- Rachel Carson Center / Deutsches Museum - Munich, Germany
- Environmental History, Cultural History, History, History of Science, History of geography, Climate Change, and 12 moreClimate Change Impacts, Historical Climatology, Social History, Colonialism, Imperialism, Anthropocene, Environmental Humanities, Infrastructure, History of Technology, History of Science and Technology, History of Medicine, and Stoffgeschichteedit
- Hello, I am Postdoctoral Researcher at the Research Institute for the History of Science and Technology at the Deutsc... moreHello, I am Postdoctoral Researcher at the Research Institute for the History of Science and Technology at the Deutsches Museum Munich. My broader research interests center on the intersections of history of science, technology, and environment. I recently published my PhD thesis The Birth of Geoengineering with Wallstein.
My current postdoctoral project deals with the history of creosote. The material history of this coal tar oil – that is used until day for wood impregnation – combines research perspectives from the history of technology (such as on maintenance and repair) with environmental history as well as medical history. Its name is connected today with dozens of contaminated land sites, thousands of tons of hazardous waste and burning environmental justice issues that I explore in my project.
Please also visit my website: www.martinmeiske.comedit
Beyond the Lab and the Field analyzes infrastructures as intense sites of knowledge production in the Americas, Europe, and Asia since the late nineteenth century. Moving beyond classical places known for yielding scientific knowledge,... more
Beyond the Lab and the Field analyzes infrastructures as intense sites of knowledge production in the Americas, Europe, and Asia since the late nineteenth century. Moving beyond classical places known for yielding scientific knowledge, chapters in this volume explore how the construction and maintenance of canals, highways, dams, irrigation schemes, the oil industry, and logistic networks intersected with the creation of know-how and expertise. Referred to by the authors as “scientific bonanzas,” such intersections reveal opportunities for great wealth, but also distress and misfortune.
This volume explores how innovative technologies provided research opportunities for scientists and engineers, as they relied on expertise to operate, which resulted in enormous profits for some. But, like the history of any gold rush, the history of infrastructure also reveals how technologies of modernity transformed nature, disrupting communities and destroying the local environment. Focusing not on the victory march of science and technology but on ambivalent change, contributors consider the role of infrastructures for ecology, geology, archaeology, soil science, engineering, ethnography, heritage, and polar exploration. Together, they also examine largely overlooked perspectives on modernity: the reliance of infrastructure on knowledge, and infrastructures as places and occasions that inspired a greater understanding of the natural world and the technologically made environment.
This volume explores how innovative technologies provided research opportunities for scientists and engineers, as they relied on expertise to operate, which resulted in enormous profits for some. But, like the history of any gold rush, the history of infrastructure also reveals how technologies of modernity transformed nature, disrupting communities and destroying the local environment. Focusing not on the victory march of science and technology but on ambivalent change, contributors consider the role of infrastructures for ecology, geology, archaeology, soil science, engineering, ethnography, heritage, and polar exploration. Together, they also examine largely overlooked perspectives on modernity: the reliance of infrastructure on knowledge, and infrastructures as places and occasions that inspired a greater understanding of the natural world and the technologically made environment.
Research Interests: History of Science and Technology, Transportation Studies, History of Technology, History of Science, History of the USSR, and 15 moreModernity, History of Biology, History of Geology, Global History, 20th century (History), 19th Century (History), Railway and Transportation History, History of knowledge, History of Life Sciences, History of Archaeology, science and technology studies (STS), Infrastructure, Anthropocene, History of Soil Science, and Envrionmental History
Visionen zur Erdgestaltung sind weit älter als deren Umsetzung. Doch erst seit den 1850er Jahren wurden im Rahmen von immer größeren Bauprojekten jahrmillionenalte natürliche Formationen grundlegend umgeformt. Hier schlägt die... more
Visionen zur Erdgestaltung sind weit älter als deren Umsetzung. Doch erst seit den 1850er Jahren wurden im Rahmen von immer größeren Bauprojekten jahrmillionenalte natürliche Formationen grundlegend umgeformt. Hier schlägt die Geburtsstunde des Geoengineerings, das seinen Ausdruck in spektakulären Eisenbahntunneln, in Ozeane verbindenden Meereskanälen und gewaltigen Staudämmen findet. In dieser Zeit begann sich der Mensch zu einem der wichtigsten Einflussfaktoren auf die biogeochemischen Stoffkreisläufe der Erde zu entwickeln, und es kündigte sich eine neue geochronologische Epoche an, das Anthropozän. Doch es zeigte sich zugleich auch, dass der Beherrschbarkeit der Natur deutliche Grenzen gesetzt sind. Manches Infrastrukturprojekt endete tragisch, Menschen und Ökosysteme in den betroffenen Regionen kämpften über Generationen hinweg mit den Folgen dieser Großbauten. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist die heute zumindest teilweise zögerliche Haltung zu verstehen, größere Eingriffe in die Erdsysteme etwa durch das Climate Engineering vorzunehmen. Martin Meiske widmet sich anhand von sechs faszinierenden Fallbeispielen der Historisierung des Geoengineerings und rekonstruiert die damit verbundenen Voraussetzungen, Auswirkungen und Wahrnehmungen.
