Deadline: 11 March, 2012<\/strong><\/p>\nLarge technical urban systems have represented a major source of science
\nand technology study (STS) insight and innovation (e.g. Hommels 2005)<\/p>\n
[Ed. See Hommels, A. (2005). “STS and the City. Toward a productive fusion
\nbetween STS and urban studies?” Paper presented at the “Urban Science:
\nRe-Negotiating the Boundaries between Science, Technology and Society?”
\nworkshop, Manchester UK, 12-14 January 2005].<\/p>\n
However, the city, urban life, and urban politics have only recently been
\nsubjected to the relentless relationalism of ANT and post-ANT studies. In
\nthis context, the notion of \u2018 urban assemblages\u2019 (Far\u00edas and Bender 2009,
\nBlok 2011) has been mobilized to challenge a priori separations between
\nusers-producers of urban space (e.g. expert\/lay), and to establish an
\nexplorative inquiry into the ways in which human and nonhuman entities come
\ntogether in the city. Focusing on urban assemblages involves depicting the
\ncity as a multiple object, continuously crafted and performed at
\ndistributed sites.<\/p>\n
[Ed. Far\u00edas, Ignacio & Bender, Thomas (Eds.) (2009) _Urban Assemblages. How
\nActor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. Questioning Cities_. London\/New
\nYork, NY: Routledge, XVII, 333 S.<\/p>\n
Anders Blok (2011) “Urban Green Assemblages: An Ant View on Sustainable
\nCity Building Projects” Paper presentation in conference “Linking STS and
\nthe Social Sciences”. Seoul, South Korea.]<\/p>\n
The assemblage approach to cities has not gone unnoticed in the larger field
\nof (critical) urban studies, where passionate debate is taking place about
\nthe knowledge gains of STS and actor-network theory (ANT) (e.g. McFarlane
\n2011). Much of this debate concerns well-known STS issues of the proper
\nmeaning of \u2018politics\u2019. From an assemblage perspective, urban controversy
\ncannot be reduced to the clash of human interests; rather, city-making
\nprocesses resembles a form of object-oriented \u2018cosmopolitics\u2019 (Latour
\n2004). To establish the value of ANT (and STS) approaches to the city, we
\nneed more careful attention to how a common urban cosmos comes to be
\nconstructed in and across multiple sites of human and non-human practice.<\/p>\n
[Ed. Colin McFarlane (2011) “Assemblage and Critical Urbanism.” _CITY_
\n15(2)<\/p>\n
Bruno Latour (2004) “Whose Cosmos? Which Cosmopolitics? A Commentary on
\nUlrich Beck’s Peace Proposal” _Common Knowledge_ 10(3): 450-462.]<\/p>\n
We welcome all paper presentations which, on the basis of empirical research,
\naims to further develop an assemblage approach to city-making and\/or the
\nstudy of urban cosmopolitics.<\/p>\n
Please submit your abstract electronically via the webpage of the
\nconference:<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.4sonline.org\/meeting<\/p>\n
The deadline for abstract submissions is March 11.
\nFor further information contact:<\/p>\n
Ignacio Farias (farias@wzb.eu) or
\nAnders Blok (abl@soc.ku.dk)<\/p>\n
Ignacio Farias
\nSenior Researcher
\nCultural Sources of Newness Research Unit
\nSocial Science Research Center Berlin (WZB)
\nhttp:\/\/www.wzb.eu\/de\/personen\/ignacio-farias<\/p>\n
H-Urban E-mail address: h-urban@h-net.msu.edu (Click: mailto:h-urban@h-net.msu.edu )
\nPlease use for ALL mail to H-Urban, including postings, inquiries, and comments.<\/p>\n
H-Urban (http:\/\/www.h-net.org\/~urban) is affiliated with the International Planning History Society
\n (IPHS, at http:\/\/www.planninghistory.org ), the Society for American City and Regional Planning History
\n(SACRPH, at http:\/\/www.sacrph.org ),and the Urban History Association (UHA, at http:\/\/uha.udayton.edu ).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
URBAN ASSEMBLAGES AND COSMOPOLITICS “Design and displacement – Social studies of science and technology” Biennial Conference of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) and the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) Copenhagen, Denmark 17-20 October, 2012 http:\/\/www.easst.net\/conferences\/easst2012.shtml Deadline: 11 March, 2012 Large technical urban systems have represented a major … <\/p>\n
Continue reading “PANEL SEARCH: URBAN ASSEMBLAGES AND COSMOPOLITICS “Design and displacement – Social studies of science and technology” 17.-20.10.12 Copenhagen”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[102],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=398"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":399,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398\/revisions\/399"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}