Back in the Saddle

Ooops. I've let the blog slide. And it's such a good way to get moving... Well, this entry is back in the saddle in more ways than one. While I've been mulling, pulling out hair (what's left), and writing, I've been returning, as a dawg to its vomit, via the problematic of "the breach", as we've uncovered it, to Habermas. (sigh) Namely, as I have been conceiving it (why do I say "I"? my conception is heavily indebted to theories of large technical systems generally, particularly those of a social-constructivist bent (if that's not all of them), as well as to latter day critics, such as actor-network theorists), infrastructure is properly best seen as process. Upon reading Paul Edwards' musings on "infrastructuration" (fascinating and original approach; terrible word...), I've been re-coding my thinking a bit by way of Habermas. As Paul describes it, "Infrastructure and Modernity" (.pdf), theories of infrastructure are often (one surmises, pathologically) bifurcated methodologically by scale. On one hand, we have Hughes' sweeping grand history of systems builders. On the other, we have, say, the social meaning of the telephone. In other words, infrastructures appear to be built by folks who rig gigantic stretches of hardware. On the other, infrastructure is best seen as a question of adoption by a lay public, whose randomness and manifold nature are the wellspring of the various flukes and compromises (ah, the QWERTY keyboard!) that define and shape. The obvious problem, of course, is that both of these perspectives are crucial to understanding how the Second Creation gets built and integrated into everyday life. Paul argues that what is necessary is a multi-scalar approach, one that links these rather different domains (as well as their rather different lifespans). For Paul, infrastructuration is essentially a dance among these scales and levels. The dance is hardly choreographed, formalized or readily apparent. Indeed, it is bloody hard to specify and study. My general agreement with Paul's perspective has caused me of late to re-ruminate on Habermas, particularly his notions of system and lifeworld. Infrastructure, then, gets built as system-builders conceive and superimpose their creations (whether they be water systems, railroads, telephones, or broadband) on a world in which the everydayness of existing systems is already taken for granted. As systems settle into the frame of expectations of folks, they become, a component of shared meaning, which is precisely how Habermas defines the lifeworld. In my own project, I'm interested in assessing how community-level engagement (dare we call it communicative action? Nah...) leads to changes in (in my cases increases in) how hardware gets deployed. I'm looking, in other words, at the breach between system and lifeworld and asking how communicative action pushes system-builders to appreciate and instantiate the prerogatives of the latter.