or subjectivitybut takes experience out of the subject and into a relation with the urban worlditself. This relation happens via (collective) technique or procedure, asmaterial and organisation supports and emplaces us, secures our relations

with things and endures. This makes technique an integral part of our structure of experience . At the same time it suggests that our worlds areshaped not by abstracted theory so much as by the organisation andstructures we build into our worlds. This movement away from abstraction andthe view from outside (or above), with its dis-placing or de-worlding of thought(or of rationality in general) makes of knowledge a relation between theknower and the known. What is brought to or disclosed in thought will dependvery profoundly on the material conditions which pertain which we maintainorganisationally and technically.

The radical part of this is that all our knowledge of the world will depend on

our relation to it and may change as we change our situation with respect toit. Fields of perception and experience are, and have always been, shaped bythe technical, and the way different technical paradigms support differentsituated views on the world. We live immersed in collective and historicalconstructions that are power regulating architectures that differentiate andcoordinate different ranges and scopes of being and action. And theprocedures and techniques of urban space are not just means to control thebody but also, as Foucault insisted, the means to freeing it. We live betweenthings and places. All lives are a complex trajectory and a putting-together of the diverse components of real lives. The issue for the city is not only thefunctional details of these chanes opratoire, but also how we are able tosee our way to getting it all done.

We will suggest therefore that we live in immersive technical worlds of objectswe act on and towards: object worlds that are not so much scopes(instruments for extending vision) as optics (sets of coordinates for seeing).The Panopticon is one case, but many other technical systems also open, andhave always opened, synoptic views on the worlds they are themselvesresponsible for articulating (see Latour & Hermant 2006). Movementinfrastructures, including road, rail, metro and airline systems define placesand coordinate things in their range and scope; they constitute places andregions as they connect them, making them knowable and coherent and partof local, urban, regional and even global structures of knowledge and action.


5/14

Technology, in a material and embodied view of life and things, is notabstracted or distanced from human life. Technologies, in their reality, and intheir relation to particular people whose lives they affect, become the meansby which worlds are disclosed to us; they become structures in which weknow and do things. How may the world be what it is for us if not through

techniques of environing, inhabiting and doing (Heidegger would say,Building, Living, Thinking), and through the carefully emplaced equipmentwith which we surround ourselves? This is a world that we know in the waywe build our worlds, rather than in disembodied thought or theory. Space andtime, society and economy, or others of these big categories, are outcomesof techniques and constructions and the resulting material processes thatarticulate and animate our world.

Against the abstractions of Marxian, modern, and even later Heideggerianviews that totalise the history of technology, technology is seen here as aconcrete and particular affair. Technology has also always defined what we

know through it. There is no pre-technological mondialisation it would be likesuggesting Europeans could have known China before ships and camel-trains! It makes worlding plural because the world disclosed, in which weare disclosed-enclosed, depends on the particular technologies practicallyabsorbed in particular knowing and action. Globalisation is seen today, from aposition of abstraction somewhere outside the process, as a universalisationof the effects of technology in a generalised progress towards a technificationof nature. Mondialisation is, on the other hand, about the way particular technologies (some of unprecedented power) have given some particular places and the particular people they connect enormous power advantages interms of the worlds they see and know and their capacities for acting in thoseworlds.

We experience infrastructures from the inside, and they radically alter our perceptions of the world around us. We might even imagine we inhabit adifferent society and a different city when seen from a freeway from the airportto the downtown hotels than when seen from the streets of the decaying inner city that the freeway skirts. The issue today is not how a new technologicalparadigm of microelectronic technologies and biotech (Castells 1989)fundamentally alters our view on the world, so much as the clarification of ametaphilosophical basis for the thinking of the space of the world in general,with its pressing issues of justice and sustainability.

Acting in worlds

What makes up the worlds we inhabit and do things in, and how are theyorganised? One influential way of approaching this problem is to say that wepick and choose the places of our individual lives and put them together ourselves in movement and time-budgets (Dijst 1999). In this view, subjectsdo all the acting, not to mention the calculating of spatio-temporal constraintsand efficiencies, while the places and objects, to that which the action is

aimed, remain inactive.. In this view subjects occupy a transparent mentalspace, unconstrained by materiality, while objects are tied into a three or four


6/14

dimensional block universe which ties down the location of all andeverything. Our view is that this is inadequate: it misunderstands the spaceswe inhabit, and underestimates both the organisational patterns andstructures that already constitute our worlds, and the extent of our commitment to these structures through the embedding which is a condition of

our inhabitation.