Research Interests:
Der Übergang ins Industriezeitalter basierte auf einer neuartigen Nutzung von Rohstoffen: Steinkohle ersetzte Holz als Brennstoff; Eisen und Stahl stiegen zu neuen Schlüsselressourcen auf. Dieses klassische, materielle... more
Der Übergang ins Industriezeitalter basierte auf einer neuartigen Nutzung von Rohstoffen: Steinkohle ersetzte Holz als Brennstoff; Eisen und Stahl stiegen zu neuen Schlüsselressourcen auf. Dieses klassische, materielle Industrialisierungsverständnis haben technik- und umwelthistorische Forschungen in den letzten Jahren revidiert und differenziert. Sie sensibilisierten für regional und sektoral geprägte Industrialisierungspfade, die ein breites Panorama verschiedener Stoffe und Materialien repräsentierten und mitbedingten. Allerdings wurde noch nicht systematisch untersucht, welche Bedeutung der traditionellen Universalressource Holz im Industrialisierungsprozess zukam. In der Phase der deutschen Hochindustrialisierung war Holz als Brenn- ebenso wie als Werkstoff allgegenwärtig; Holzforschung und chemische Industrie entwickelten den Stoff zum innovativen Industrierohstoff (z.B. Zellulose u. Faserstoffe) weiter.
Im ersten Teil gibt der Beitrag einen Überblick über die Bedeutung von Holz in verschiedenen Bereichen der Holzverarbeitung und Holzanwendung um 1900. Im zweiten Teil rücken zwei Gewerbezweige in den Fokus, die mit Blick auf die Persistenz und Wandelbarkeit hölzerner Werkstoffe unterschiedliche Dynamiken aufzeigen: Zunächst geht es um neue Konjunkturen imprägnierter Bahnschwellen aus Holz im Eisenbahnoberbau; anschließend stehen Holzanwendungen im traditionellen Mühlen- und Wasserbau im Blickfeld. Die beiden Fallstudien legen ein weit gefächertes Tableau holzspezifischer Technikkulturen im Industriezeitalter frei. Auf diese Weise trägt der Beitrag zu einem differenzierten Verständnis der stofflichen Dimensionen der Industrialisierung bei und präzisiert das Verhältnis von Alt und Neu inmitten dieser industriellen Transformationsphase.
The transition into the industrial age was based on a novel usage of raw materials: Hard coal replaced wood as fuel; iron and steel became new key resources. In recent years this classical understanding of materials industrialization has been revised and become differentiated in various studies from the histories of technology and the environment. They raised awareness about paths of regional and sectoral industrialization that represented and delineated a broad panorama of different substances and materials. However, the importance that wood as the traditional universal resource had on industrialization has not been investigated systematically. At the height of the German industrialization, wood was pervasive as fuel and as raw material. Wood research and the chemical industry developed this natural substance into an innovative industrial raw material (e.g., cellulose and fiber).
The first part of the article provides an overview of the importance of wood in various sectors of wood processing and applications at the dawn of the 20th century. The second part focuses on two branches that highlight different dynamics in the persistence and variability of wooden materials: First, it discusses new booms in impregnated wooden railroad sleepers in railway superstructure. Then wood applications in traditional millwrighting and hydro-engineering are discussed. These two case studies reveal a wide range of wood-specific applications in the industrial age. In this way, the paper seeks to contribute toward a differentiated understanding of the material dimensions of industrialization and specifies the relationship between the old and the new in this transitional phase.
