|
Consideration of these aspects of networks leads to an engagement with actor network theory (ANT). ANT is relevant here as it perceives such networks in terms of the humans, technologies and knowledges included in them, whereby
This acknowledges the role in network formation of technologies and texts such as computer and email networks, signs in the gardens, promotional materials and meetings, and the language used in all of these. Consequently, such actors are also implied in the ease or difficulty of access. ANT is of further relevance to this study, as it coincides with the permaculture concerns of replication, function, resilience and edges. Latour claims "…a single actant may take many different "actantial" shapes, and conversely the same actor may play different "actorial" roles" 5. This echoes permaculture’s call for replication of the number of elements performing a given role and of the number of roles played by any element, as discussed in Chapter 2. Further, ANT asserts that roles and action are the outcome of the associations formed between actors, rather than purely of the actors themselves 6. The role and definition of an actor is seen to be relational, with the significance of actants defined by the "…way in which they hold each other in position" 7. In this way, ANT conceptualises the engagement with edges or the spaces between bodies as the site for action, also as highlighted by permaculture theory and several authors documented in Chapter 2. ANT emphasises the spatial and temporal context and embeddedness of such associations and the role of geography in association formation. Murdoch claims
Such considerations are in line with Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome, which considers the complexity of bodies, including the individual 9. Here four principles of the rhizome are drawn upon – connection, heterogeneity, multiplicity and asignifying rupture. On the first two, the authors state "…any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be."10 On multiplicity: "…all multiplicities are flat, in the sense that they fill or occupy all of their dimensions".11 This can be seen as allowing for a more rounded conceptualisation of a structure, rather than separating or delineating a body’s various associations along arbitrary lines. On asignifying rupture: "…a rhizome may be broken, shattered at a given spot, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines." 12 Both ANT and the rhizome model emphasise the relevance of the multiplicities and histories inherent within bodies, which can be seen to overlap with the permaculture theory of replication discussed above. These models engender fuller conceptualisation of the dynamics responsible for information flows and access within the collection of bodies represented by the term ‘community gardeners in Sydney’. The drive for replication was seen throughout the study, manifest in garden groups attempting to develop a wider core, such that workload was shared, more knowledge was pooled and the group had a more stable base. Further, the South Sydney Council (SSC) community gardens officer and the Australian City Farms and Community Gardens Network (ACFCGN) were engaging in processes that aimed to devolve skills, responsibility, interaction and decision-making away from themselves, to the level of gardens or individuals. The ACFCGN coordinators also reflected upon the tendency of community action to ebb and flow with the commitments of its participants, while several gardeners referred to the role of the gardens as providing a base of knowledge which they would take with them to another site if their garden closed down. This is reminiscent of Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome as a non-centred, ahierarchical structure, able to branch out and establish itself from any severed point 13. Such issues can be seen as an indication of or drive for replication at the level of the network or community gardening concept as a whole, whereby replication of individuals disseminating information, doing the weeding, attending meetings, answering telephones or sending emails, or replication of gardens and supporting bodies, can be seen as an attempt to make the concept and activities of community gardening sustainable or resilient. Combined with an awareness of the multiplicities inherent within bodies, such frameworks allow for the full engagement of bodies in their myriad forms and functions. That is, they acknowledge the contingency of engagement upon aspects of the bodies involved which may otherwise be overlooked or considered irrelevant. Such portrayals may seem obvious, but consideration of how best to engage with a body is often overlooked in much interaction. Further, the implementation of such consideration can enable structures and processes which are relevant and effective. As a simple example, the fact that a telephone number cited as a point of contact for a particular garden is rarely answered led to an inquiry with the telephone’s owner. It was revealed that this number was a mobile number, business number and contact number for the garden coordinators; the incessant ringing of the telephone was frustrating the owners such that it was rarely answered after hours, as this was seen as ‘time off’. An understanding of the domestic and business arrangements and aspirations of the coordinators, and of their associations with particular modes of contact, enabled identification of modes of contact that were both satisfying for the coordinators and effective, such as agreed times in the garden, or via another telephone number. |
||||||||||
<< email:lcrabtre@*SPAMBINGLER*els.mq.edu.au >> NOTE: Remember to delete the expression *SPAMBINGLER* from the address before sending the email. << honours index >> << phd index >> << home >> << to top of page >> |
|||||||||||