Understanding systems from the inside, the locus of subjectivity and actionshifts from the actor to the actor-technology or actor-network relationship.What acts is not simply the actor with his or her stock of ideas andmotivations, but the actor integrated with the technical and social-organisational systems that enable the action and make it coherent. We endup with diverse and even diversely motivated, but perceptually coordinatedand co-located people and material, embedded in networks of places anddoing things between them.

Karin Knorr Cetina has proposed the idea of epistemic cultures which are notsocial or mental constructs, but sets of arrangements and mechanismsincluding people, objects and technologies associated with the processes of producing and interpreting knowledge (Knorr Cetina 1999). Epistemic culturesimply common modes of doing things in common situations and settings. Theknowing of how to interpret things, and how and when to act, is supported inorganised situations supported by technics. At the same time, a technicallycoordinated space and time is constructed in the apparatus, as well as acommon set of objects, and a language to describe them. The question of how things remain together in arrangements is crucial, but simple to answer.There is a material basis to the meaning and significance of entities, in being

with other entities, and in order to remain durably what they are, they need tobe built into and maintained in place in synthetic and realised arrangements in what we call networks or infrastructures.

Knorr Cetina has been studying the working practices of financial traders for many years and what she finds, in place of global networks is amicrostructured network architecture demonstrating patterns of coordinationand behaviour that are global in scope and microlevel in character (Knorr Cetina 2003: 7). A global culture, consisting of common objects,understandings and practices, is localised in precisely engineered andconnected situations. The relevant factor is not the flow of information, which

is in any event illegible in its pure informational form, but the objects andsubjectivities and ways of doing things that belong in the infrastructure.

Knorr Cetina argues that many of the actions and interactions that matter occur not in direct face-to-face or even person-to-person situations but in whatshe calls synthetic situations technologically rendered and maintained.These maintain a background condition for action with a routine set of objectsand practices and structure of expectations. People act through syntheticsituations and in a technologically maintained space and time. And muchdepends, she says, on getting the synthetics right [t]his in itself implies ashift in power and relevance from the interaction to the situation (Knorr

Cetina 2009: 70).


7/14

Action is a joint achievement of actor and synthetic situation, and actors,objects and practices working together construct larger entities like thefinancial market, or the neighbourhoods, cities or regions which we willdiscuss next. These are experienced as worlds from the inside. Theymaintain epistemic cultures by maintaining commensurability of knowledges,

standards and equipment across the different sites in the network, and acrossworking times and spaces. Places like trading floors will be separated, andeven secured, from places outside the network, even though these other places may be proximate. The systemic world is both connected andbounded by its technics. Knorr Cetinas technological paradigm is noabstraction: it is a practical and technical organisation set up in specific sitesand networks of sites, and the project from here on becomes to understandhow human activity and agency have always depended upon a sitedtechnicity which has often gone unnoticed, or treated as if it were a constrainton more abstract processes.

Political spaces; territorial synoptics

We tend to forget the political dimension of infrastructures. Infrastructures areexpensive and no one builds them without very powerful motivations. Thegood reasons for the huge investments involved have included theconsolidations and restructurings of empires and nations and the restructuringof cities in response to periodic crises of a capitalist economy. Cases includeHadrians consolidation of the Roman Empire through the building of roadsand cities, and Napoleons and Napoleon IIIs building of road and rail

systems as part of the nation-building and industrialisation of France. Thesecases point to infrastructures role in establishing and consolidating politicalterritories, one that is occluded in a functional perspective reducing territorialnetworks to accessibilities.

Urban boulevards and freeways have been political instruments in the handsof Haussmann and Robert Moses, and metropolitan freeway building todayworks to reinforce and distribute suburban consumerist lifestyles and their economics including the mortgages that have been absorbed into a globalfinancial market (Harvey 2008). Infrastructures are strategic, focusedinterventions that respond to and transform the functional shapes of

territories, but embody also specific visions of and for territories. Some sort of design or plan is necessarily involved. They consolidate or change things tosome end, and institute and embody specific rationalities that make certainstructures of expectations and actions coherent.