Im ersten Teil gibt der Beitrag einen Überblick über die Bedeutung von Holz in verschiedenen Bereichen der Holzverarbeitung und Holzanwendung um 1900. Im zweiten Teil rücken zwei Gewerbezweige in den Fokus, die mit Blick auf die Persistenz und Wandelbarkeit hölzerner Werkstoffe unterschiedliche Dynamiken aufzeigen: Zunächst geht es um neue Konjunkturen imprägnierter Bahnschwellen aus Holz im Eisenbahnoberbau; anschließend stehen Holzanwendungen im traditionellen Mühlen- und Wasserbau im Blickfeld. Die beiden Fallstudien legen ein weit gefächertes Tableau holzspezifischer Technikkulturen im Industriezeitalter frei. Auf diese Weise trägt der Beitrag zu einem differenzierten Verständnis der stofflichen Dimensionen der Industrialisierung bei und präzisiert das Verhältnis von Alt und Neu inmitten dieser industriellen Transformationsphase.
The transition into the industrial age was based on a novel usage of raw materials: Hard coal replaced wood as fuel; iron and steel became new key resources. In recent years this classical understanding of materials industrialization has been revised and become differentiated in various studies from the histories of technology and the environment. They raised awareness about paths of regional and sectoral industrialization that represented and delineated a broad panorama of different substances and materials. However, the importance that wood as the traditional universal resource had on industrialization has not been investigated systematically. At the height of the German industrialization, wood was pervasive as fuel and as raw material. Wood research and the chemical industry developed this natural substance into an innovative industrial raw material (e.g., cellulose and fiber).
The first part of the article provides an overview of the importance of wood in various sectors of wood processing and applications at the dawn of the 20th century. The second part focuses on two branches that highlight different dynamics in the persistence and variability of wooden materials: First, it discusses new booms in impregnated wooden railroad sleepers in railway superstructure. Then wood applications in traditional millwrighting and hydro-engineering are discussed. These two case studies reveal a wide range of wood-specific applications in the industrial age. In this way, the paper seeks to contribute toward a differentiated understanding of the material dimensions of industrialization and specifies the relationship between the old and the new in this transitional phase.
Research Interests:
In recent years, the idea of geoengineering, understood as large-scale interventions in the planet's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate change, has steadily increased its visibility. Presented explicitly as an approach to climate... more
In recent years, the idea of geoengineering, understood as large-scale interventions in the planet's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate change, has steadily increased its visibility. Presented explicitly as an approach to climate change, geoengineering is positioned as a response, a reactive fix. Geoengineering, however, has a longer and broader history than the current climate crisis. It has long been an umbrella term for large-scale projects in which various Earth sciences meet dreams about human ecosphere interventions, especially regarding lithosphere and climate and weather modifications. In this paper, we review the history of geoengineering, focusing specifically on climate geoengineering and lithosphere geoengineering. We draw attention to the difference between “proactive” (“high-modernist”), aimed at mastery over nature, and “reactive” forms of geoengineering, hoping to address anthropogenic environmental degradation technologically. Additionally, we trace historical (dis)continuities between the older, proactive, form of geoengineering and their recent reframing as a technological fix—specifically around the question to what extent nature's complex systems can be known and controlled. Finally, we argue for the need to further research the intersections and shared histories between various forms of geoengineering.
Research Interests:
Clio Guide: Technikgeschichte Zunächst führt der Beitrag in die Institutionen der Technikgeschichte und ihre Aktivitäten in Bezug auf die Digitalisierung ein. Der Abschnitt beschreibt zentrale Fachgesellschaften, Universitäten und... more
Clio Guide: Technikgeschichte
Zunächst führt der Beitrag in die Institutionen der Technikgeschichte und ihre Aktivitäten in Bezug auf die Digitalisierung ein. Der Abschnitt beschreibt zentrale Fachgesellschaften, Universitäten und (Forschungs-)Museen. Es folgt ein Überblick zu digitalen Ressourcen in Archiven und Bibliotheken, zu Recherchemöglichkeiten für Rezensionen und Bibliographien sowie ein Einblick in technikgeschichtlich relevante Portale. Der Fokus richtet sich anschließend auf den Strukturwandel im Kommunikationsbereich: Es werden Mailinglisten und Newsletter vorgestellt, die Rolle allgemeiner und wissenschaftlicher Social Media Plattformen reflektiert und Veränderungen in der akademischen Lehre beschrieben, die mit der Digitalisierung in Zusammenhang stehen. Der Abschnitt „elektronische Medien“ wirft ein Licht auf zentrale technikgeschichtliche Zeitschriften und größere elektronische Publikationen sowie auf Blogs, professionelle Websites und Podcasts. Im Resümee folgt noch einmal ein kritischer Blick auf die wissenschaftliche Praxis von Historikerinnen und Historikern im digitalen Zeitalter: Was sind die Chancen und Herausforderungen beim Arbeiten mit digitalen Ressourcen? Bringen Technikhistorikerinnen und Technikhistoriker vielleicht sogar ein besonders geeignetes Set an Methoden mit, um diesen Wandel erfolgreich zu bestreiten?
