There is widespread agreement about the importance of flexibility in the energy sector. But what does flexibility mean? In our recent blog post for the CREDS website (https://www.creds.ac.uk/the-fixity-of-flexibility/), Elizabeth Shove and I identify three common interpretations. These include definitions of flexibility as a feature of whole energy systems; as a commodity that figures in energy markets; and as an outcome of specific interventions in supply or demand.
We suggest that all three interpretations rest on assumptions about the extent and character of energy demand and that some have the perverse consequence of fixing ideas about societal needs and limiting the forms of ‘flexibility’ that are discussed. As well as articulating some of the rigidities in debates about flexibility, we point towards a more ambitious agenda capable of engaging with significant changes concerning what energy is for and how it is provided.
You can read the whole post here:
This paper critically examines the ways in which the securing of the UK’s natural gas flows requires complex visualisation practices through which the subterranean movements of natural gas and its dynamic, transforming infrastructures are rendered visible and actionable. Instead of seeing energy infrastructures as rigid and more or less obstinate to change (a tendency within the energy politics literatures that has recently been critiqued by Haarstad & Wanvik, 2016), I highlight the dynamisms inherent to these networks, and the ways in which they give rise to different forms of risk that must be visualised and mitigated against in order to render such networks as safe and ‘secure’.
For a free copy (50 available), follow the link below to the Taylor and Francis website:
This article is part of a forthcoming special issue on Subterranean Geopolitics, edited by Klaus Dodds and Rachel Squire. Look out for it, it is coming soon!
Our paper on experiencing the Anthropocene in Puchuncavi Bay (Chile) is now out. It is a collaboration between fellow materialist scholars, Manual Tironi, Myra Hird, Christian Simonetti, and Nate Freiburger. You can access the full article by following the link below.
In this choral essay we, an assorted group of academics interested in inorganic life and matter, explore a mode of thinking and feeling withour objects of inquiry—chemicals, waste, cement, gas, and the “project” as a particular form of circulation and enactment of materials and things. To experiment with alternative modes of knowing, we went to Puchuncaví, the largest, oldest, and most polluting industrial compound in Chile, to encounter the inorganic through and with its inorganicness and to attend to the situated, historicized, and political composition of both our materials and our experiences. Thinking of this as a collective provocation, we do not rehearse a conventional argument. Its parts are connected but only partially. There is no dramatic arc but rather an attempt at composing an atmosphere through which our thought and feelings are invoked. We have made visible the authorship behind each of the stories recounted here to celebrate the multivocality of our collaboration and to rehearse a nonabstracted mode of attention to Puchuncaví and the inorganic forces and entities we encountered there. We connect our irritations and speculations with the Anthropocene precisely as a way of summoning the multiple violences, many of them of planetary reach, that have to be denounced when situating our knowledge practices in Puchuncaví. Thinking about the ethico-political challenges of research in territories that have been, and are being, transformed under the weighty history of contamination and that are lived in and lived with by generations of beings (human and otherwise), we call in our concluding remarks for an enhanced pedagogy of care born of our inherited pasts and of engagement, interest, and becoming as response-ability.
I’m pleased to announce that my first single-authored paper has been published. It forms part of a special issue edited by Matthias Leese and Stef Wittendorp, entitled ‘Old Securities, New Mobilities’. In it, I draw attention to the opportunities that mobilities approaches can offer for studying security beyond the circulatory ‘nodes’ in which its’ analysis has been recently confined. The paper and its’ abstract can be accessed here, but if you do not have access through your institution, please get in touch via email – I have a limited number of free copies that I am very happy to share.
If you are interested, make sure that you also check out the other articles that are part of this special issue – two of these are currently in early access and have been linked below. More are to come.
Old Securities, New Mobilities – eta. February, 2018
Glouftsios, G. (2017) Governing circulation through technology within EU border security practice-networks http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17450101.2017.1403774
Leese, M. (2017) Standardizing security: the business case politics of borders http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17450101.2017.1403777
Our article for Citizenship Studies is now out in early access! Entitled ‘A Material Politics of Citizenship: The potential of circulating materials in UK immigration removal centres’, this paper forms part of a special issue edited by Gaja Maestri & Sarah Hughes on contested spaces of citizenship.
In this article, Sarah Hughes and I explore the ways in which acts of citizenship are mediated through the actions of diverse materials. Drawing on doctoral research conducted by Sarah Hughes (Durham, UK), we describe how the materials circulating out of UK immigration removal centres can hold within them the potential for the making of new claims to citizenship, and how certain materials consequently become subjected to different kinds of governance practices. We also draw attention to how the political entanglements that these materials may form in the future may exceed our understanding, potentially opening up unexpected future claims to citizenship as well as troubling the notion of human intent within every kind of citizenship act or practice of resistance.
To view this paper, and other papers in this special issue, go to Taylor & Francis’s website: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13621025.2017.1341659
If your institution does not have access to Citizenship Studies, please contact me on peter.forman[@]wiso.uni-tuebingen.de. I have a limited number of free codes, so first come, first serve!