Hvordan mister ting sin verdi? Tema > møbler
June 17, 2010, 10:55
Filed under: Science and Technology Studies | Tags:

Jeg gjør for tiden en webundersøkelse i forbindelse med min masteroppgave som handler om hvordan ting/gjenstander mister sin verdi. Har du 10 minutter, og besvarer spørsmålene i undersøkelsen kan du vinne fine premier! Temaet for undersøkelsen er møbler.

Trykk på linken for å komme til undersøkelsen:

http://historienomting.questionpro.com



Field work

I took a trip to a big recycling station in Oslo to see what people throw away, and hopefully talk to them about why. There was quite a long line of cars going into the station, and it took me about 20 minutes to get in. When I drove into the area I pretended to be there for the same reason as everybody else, to throw something away. I wanted to observe before I revealed myself. I brought my camera, which might not have been such a good idea because it made people nervous. I took a few photos down in the containers, not of people as they threw things into them, but only of what was already down there. I heard someone whisper behind me, “hm, why is she taking pictures?”. The situation was a bit uncomfortable. I felt like I was there to expose someone, and that people felt exposed, caught in the act so to say. I could not get my self to ask someone for an interview because I was experiencing such strong discomfort by the situation, and was struggling with the feeling of getting too close to people, like I was disturbing them in a private matter. In addition, I found no opening remark that could be disarming. No matter how I rephrased my opening line, I felt like I was standing there raising my finger at people, accusing them of something and moralizing. There was a stressful atmosphere at the site, people were running to and from their vehicles with “rubbish” to do away with. It seemed to me that they just wanted to be very quickly done with this uncomfortable, boring but necessary task. I can imagine the relief they felt when they were driving out the gate – finally rid of that old junk! I tried to chat with some of the older guys that worked there. They were nice and confirmed that people throw a lot of useful stuff. Although there is a container for reusable things for Fretex to pick up and sell in their stores, much is still thrown in with other materials in the waste containers. Probably because people either do not know that there is a Fretex container, they can not be bothered to be doing that much sorting and therefore throw everything in the same container, or they simply define some of the usable stuff not to be usable. After a while one of the guys in the staff approached me and told me that there were some people wondering what I was doing, since I was taking pictures, it was not allowed to take pictures on the premises. I replied that I was only looking at what people were throwing away, since I was writing my thesis on waste, and I did not think it would be a big deal looking around since the station is a public place. Well, the guy did not agree that it was a public place and told me to clear the matter with a woman at the office. If not, I could risk being “thrown on my head into one of the containers”. Oh dear, I said, and began to walk towards the office. On the way there, I was very unsure about the whole thing and decided that I had to figure out a new strategy before talking to the office people. I sneaked back to my car and drove off.

The discomfort I felt, and the discomfort I interpreted into the people who were there actually says something about how I and probably many others feel about disposing of things. There are in many cases negative emotions tied to the act of disposal. This immoral contribution to our materialistic culture. That is probably why we often postpone the act itself for quite a long time. People store things in attics, basements, cabins, try to sell it or give it away. It is only when none of these options work, that most people drive it to a recycling station or a landfill. I think that this is the last resort for many people. For others it may certainly be the easiest way out, the most effective one if they want to get rid of something as quickly as possible. These people ignore the negative emotions the might have regarding wastefulness, if they have any, and just do what they have to. Whilst driving out the gate relief comes to most people. The stuff can be forgotten about. Out of sight out of mind, isn´t that how it is?

(Above: The Fretex container)

So, I have been processing this experience in my mind since last friday, and decided to try again. This time I am going to clear it with the right people at the office. I have already sent an email making a request for the permission to interview people while they are waiting in their cars to get in to the station. Hopefully they will be more open for an interview in this situation. The reply came quickly from the office, but the email was passed on to the right person and I am still awaiting the response.

——

To be continued…



Mary Douglas

The struggle and the search for authenticity is haunting a lot of people. It is visible just by looking at people around you. Some still can´t let go of the thought that some people just are, that there are people unconscious of their appearance.  Sadly, I must agree with Mary Douglas.

“There are no items of clothing or of food or of other practical use which we do not seize upon as theatrical props to dramatise the way we want to present our roles and the scene we are playing in. Everything we do is significant, nothing is without its conscious symbolic load. Moreover, nothing is lost on the audience.” — Mary Douglas



The Definition of Waste

In our time the concept of waste has developed into a significant issue which concerns all of society; governments, industry, community, nature, science and technology. One could say, in the way that Bruno Latour claims there to be no Nature with a capital N, there is also no Waste with a capital W. Waste is a term constructed by humans. To define what is waste or not there has to be some social order to define it. A quick reading through some of the official documents released on the issues of waste in Norway reveals an array of definitions to different categories of waste and what goes into them. Industrial waste, municipal waste, demolition and construction waste, hazardous waste and so on.

Waste brings with it many problems. There are toxic chemicals, depletion of natural resources, emissions, various social problems of exploitation, health, poverty and loss of habitat to mention some. The problems are grounded in how society is constructed. The goal of the market economy is infinite growth through the steady flow of capital and goods. This flow of goods has turned into a flow of waste, because the timeframe in which the goods are perceived to usable is getting smaller and smaller. Low quality non repairable products, low prices (externalized costs), fashion and marketing are accelerating the turnover of material goods.