Zunächst führt der Beitrag in die Institutionen der Technikgeschichte und ihre Aktivitäten in Bezug auf die Digitalisierung ein. Der Abschnitt beschreibt zentrale Fachgesellschaften, Universitäten und (Forschungs-)Museen. Es folgt ein Überblick zu digitalen Ressourcen in Archiven und Bibliotheken, zu Recherchemöglichkeiten für Rezensionen und Bibliographien sowie ein Einblick in technikgeschichtlich relevante Portale. Der Fokus richtet sich anschließend auf den Strukturwandel im Kommunikationsbereich: Es werden Mailinglisten und Newsletter vorgestellt, die Rolle allgemeiner und wissenschaftlicher Social Media Plattformen reflektiert und Veränderungen in der akademischen Lehre beschrieben, die mit der Digitalisierung in Zusammenhang stehen. Der Abschnitt „elektronische Medien“ wirft ein Licht auf zentrale technikgeschichtliche Zeitschriften und größere elektronische Publikationen sowie auf Blogs, professionelle Websites und Podcasts. Im Resümee folgt noch einmal ein kritischer Blick auf die wissenschaftliche Praxis von Historikerinnen und Historikern im digitalen Zeitalter: Was sind die Chancen und Herausforderungen beim Arbeiten mit digitalen Ressourcen? Bringen Technikhistorikerinnen und Technikhistoriker vielleicht sogar ein besonders geeignetes Set an Methoden mit, um diesen Wandel erfolgreich zu bestreiten?
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Martin Meiske - Rezension zu Sara B. Pritchard / Carl A. Zimring: Technology and the Environment in History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020), in: Technikgeschichte 88.4 (2021), S. 415-16.
Research Interests: History of Science and Technology, Modern History, History of Medicine, Transnational and World History, Disaster Studies, and 15 moreHistory of Technology, Environmental History, Labour history, Discard Studies, Food History, Global History, Social History, Infrastructure studies, science and technology studies (STS), Anthropocene, Umweltgeschichte, Technikgeschichte, Envirotech, Stoffgeschichte, and Science and Technology Studies
Martin Meiske on Carl A. Zimring, "Aluminum Upcycled. Sustainable Design in Historical Perspective," ICON 23 (2017): 176-178. [book review]
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Please join our Montagskolloquium in Spring 2024! In this collaboration between the Deutsches Museum and global dis:connect, Fabienne Will, Roland Wenzlhuemer, and I have organized a rich program at the intersection of Envirotech History,... more
Please join our Montagskolloquium in Spring 2024! In this collaboration between the Deutsches Museum and global dis:connect, Fabienne Will, Roland Wenzlhuemer, and I have organized a rich program at the intersection of Envirotech History, Global History, and Museum Studies.
More information ➡️ https://www.deutsches-museum.de/forschung/forschungsinstitut/vortragsreihen/montagskolloquium
#envhist #histtech #envirotech #globalhist #histSTM
More information ➡️ https://www.deutsches-museum.de/forschung/forschungsinstitut/vortragsreihen/montagskolloquium
#envhist #histtech #envirotech #globalhist #histSTM
Research Interests:
Im WS 2023/24 steht das Montagskolloquium am Deutschen Museum in München unter dem Motto „Stoffgeschichte – Die Materialität von Wissenschaft und Technik“. Die Veranstaltung ist hybrid, d.h. Sie können sich online einwählen oder... more
Im WS 2023/24 steht das Montagskolloquium am Deutschen Museum in München unter dem Motto „Stoffgeschichte – Die Materialität von Wissenschaft und Technik“.
Die Veranstaltung ist hybrid, d.h. Sie können sich online einwählen oder natürlich die Veranstaltung auf der Museumsinsel persönlich besuchen!
