The costs of public involvement: everyday devices of carbon accounting and the materialization of participation

Abstract This paper seeks to contribute to the development of device-centred perspectives on public participation through an analysis of everyday technologies of carbon accounting. Such instruments are currently put forward, in the UK and elsewhere, as a way of locating environmental engagement in everyday practices, such as cooking and heating. The paper considers whether and how these technologies can be said to ‘materialize’ public participation. It argues that the materialization of engagement entails a particular codification of it: as participation is located in everyday material practice, it comes to be defined in terms of its doability and the investment of effort. Material participation, then, does not refer just to its mediation by things: it involves the deployment of specific legitimatory tropes associated with liberal theories of citizenship and the domestication of technology, in particular the notion that the engagement of everyday subjects requires things to be ‘made easy’ (Pateman, 1989; Schwartz Cowan, 1983). To make sense of this confluence of political and technological ideals, the paper takes up the notion of ‘co-articulation’ (Callon, 2009). A distinctive feature of the everyday devices of accounting under consideration here, I argue, is their ability to ‘co-articulate’ participation with other registers: those of innovation and economy. In this respect, the spaces of participation organized with the aid of these technologies can be qualified as spaces of ‘multi-valent’ action. Different carbon-accounting devices do this, however, in different ways, and this has consequences for how we understand the wider normative implications of the ‘materialization’ of environmental participation. In some cases, materialization entails the minimization of social, material and political changes, while in others it enables the exploration and amplification of precisely these modes of change.

[1]  R. McKechnie,et al.  Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge , 2007 .

[2]  Franck Cochoy,et al.  A Brief Theory of the `Captation' of Publics , 2007 .

[3]  R. D'amico Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , 1978, Telos.

[4]  John Dewey,et al.  Theory of valuation , 1939 .

[5]  H. Harbers,et al.  Book Review: Putting Science in Its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge; The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice , 2005 .

[6]  Alfred Schutz,et al.  The Well-Informed Citizen , 1976 .

[7]  K. Asdal Enacting things through numbers: Taking nature into account/ing , 2008 .

[8]  Don Slater,et al.  The technological economy , 2005 .

[9]  R. Carnap,et al.  INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF UNIFIED SCIENCE. , 1939, Science.

[10]  J. Lezaun A Market of Opinions: The Political Epistemology of Focus Groups , 2007 .

[11]  B. Latour We Have Never Been Modern , 1991 .

[12]  C. Lawrence The pasteurization of France , 1990, Medical History.

[13]  The Ethics of Waste: How We Relate to Rubbish , 2006 .

[14]  W. Lippmann The Phantom Public , 1925 .

[15]  A. Agrawal Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects , 2005 .

[16]  R. Schwartz The “Industrial Revolution” in the Home: Household Technology and Social Change in the 20th Century , 1992 .

[17]  Joan H. Fujimura,et al.  Constructing `Do-able' Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment , 1987 .

[18]  Heather Chappells,et al.  Pathways of smart metering development: shaping environmental innovation , 1999 .

[19]  Christopher Kelty,et al.  Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software , 2008 .

[20]  A. Barry Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society , 2001 .

[21]  Damian Tambini,et al.  Book review: political machines: governing a technological society, by Andrew Barry. New York: Athlone, 2001 , 2002 .

[22]  L. Suchman Agencies in Technology Design: Feminist Reconfigurations* , 2020, Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics.

[23]  Andrew Dobson,et al.  Citizenship and the environment , 2003 .

[24]  R. Schiffer,et al.  INTRODUCTION , 1988, Neurology.

[25]  E. Shove Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality , 2003 .

[26]  Celia Lury,et al.  Inventive methods : the happening of the social , 2012 .

[27]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Home Beyond Home , 2009 .

[28]  Javier Lezaun,et al.  Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics , 2007 .

[29]  M. Callon The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle , 1986 .

[30]  Celia Lury,et al.  Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social London , 2012 .

[31]  L Galambos A technological economy. , 1994, Science.

[32]  Donna Haraway,et al.  A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies , 1994 .

[33]  N. Rose,et al.  Do the social sciences create phenomena?: the example of public opinion research. , 1999, The British journal of sociology.

[34]  Eric Helleiner,et al.  Subprime catalyst: Financial regulatory reform and the strengthening of US carbon market governance , 2013 .

[35]  S. Hinchliffe,et al.  Helping the earth begins at home The social construction of socio-environmental responsibilities , 1996 .

[36]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence , 1999 .

[37]  Kersty Hobson,et al.  Bins, Bulbs, and Shower Timers: On the ‘Techno-Ethics’ of Sustainable Living , 2006 .

[38]  Michel Callon,et al.  Gino’s lesson on humanity: genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist’s role , 2004 .

[39]  P. Macnaghten Embodying the Environment in Everyday Life Practices , 2003 .

[40]  M. Foucault,et al.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. , 1978 .

[41]  Marc Stears Demanding Democracy: American Radicals in Search of a New Politics , 2010 .

[42]  José María Arribas Macho En quoi consiste l'Amérique?: les statistiques, le New Deal et la démocratie , 2009 .

[43]  J. Wajcman Feminism Confronts Technology , 1991 .

[44]  David N. Pellow Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility , 2008 .

[45]  D. MacKenzie Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets , 2009 .

[46]  Ruth Schwartz Cowan,et al.  More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave , 1985 .

[47]  M. Foucault,et al.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , 2020, On Violence.

[48]  Alexander C. E. Aylett,et al.  The Work of Policy: Actor Networks, Governmentality, and Local Action on Climate Change in Portland, Oregon , 2008 .

[49]  M. Callon Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments , 2009 .

[50]  Richard A. Berk,et al.  Public Perceptions of Climate Change: A 'Willingness to Pay' Assessment , 1998 .

[51]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake , 2007 .

[52]  A. Barry On interactivity: Consumers, citizens and culture , 2010 .

[53]  若林 翼 Law for Gendered Workers in Japan : Revisiting Feminist Critiques of the Public/Private Dichotomy (松浦好治教授退職記念論文集) , 2013 .

[54]  N. Marres The Making of Climate Publics: Eco-homes as Material Devices of Publicity , 2008 .

[55]  SarahDarby,et al.  Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? , 2010 .

[56]  V. Broto The ethics of waste: How we relate to rubbish , 2007 .

[57]  R. Slocum Consumer Citizens and the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign , 2004 .

[58]  R. Cowan The “Industrial Revolution” in the Home: Household Technology and Social Change in the 20th Century , 2023, Technology and culture.

[59]  Madeleine Akrich,et al.  The De-scription of Technical Objects , 1992 .

[60]  R. Gordon Ethnomethodology , 1976 .

[61]  Sarah C. Darby,et al.  Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? , 2010 .

[62]  B. Anderson,et al.  Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism , 1986 .