|
As discussed in Chapter 4, ANT provides a useful framework for analysing processes, structures and associations through which information flows and access is mediated, incorporating human and non-human agents and knowledges. Further, ANT contains considerations which coincide with much permaculture theory, such as an acknowledgement of the need for replication and a focus on durability and flexibility 1. However, despite claims of sensitivity to embeddedness and situation, aspects of ANT still may imply the association of various structures and processes into a discrete entity: the ‘network’. Examination of the information flows represented in this study revealed that the boundaries of such networks are far more porous and flexible, with delineation as to network membership or otherwise often arbitrary. Within Sydney community gardeners, channels of information and access often involved social ties, work obligations, past university affiliation and so on. As such, a full contemplation of the network of community gardeners within Sydney involves consideration of the histories and context of all aspects of these. However, Murdoch states
This highlights two issues of concern. Firstly, the reference to "outside the networks" is troubling, as this implies a finite boundary to these structures. If ANT’s emphasis on embeddedness and hybridity as highlighted by some authors 3 is embraced fully there is no ‘outside’, as all agents are themselves embedded in further networks. Such interpretations of ANT assert that consideration of a network involves engaging with the embedded nature of all its constituents. Murdoch’s interpretation, however, appears unaware of its tendency to impose boundaries, which reference to an ‘outside’ implies 4. Considering ANT’s emphasis on the importance of edges as the site for action discussed in Chapter 4, this is perplexing as implying the existence of hermetically sealed ‘networks’ effectively closes down spaces at the edges. The rectification of this seeming contradiction may be seen in the second issue, implicit in Murdoch’s reference to "all the qualities of spatial construction and configuration of interest" (my emphasis). Consciously or otherwise, this highlights the centrality of any author’s position, agenda and focus in the delineation of any ‘network’. Drawing on this, it can be seen that rather than a mysterious process existing whereby identification of a ‘network’ will by default include all of relevance to that network, the identification and delineation of a ‘network’ is an act of the individual. This process will therefore be affected by factors such as the knowledge, context, aims, beliefs and history of the individual or author. This is reminiscent of Ollman’s dialectical investigations, whereby he highlights the reliance of any abstraction on the context and purpose of its author 5. The model of the rhizome is also useful in this regard. Rather than implying the existence of discrete ‘networks’ without acknowledging that delineation is an act of interpretation or authorship, Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome acknowledges the existence of multiple manifestations possible within the same agglomeration of bodies 6. In this light, any ‘network’ referred to can be seen as but one possible interpretation of interactions between its constituent bodies, which themselves are highlighted or included at the author’s discretion. Models such as ANT and the rhizome emphasise the relevance of the multiplicities and histories inherent within bodies and can engender richer conceptualisation of the dynamics responsible for information flows and access within the collection of bodies represented by the term ‘community gardeners in Sydney’. In this way, the reliance of these flows upon bodies often well outside the formal categorisation of the network can be more fully incorporated into how it is that information flows and access are mediated. However, the consideration of a network should acknowledge the act of imposing boundaries or delineating between inside and outside; further, these boundaries must be allowed to be porous and flexible. For example, Chapter 2 stated that the spaces focussed on in this study formally identified themselves as community gardens. However, it was clear from the onset that this would involve other bodies; as such, supporting bodies such as South Sydney Council and the Australian City Farms and Community Gardens Network became incorporated into the study. Assessment of the networks involved following the collection of information, revealed that this actually involved a consideration of bodies which are unlikely to identify themselves with community gardens but which nonetheless are vital to this network’s functioning. These include various associated individuals, social and work arrangements, regulatory bodies and landholding bodies as well as texts and technologies such as language and communications hardware. In this way, it can be seen that the boundaries of the network were kept open and flexible. |
||||||||||
<< 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 >> |
|||||||||||