Alle Infos und den Zoom-Link finden Sie hier: https://www.deutsches-museum.de/forschung/forschungsinstitut/vortragsreihen/montagskolloquium
PROGRAMM:
23.10.23: Dr. Rebecca Wolf (SIM Berlin): Materia Musica – Klang und Materialität im Instrumentenbau
06.11.23: PD Dr. Jens Soentgen (Universität Augsburg): Stoffgeschichten aus Sicht der stoffgeschichtlichen Forschung: Ausgangspunkte, Methodik und ein Fallbeispiel
27.11.23: Prof. Dr. Friedrich Steinle (TU Berlin): System, Materialität, Praxis: Konflikte zur Farbenordnung im 18. Jahrhundert
11.12.23: Prof. Dr. Stefan Simon (SMB Berlin): Navigieren zwischen Erhaltung, Authentizität und Zugänglichkeit – Alltag im Rathgen-Forschungslabor
08.01.24: Prof. Dr. Andrea Funck (ABK Stuttgart): Was bewegt gegenwärtig die Konservierungs- und Restaurierungswissenschaft? Beispiele und Möglichkeiten des Wissenstransfers zwischen Hochschule und Museum
29.01.24: Dr. Christian Zumbrägel (TU Berlin): Helium in Bewegung. Flüchtiges Speichern in der Stoff- und Infrastrukturgeschichte (1920-1960)
Die Veranstaltung ist hybrid, d.h. Sie können sich online einwählen oder natürlich die Veranstaltung auf der Museumsinsel persönlich besuchen!
Alle Infos und den Zoom-Link finden Sie hier: https://www.deutsches-museum.de/forschung/forschungsinstitut/vortragsreihen/montagskolloquium
PROGRAMM:
23.10.23: Dr. Rebecca Wolf (SIM Berlin): Materia Musica – Klang und Materialität im Instrumentenbau
06.11.23: PD Dr. Jens Soentgen (Universität Augsburg): Stoffgeschichten aus Sicht der stoffgeschichtlichen Forschung: Ausgangspunkte, Methodik und ein Fallbeispiel
27.11.23: Prof. Dr. Friedrich Steinle (TU Berlin): System, Materialität, Praxis: Konflikte zur Farbenordnung im 18. Jahrhundert
11.12.23: Prof. Dr. Stefan Simon (SMB Berlin): Navigieren zwischen Erhaltung, Authentizität und Zugänglichkeit – Alltag im Rathgen-Forschungslabor
08.01.24: Prof. Dr. Andrea Funck (ABK Stuttgart): Was bewegt gegenwärtig die Konservierungs- und Restaurierungswissenschaft? Beispiele und Möglichkeiten des Wissenstransfers zwischen Hochschule und Museum
29.01.24: Dr. Christian Zumbrägel (TU Berlin): Helium in Bewegung. Flüchtiges Speichern in der Stoff- und Infrastrukturgeschichte (1920-1960)
Research Interests:
Bonanza is the place called where two mother lodes, rich in gold or silver, meet. The bonanza of our project is at the crossroads of technological infrastructures and scientific discovery. We invited contributions that analyse historical... more
Bonanza is the place called where two mother lodes, rich in gold or silver, meet. The bonanza of our project is at the crossroads of technological infrastructures and scientific discovery. We invited contributions that analyse historical examples of large-scale construction projects— sites proven to have provided unique opportunities for researchers from all disciplines.
It seems that the relations between infrastructures and scientific knowledge underwent a change during the twentieth century. While in the nineteenth century “mega projects” offered opportunities for research, later the production of infrastructures and the production of knowledge seemed to have become increasingly interwoven. Planning—the modelling of future trends , technological impacts, and ecological evaluations—became integral part of infrastructure projects. Do we see a steady accumulation of scientific and technologic expertise or can we identify certain turning points, such as the failure of the French Panama Canal project, the interwar period, and the Cold War? Moreover, knowledge (about ecological consequences for example) became a tool to criticise, change, or stop construction plans. When did these changes occur? Are there other timelines, other continuities, or ruptures?
To understand infrastructures as unique opportunities for knowledge production challenges notions of technologies as applied sciences. The perspective opens up other questions too, for example: If infrastructures “locked up” territories and gave nation states and colonial empires the tools for rule, how can we understand the relations between power and different forms of knowledge? National, global, and imperial projects that rely on technological and scientific expertise challenge familiar categories of culture, politics, environment, science and technology. The scientific bonanzas we are interested in are characterised by hybrid actors, as well as the circulation of knowledge and practices between various societies and regions of the globe.
