Kai Bosworth: …the pan­el that we have put togeth­er today, which is called Liberatory Ecotechnologies, Cyborg Ecologies and the Green New Deal. And unfor­tu­nate­ly we’ve had some tech­ni­cal dif­fi­cul­ties con­nect­ing the audio for Holly Jean Buck and so unfor­tu­nate­ly giv­en time con­straints and every­thing it’ll just have to be a slightly-abbreviated pan­el with the three of us. That said, I’m still thrilled to be bring­ing togeth­er some real­ly inter­est­ing and com­pelling folks who’re work­ing through ques­tions of tech­nol­o­gy and infra­struc­ture as they relate to the ques­tion of a Green New Deal. 

So I had a longer spiel as way of intro­duc­tion but I’m just gonna bypass that and just say quite briefly that our inten­tion in orga­niz­ing this pan­el was to get out of the kind of strict bina­ry between tech­nol­o­gy yes ver­sus tech­nol­o­gy no, which is a bit of a fal­la­cy we think and instead to begin to think about what are the kinds of pro­vi­sion­al ways in which dif­fer­ent groups of peo­ple can come togeth­er col­lec­tive­ly to make deci­sions about our com­mon future. And that’s real­ly what we hope­ful­ly talk about when we mean democ­ra­cy. Although that word I’m not so fond of these days. But if we do want to build a social­ly just, per­haps ecoso­cial­ist or com­mu­nist future as part of a Green New Deal it will have to actu­al­ly involve peo­ple com­ing togeth­er and mak­ing deci­sions about the forms of tech­nolo­gies, and the rela­tion­ships between tech­nolo­gies and social for­ma­tions that may exist. 

So, just to talk very briefly about who’s going to be on the pan­el, then. So I’ll give my own spiel. I’m not going to spend too much time intro­duc­ing myself just to say that my name is Kai Bosworth. I’m a pro­fes­sor of International Studies at the School of World Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. And then fol­low­ing me will be Sasha Costanza-Chock, and then Sophie Lewis. And each of us are going to present some inter­est­ing and hope­ful­ly provoca­tive thoughts on the role of tech­nol­o­gy and how we should think about tech­nol­o­gy in a Green New Deal, and then we’ll have some time for dis­cus­sion and ques­tions at the end. I’ve sug­gest­ed to our pan­elists that ten min­utes will be the amount of time that we’ll spend talk­ing, so this will go by like that. So, with­out fur­ther ado, then, I’ll con­tin­ue my own talk. 

So, the way in which tech­nol­o­gy and infra­struc­ture in par­tic­u­lar has fig­ured in how Americans have imag­ined the world has pri­mar­i­ly been in a sort of mod­ernist lens, right. And by that I sim­ply mean that tech­nol­o­gy seems to real­ly embody Enlightenment prin­ci­ples and mate­ri­al­ize them. We think of inno­va­tion and progress often as dri­ving his­to­ry. And tech­no­log­i­cal objects like the famous even renew­able ener­gy sys­tems like dams seem to fit into our under­stand­ing of the sub­lime expe­ri­ence, not only of nature but of our own intel­lect, and one in which we are almost side-players to the sort of evo­lu­tion of tech­no­log­i­cal forms. 

David Nye has called this American Technological Sublime, more recent­ly Brian Larkin in an oft-cited and read work has called it the unbear­able moder­ni­ty of infrastructure.” 

A group of American Indians gathered on a bluff looking at a modern water dam in the distance

And we can see this in a num­ber of dif­fer­ent aes­thet­ic forms as well, as in this Norman Rockwell paint­ing, of course, the unbear­able moder­ni­ty of tech­nol­o­gy has a flip­side in its colo­nial­i­ty, where­in indige­nous peo­ples are fig­ured as some­how on a dif­fer­ent devel­op­men­tal path, tele­o­log­i­cal­ly, and can only be seen to be reced­ing in the wake of tech­no­log­i­cal forms.

Of course crit­ics of the Green New Deal have also point­ed out the man­ner in which in a kind of clas­sic com­mod­i­ty fetish sort of form, renew­able ener­gy hides behind it a whole series of pos­si­ble forms of exploita­tion of human and non-human nature. And I think that a lot of crit­ics of the Green New Deal have latched on to this par­tic­u­lar nar­ra­tive of cri­tique of of the sort of moder­ni­ty of the solu­tions that are pro­posed here, espe­cial­ly in its aes­thet­ic form. So I think Malcolm Harris has kind of the clas­sic ver­sion of this, in which visu­al­iza­tions of the Green New Deal basi­cal­ly just look like Windows 95 back­ground with solar pan­els and wind turbines. 