We need to be a little careful with this notion of coherence: what we dontmean is that all actions are determined by the infrastructure and its strategiesand intentions; rather all actions that occur in a given infrastructure will becontextualised by the logic of the infrastructure as an action or idea isrelated to a paradigm. It is in the context of the paradigm that the action or idea makes sense, or not. Action is not simply limited or constrained by this

relation, rather its sense (or non-sense) is disclosed in the relation.Infrastructures are about the establishment and realisation of some strategy


8/14

or rationality by the institution of some normative space. Infrastructures realisespecific normativities while establishing synoptics on territories. They linkvisions of territories to visions on territories not always with ultimate fidelity,but with a certain objective finality. Infrastructures establish the reality of territories.

This brings us to the next thing we forget about infrastructures which is their historical specificity. They are built in specific times and to specific purposes,but are then themselves historical and liable to change. They will be productsof a certain time in more ways than one: at one level an infrastructure willimplement a strategic response to some perceived need or conceived vision;at another, the infrastructure will institute, or consolidate, a structure of placesas a network of the generic urban elements we mentioned earlier. Then, whilethe visions and embedded rationalities may change (a trading network maybecome a military alliance; an industrial centre may become a regionalshopping hub), the structures of places will have extraordinary powers of

persistence. We are governed by orders and arrangements we may not evensee because they are part of our equipment for seeing; and not all of our structures of power are down to language. The governance of peoplesexpectations and conduct incorporates all manner of technical-organisationalorders and effects, which will include the place-structures of regions or territories.

London is the famous underground map realised at least to people who aretravelling by underground. The infrastructure is invested with a diagramatictopology as it realises a territory with a specific place-structure. This is not justa convenient representation. The structure is a distribution of districts and

neighbourhoods with well-defined names and relations to each other, andonce grasped through the infrastructure, these places and relations stand infor the underground map as much as the other way round. The map may besmaller and handier, but in topological terms, and as a synoptic, map andinfrastructure are identical. This identity is one of a sense or coherence,founded in the relations between places and their relation to a territorialwhole. These relations found a world of significant places. The infrastructureboth responds to a pre-existing structure of places and its connective fabric,and consolidates this overground network. Other systems complement andsupport the territorial vision instituted with the underground system. The effectis that today the whole is locked into a synoptic every Londoner understandsas London, with all its well-known places made visible and present.

The equipment here may not be as high-tech as in Knorr Cetinas example,but is no inconsiderable matter. Beside the transportation systems themselvesand their signalling, scheduling and other support systems, there is housingbuilt in a systematic relation to transportation systems, business and industryto which employees, suppliers and clients need to be connected, and allmanner of other technical and support systems, including street and linemaintenance, energy, water and drainage systems, kerb profiles, streetplanting and traffic signs. This is an historical and practical objectivity whichinforms every movement and every action as well as every further intervention in the space of London. It is, we are proposing, the objectivespace of London.


9/14

An historically instituted network of neighbourhoods exists in a relation of parts to the whole of a city. London, as a synoptic objectivity, issimultaneously and indivisibly, percept, concept and culture or practice, apatch of territorial order realised. The places are consolidated or stabilised notonly by their articulation and definition in underground and other technical

movement systems but also by their generic realities as neighbourhoodsand city. What is real is not just the places but also the, coherence-giving,sense-making structure of part, whole and scale. This is an artifice, a device,a construction, which constitutes a particular urban territory and locks it inplace. This construction has a remarkable level of stability and persistence asa place-structure, but also, to a lesser degree, as a located, territoriallycoordinated diversity of cultures and practices. What these cultures andpractices share; what they have in common between them, is, before all else,this structure of places.

Integrating a new (metropolitan say), synoptic, at a different territorial scope

and scale into this means having to deal with an already constructed,consolidated and instituted whole. The establishment of a metropolitan regionrequires a new act of construction, or the consolidation of something whichmight already exist in insipient form. This new construction will not, except bydestruction, be able to transform the structure of places of the old one. It may,by a number of effects we do not have the space to go into here, effect adecline in certain parts or in the whole of the old, but the places and their structure as a whole will remain.

From infrastructural worlds to centresBeyond a view of technology as a generalised factor of modernisation andprogress, or of a synchronic optimisation or efficiency, it becomes instead astrategy and a construction of stable perceptual worlds. But much of this isimpossible to fully understand or even see in a dis-placed and de-worldedthinking. Some of the effects of this will be even less easy to see. We have toget beyond abstractions and the universalisations of language to find theeffects of synoptic technologies and place structures on the everyday livedorders of cities. The example we use here is of the city of Milan.


10/14

Figure 1. The Milan region, highlighting the freeway system.