Research as a side product of construction
It seems that infrastructures often became scientific bonanzas by chance. The construction of major canal projects, such as the Kiel Canal or the Panama Canal, provided geologists with unique opportunities to research cross-sections of large regions and produce detailed geological tableaus. The construction of roads or buildings leads to unexpected archaeological findings until today. The construction of motorways under National Socialism allowed medical doctors to research and describe hundreds of cases of typical injuries resulting from manual work, highlighting the fact that technology and knowledge production are not politically innocent but can be deeply interwoven with ideology. We invite submissions that present examples of how knowledge production was a “side product” of infrastructure projects.
Knowledge production as a formative element of infrastructure projects
Yet it also seems that there was a significant change that distinguishes the second part of the twentieth century from what had happened before. All forms of knowledge became played a part in legitimising, asserting or confronting infrastructure projects. For example, the concepts of planning traffic and of modelling traffic flows became integral part of infrastructure projects; often they contribute to conceiving and defining them. This again confronts us with questions of power: Whose interests were represented, whose seemed scientifically relevant, whose interests were excluded? To what degree is this nexus between knowledge and legitimisation universally true for the second half of the twentieth century? What role do national, ideological, colonial, or postcolonial contexts play?
Knowledge as de-legitimisation of infrastructure projects
Yet, knowledge not only came to play a major part in the conception and legitimisation of infrastructure projects, it also became a tool to de-legitimise them. How and when was knowledge used to criticise infrastructure projects? When did the modelling of ecological impacts start to develop subversive potential? What other rationales – besides the ecological – were challenging infrastructures? When does this story start? Was it the environmental movement of the 70s that triggered ecological counter-narratives, or can earlier shifts be observed?
It seems that the relations between infrastructures and scientific knowledge underwent a change during the twentieth century. While in the nineteenth century “mega projects” offered opportunities for research, later the production of infrastructures and the production of knowledge seemed to have become increasingly interwoven. Planning—the modelling of future trends , technological impacts, and ecological evaluations—became integral part of infrastructure projects. Do we see a steady accumulation of scientific and technologic expertise or can we identify certain turning points, such as the failure of the French Panama Canal project, the interwar period, and the Cold War? Moreover, knowledge (about ecological consequences for example) became a tool to criticise, change, or stop construction plans. When did these changes occur? Are there other timelines, other continuities, or ruptures?
To understand infrastructures as unique opportunities for knowledge production challenges notions of technologies as applied sciences. The perspective opens up other questions too, for example: If infrastructures “locked up” territories and gave nation states and colonial empires the tools for rule, how can we understand the relations between power and different forms of knowledge? National, global, and imperial projects that rely on technological and scientific expertise challenge familiar categories of culture, politics, environment, science and technology. The scientific bonanzas we are interested in are characterised by hybrid actors, as well as the circulation of knowledge and practices between various societies and regions of the globe.
Research as a side product of construction
It seems that infrastructures often became scientific bonanzas by chance. The construction of major canal projects, such as the Kiel Canal or the Panama Canal, provided geologists with unique opportunities to research cross-sections of large regions and produce detailed geological tableaus. The construction of roads or buildings leads to unexpected archaeological findings until today. The construction of motorways under National Socialism allowed medical doctors to research and describe hundreds of cases of typical injuries resulting from manual work, highlighting the fact that technology and knowledge production are not politically innocent but can be deeply interwoven with ideology. We invite submissions that present examples of how knowledge production was a “side product” of infrastructure projects.
Knowledge production as a formative element of infrastructure projects
Yet it also seems that there was a significant change that distinguishes the second part of the twentieth century from what had happened before. All forms of knowledge became played a part in legitimising, asserting or confronting infrastructure projects. For example, the concepts of planning traffic and of modelling traffic flows became integral part of infrastructure projects; often they contribute to conceiving and defining them. This again confronts us with questions of power: Whose interests were represented, whose seemed scientifically relevant, whose interests were excluded? To what degree is this nexus between knowledge and legitimisation universally true for the second half of the twentieth century? What role do national, ideological, colonial, or postcolonial contexts play?
Knowledge as de-legitimisation of infrastructure projects
Yet, knowledge not only came to play a major part in the conception and legitimisation of infrastructure projects, it also became a tool to de-legitimise them. How and when was knowledge used to criticise infrastructure projects? When did the modelling of ecological impacts start to develop subversive potential? What other rationales – besides the ecological – were challenging infrastructures? When does this story start? Was it the environmental movement of the 70s that triggered ecological counter-narratives, or can earlier shifts be observed?
Research Interests:
presented at the 8th ESEH Conference, Versailles, France - 30/6-03/07 2015; awarded "1st prize" by the ESEH Poster Prize Committee