And so, we might test whether the artis­tic rep­re­sen­ta­tions actu­al­ly uphold this. I don’t think they do. But real­ly when we imag­ine you know, wind tur­bines and land­scape often­times we do fall back into these [hon­oriz­ing?] guises. 

So my ques­tion today, and my provo­ca­tion, is real­ly whether this mod­ern infra­struc­tur­al ide­al, as Kathryn Furlong calls it, can actu­al­ly be upheld or seen in actu­al renew­able ener­gy projects and in the kinds of projects that we would hope would be part of a just tran­si­tion towards a cli­mate future rather than cli­mate apocalypse. 

Now, part of the argu­ment from Furlong and oth­ers is that real­ly this mod­ern infra­struc­tur­al ide­al is a self-fulfilling prophe­cy. When you actu­al­ly look at infra­struc­ture sys­tems from the per­spec­tive of the Global South, they’re much more hybrid, pre­car­i­ous, amenable to polit­i­cal and social trans­for­ma­tion. And I want to maybe flip this and say hey, if we actu­al­ly look at the infra­struc­ture sys­tems of renew­able ener­gies in North America this might also be the case. That renew­able ener­gy might actu­al­ly fig­ure into cer­tain kinds of decolo­nial and ener­gy sov­er­eign futures for parts of this part of the world.

And so, I just have three real­ly short provo­ca­tions about what I’m call­ing tech­nolo­gies of lib­er­a­tion and exis­tence, and two real­ly quick exam­ples. And then I’ll give way to our oth­er panelists. 

So, first of all there’s this idea where we took the term lib­er­a­tion tech­nol­o­gy” real­ly from Murray Bookchin func­tion. And Bookchin is real­ly think­ing about the ways in which tech­nolo­gies can con­tribute not only to lib­er­a­tion from neces­si­ty but also from toil, from over­work. But impor­tant­ly, what often gets lost in dis­cus­sions of automa­tion and tech­no­log­i­cal change in this sort of frame­work is also that there are tech­nolo­gies for mak­ing deci­sions about tech­nolo­gies. And these include the cre­ation of col­lec­tive social rela­tions that can embody in a sort of face-to-face or direct man­ner how we think about or how we may come to think about what worlds we want to inhabit. 

And so fol­low­ing on from Bookchin then, I think­ing about some­one called Robert Sclove and real­ly a whole series of ridicu­lous dia­grams that I would like to talk about with some­one. But I’ll for­go that for a second. 

And so one sort of way in which a project I’ve been involved in, or was involved in as a sort of baby social sci­en­tist in 2009 was look­ing at wind ener­gy and scenic con­sid­er­a­tions in var­i­ous parts of the United States. There’s actu­al­ly a lot of oppo­si­tion in rur­al America to wind ener­gy. And we were try­ing to think about hey, what kinds of designs for democ­ra­cy might we tin­ker with or exper­i­ment with to see if peo­ple could cre­ate bet­ter or more amenable rela­tion­ships with this new tech­nol­o­gy that was spring­ing up in places like Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. 

So we ran these design kind of sem­i­nars or work­shops which brought togeth­er dif­fer­ent folks in the indus­try, cit­i­zens, in insti­tu­tions to is sort of col­lec­tive­ly think about what kinds of ener­gy sys­tems they would like to see, and what kinds of land­scapes they val­ue, and how the mit­i­ga­tion of the effects of these ener­gy sys­tems might be achieved. 

So we looked at images, and think­ing about var­i­ous kinds of spec­u­la­tive forms. What kinds of ver­sions peo­ple like or don’t like. And also the terms that they would use to describe the land­scapes. So the aes­thet­ic terms that might be con­nect­ed to those values. 

And what’s inter­est­ing then is this is not just democ­ra­cy as a gauge of one’s pre-existing inter­ests, but also it trans­forms peo­ple, right. And hope­ful­ly it trans­forms them in a way where it’s demys­ti­fy­ing, where they can break through that sort of com­mod­i­ty fetish ide­o­log­i­cal ver­sion. But in fact we’re also dis­cov­er­ing that in oth­er cas­es peo­ple become more amenable to wind ener­gy, gen­er­al­ly, but more opposed to it after doing a work­shop on it in their local com­mu­ni­ty. That their val­ues are sort of rein­forced. So, one exam­ple of how one can think about infra­struc­ture devel­op­ment not in a sort of over­whelm­ing mod­ern­iz­ing sort of guise. 