Milan exists in a region (figure 1) in which it is the dominant centre. The regionhas today become urban, a metropolis consisting of Milan and a number of other centres distributed through the region. Milan centres regionalmovements, a large proportion of which start or end in Milan. We imagine aborder between Milan and the region, but in reality none exists. But Milandoes not dissolve into the regional territory; it maintains its coherence andintegrity as a centre, as do the other centres in the region. So what does itmean to be in Milan? Something does indeed change in the transition,because at one moment we are going to Milan and the next we are in Milan.What has changed is that in the first case we are immersed in metropolitanelements and equipment and between places which are towns and cities; inthe second we are immersed in urban elements and equipment, and betweenplaces which are neighbourhoods and urban centre. Being inside means

being in a different infrastructure , and a different perceptual world. And wecan map this, so while we cannot put a line to the edge that separates the


11/14

inside of Milan from the outside, we can most certainly map the movementnetworks that constitute being inside Milan as well as those that constitutebeing outside Milan but inside the region.

Figure 2. Milan, highlighting the metro system. Size of metro stops relates todiversity of users.

Figure 2 shows the Milan metro system the subject of the research thatthese drawings are part of. Being in the metro means being part of a synopticthat, for those moderately practiced at it, is the whole of the city of Milan. TheMetro doesnt connect things arbitrarily; it connects things that are understoodto be the parts of the whole city. And in the process it constructs andstabilises the city as a whole and as a distribution of parts. Most of these partsare neighbourhoods but closer to the centre we also find some anomalies,with civic and commercial functions and areas.


12/14

Figure 3. Milan, highlighting the 19th C boulevard system. Size of metro stopsrelates to diversity of users.

Figure 3 shows a movement network that articulated, at a different point in thecitys past, the city of Milan. Here, as well, the city was built and consolidatedas a whole. The parts were connected by a movement network of streets andboulevards, and most of the civic and commercial functions mentioned above

were the parts in the whole city at this point in time. A whole city wasconstructed then which has transformed but never been deconstructed. Themetro was a strategy, at the time, for constructing a new or greater Milan.The older city is still experienced as a whole city today, in a different(somewhat slower) technology and infrastructure of places. It is a city within alarger city which is itself within a region, and we see a layering of wholes,each with their appropriate parts and infrastructures and establishing layeredstructures of places. It is a layering that profoundly affects the activity,intensity and perceptual values of places. The most vivid and diversely usedplaces in the city today are those that incorporate the most layers of city.


13/14

Figure 4. Metro system transects showing use of stops by different user

groups.

This vividness and intensity has nothing to do with centrality if by centrality wemean being at the centre of an area seen in the zenith view places arecentral by virtue of the way they situate us in technically constructed worldsthat open out onto other worlds in a construction and perception of the city indepth. Centrality is an effect of people and of their embeddedness in thestrategically constructed perceptual and political worlds that make up cities.

References:

Arendt, H. (1970) The Human Condition (Chicago: Chicago University Press).

Castells, M. (1989) The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban Regional Process (Oxford: Blackwell).

Dijst, M. (1999) Action space as planning concept in spatial planning in:Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment , 14(2) pp.163-182

Elden, S. (2008) Eugen Fink and the Question of the World in: Parrhesia 5

Harvey, D. (2008) The Right to the City in: New Left Review 53

Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment (London: Routledge).

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures. How the sciences makeknowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Knorr Cetina, K. (2003) From Pipes to Scopes: The flow architecture of financial markets in: Distinktion 7 pp.7-23

Knorr Cetina, K. (2009) The Synthetic Situation: Interactionism for a Global


14/14

World in: Symbolic Interaction 32(1), pp.6187,

Latour, B. & E. Hermant (2006) Paris: Invisible City , trans. by L. Carey-Libbrecht. Online: < http://www.bruno-latour.fr/livres/viii_paris-city-gb.pdf>Translation of: B. Latour & E. Hermant (1998) Paris ville invisible (Paris: La

Dcouverte-Les Empcheurs de penser en rond).Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space , trans. by D. Nicholson-Smith(Oxford: Blackwell).

Lefebvre, H. (1996) The Right to the City in: Writings on Cities , trans. & ed.by E. Kaufman & E. Lebas (Oxford: Blackwell).

Massey, D. (1994) A Global Sense of Place in: Space, Place and Gender (Cambridge, Polity).

[2010] infrastructure as world-building

Documents