Governments are dealing with the issue of waste through laws and regulations. An increasing effort in waste management through government is certainly improving conditions caused by the effects of the problem, but at the same time some of the effort is being annulled by the vast increase in the amount of waste. In Norway the growth in waste has now passed the growth of the economy measured in GDP (Klima- og forurensningsdirektoratet, 2010).

As Annie Leonard writes in the book “The Story of Stuff” (2010), waste is not defined by what it is but by where it is. The definition of waste is interesting because it determines action taken on it. For my master thesis I have decided to look into definitions made of waste by the Norwegian government and how these definitions are co-produced with policy and technology development in the sector. How is the notion of waste conceptualized? How are new categories of waste formed? Who are the experts in demarcating the categories of waste? My assumption is that there is a need for a redifinition of the concept of waste which has emerged through time because it is now unable to deal with the problems caused by the out dated definitions

Bruno Latour´s bold statement “there is no Nature with a capital N” is refreshing (How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy, 2004). Maybe the same would be true for the concept of Waste? As I have established through his thoughts; how waste is defined is a product of processes and relationships within the networks of sciences, natures and politics. To create new thought on the concept of Waste one must look at wastes (in the plural) intertwined in different networks. Again to compare with Latour´s concept of natures; issues concerning natures always have to do with specific natures; that river, that endangered species and so on. The same thing could be said about Waste. There is no such thing as Waste with a capital W. There is only glass, plastic, packaging, paper and so on. Therefore one must also talk about wastes in the plural. Latour claims the political power of the term Nature to be lying in its unity, in its singular use; “nature in general”. It is impossible for natures to play the same political role. For instance; how does industry protect natures? What force can the science of natures enact? The singular form of Nature has been created to be able to rival the singular form of Politics. It is a convenient ordering. I ask myself, is the same true for the unity of Waste? Does the unity of Waste give power?



Actor Network Theory



Oslo: The Opera House architect competition; design & expertise

Harry Collins and Robert Evans have in their book “Rethinking Expertise” (2007) made an attempt to categorise differend types of knowledge. The periodic table of expertise that they have created is based on the idea of tacit knowledge, and names and places the different kinds of expertise. The term `tacit knowledge’ was used my Michael Polanyi to refer to those things we can do without being able to explain how. Individuals acquire expertise through being members of expert groups. It takes much time and effort to socialize into these groups. A large part of the knowledge acquired can not be explained formally. It is knowledge that is embedded in language and society. Tacit knowledge is an important part of all kind of expertises. Collins and Evans argue for a realist theory of expertise independent of the social attribution of expertise. They are critisizing the STS approach of describing the social attribution of knowledge without taking a stand (the importance of symmetry in STS). One should be able to assess who has knowledge and who not. They call it “The third way”. Still they acknowledge that the boundaries of knowledge can be difficult to draw in a strict way in real life. It is a first attempt to categorize different kinds of knowledge. A broad definition of expertise could be “to know what you are talking about”, there is no difference between knowledge and expertise. Expertise is in culture and in practice, and is found more in practice than in books. It is about doing, performing and talking. (H. Collins, R. Evans, 2007)

Interactional Expertise is fluency in the technical language associated with a specialism. The ability to expertly converse about expertise without being able to practice it. It is learned through linguistic socialisation and achieved by spending enough time with practitioners. Interactional expertise is an expertise between informal and formal knowledge – between books and practice.

To have Contributory Expertise is to know enough to contribute to the development of a specific expertise. A deep understanding. It is the “real” knowledge, the practice. (H. Collins, R. Evans, 2007)

(MH, 2010)

Could it be argued that in the design of the open international competition for architects for a design of the Norwegian Opera House (1999), there was imbedded a demand for an expertise which was suited to produce a Nordic if not even a Norwegian winner?

All of the architects participating in the competition posessed approximately the same contributory expertise as the competition only was open to architects with an approved examination under the EU’s architect directive. This means that Norwegian participants had to be civil architects or members of NAL. Foreign participants inside the EEA area had to document that they have qualifications equivalent to the European Union’s Directive. Other foreign participants had to document equivalent qualifications. However, the tacit knowledge achieved through the embedment in the Nordic/Norwegian culture of strong social democratic values, as well as interactional expertise towards the involved actors put Snøhetta in a special position probably along with the other Norwegian contributors to the competition.

It could seem that the international approach towards the competition was to a large extent encouraged and forced by the EEA  Agreement and NAL. The strong focus on the Norwegian language in the jury and also the missing internationality of the jury members, gives Snøhetta and other Norwegian/Nordic architects the advantage of tacit knowledge within the Nordic culture. It gives them an expertise which communicates with the expertise of the jury members. Snøhetta and the other Norwegian contributors were in addition closely connected to NAL through the membership of employed architects. Snøhetta posessed additional interactional expertise achieved through the collaboration with Statsbygg on the exposition “Ny opera i Bjørvika”.