Technologies that articulate with desire, history, localization, imagination, and being in a way in which the meaning of ‘existence’ exceeds a definition of continued biological survival or reproduction.

Another one that I’ve been think­ing a lot about is renew­able ener­gy devel­op­ment on the Lakota Nation in South Dakota where I’m from. Dana Powell has called these renew­able ener­gy projects tech­nolo­gies of exis­tence, where they’re not just about sur­vival and repro­duc­tion but about lib­er­a­tion in some kind of way. 

So let’s take a look at the KILI wind tur­bine, which pow­ers the KILI radio sta­tion on the Pine Ridge res. And what’s inter­est­ing about it is it’s not the kind of like, pure white sort of unin­ter­est­ing ver­sion of wind pow­er. It’s a rehabbed, refabbed old one from the 1980s California boom. It’s paint­ed. It pow­ers a radio sta­tion, which also now has rehabbed solar panels. 

And what’s inter­est­ing about this, then, is it’s not just the tech­nolo­gies them­selves but actu­al­ly the exer­cise of sov­er­eign­ty over the tech­nolo­gies through edu­ca­tion, train­ing pro­grams. These are our forms of using ener­gy which are con­tribut­ing to the ongo­ing exis­tence and lib­er­a­tion of peo­ple from an oppres­sive colo­nial structure. 

And so, of course are a lot of dif­fer­ent ways in which we can think about the dis­tri­b­u­tion­al or ener­gy or envi­ron­men­tal jus­tice con­cerns of wind ener­gy on Native nations in a set­tler colo­nial coun­try like this one. The dis­tri­b­u­tions of envi­ron­men­tal goods and bads such as trans­mis­sion lines are very impor­tant. But I also want to high­light issues of land own­er­ship. And if we real­ly want to think about ener­gy democ­ra­cy in some kind of way, we also have to think about fun­da­men­tal­ly trans­form­ing the land struc­tures of this coun­try. It’s very very dif­fi­cult to build renew­able ener­gy projects on the res because the pri­vate prop­er­ty struc­ture is so frac­tion­at­ed. And so in this way, design­ing ener­gy democ­ra­cy or design­ing a more just future that includes renew­able ener­gy tech­nol­o­gy must actu­al­ly take into account land reform. 

And this is where I get real­ly excit­ed because some of the new con­ver­sa­tions that’re appear­ing, such as from my col­league Levi Van Sant are real­ly think­ing about and con­nect­ing to long-standing move­ments, part­ner­ships between Native and non-native peo­ple, which seek to decom­mod­i­fy land and build land reform struc­tures that can actu­al­ly then sup­port and aug­ment the sort of demo­c­ra­t­ic deci­sion­mak­ing pow­er of mul­ti­ple dif­fer­ent com­mu­ni­ties at mul­ti­ple dif­fer­ent scales. And so obvi­ous­ly I think that we’ve heard in the first cou­ple of pan­els many dif­fer­ent ways in which this is not going to work if we allow renew­able ener­gy to be devel­oped in the same sort of cap­i­tal­ist world sys­tem. And I think that these exam­ples show us how alter­na­tive forms of ultra­moder­ni­ty or ultra­mod­ern­iza­tions actu­al­ly embody then vast­ly dif­fer­ent pol­i­tics of technology. 

Manu Karuka on Winona La Duke's "indigenous modes of relationship": The establishment of locally controlled renewable energy infrastructure fulfills a decades-long call for the development of liberation technologies across indigenous North America…These are examples of actually existing decolonization, and they should be supported and proliferated as significant anti-imperialist modes of relationship.

And so I’ll just end right here by think­ing through, and the degree to which Manu Kuruka has called these lib­er­a­tion tech­nolo­gies. Actually exist­ing decol­o­niza­tion projects, actu­al­ly exist­ing anti-imperialist projects, and not sim­ply kind of quaint demon­stra­tion sort of things but real­ly the real move­ment that abol­ish­es the present state of things. 

Okay, so I’ll just end there. Thank you all.

Further Reference

Climate Futures II event page

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.