Social Studies of Science http://sss.sagepub.

com/

Water: Political, biopolitical, material

Karen Bakker Social Studies of Science 2012 42: 616 originally published online 2 May 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0306312712441396 The online version of this article can be found at: http://sss.sagepub.com/content/42/4/616

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Social Studies of Science can be found at: Email Alerts: http://sss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://sss.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://sss.sagepub.com/content/42/4/616.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 16, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 2, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013

441396
2012

SSS42410.1177/0306312712441396BakkerSocial Studies of Science

Comment

Water: Political, biopolitical, material

Karen Bakker

Social Studies of Science 42(4) 616623 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0306312712441396 sss.sagepub.com

Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Keywords
biopolitics, materiality, politics, water

The papers in this special issue collectively pose a series of compelling questions. How is the relationship between water and humans mediated by socio-technology? And, in turn, how is socio-technology mediated by water both culturally and biophysically? Moreover (and this, I think, is the most intriguing question): How does the study of water prompt us to rethink the notion of techno-politics, and to reframe water as simultaneously socio-technical and socio-natural? In exploring some of the context for (and perhaps offering preliminary answers to) these questions, let me begin with an assertion: to engage with the materiality of water (as these papers do) is to begin from the assumption that water is both political and biopolitical. Below, I explore each of these facets of water, in turn.

The materiality of water (I): Water as political

Flowing through the hydrological cycle, water links individual bodies to one another through the cycling of waters and water-borne effluents between water bodies and organisms both human and non-human. As it flows, water transgresses geopolitical boundaries, defies jurisdictions, pits upstream against downstream users, and creates competition between economic sectors, both for its use and for its disposal (invoking intertwined issues of water quantity and quality). Water is thus intensely political in a conventional sense: implicated in contested relationships of power and authority.

Corresponding author: Karen Bakker, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Room 217, 1984 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2. Email: bakker@geog.ubc.ca

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013

Bakker

617

Here, the relationship between science, technology, and water politics merits a brief explanation, as the approach taken in this special issue differs from the standard approach in political science or geopolitics. In the standard approach, water is largely framed as a backdrop to politics: an inert resource, struggles over the control of which are often the source of (at times violent) human conflicts. In contrast, the papers in this special issue begin from an interest in the human mobilization of, and interrelationship with, water. A common theme running through the papers is a focus on waters materiality: the role that its biophysical and ecological characteristics play in shaping human perceptions, discursive constructions, and responses to water. This focus on materiality requires an engagement with the many facets of water: a non-substitutable flow resource essential for life and ecological health, of deep spiritual and aesthetic significance, which is highly sensitive to pollution and yet a necessary input into industrialization, urbanization, and agricultural intensification. Of particular relevance is the fact that water is a resource upon whose constancy (of both quality and quantity) we depend; and yet, water engenders attempts to regulate its inherent variability in time and space which are in turn frustrated by ecological, technological, and economic barriers to human control. Socio-technical objects mediate this dialectic; hence the focus of the case studies in this special issue (in line with much of the water-related literature in this vein) on emblematic technologies such as the water pump (Barnes, 2012), the canal (Carse, 2012), or the dam (Sneddon, 2012; see also Coutard, 1999; Gandy, 1999; Kaika, 2005). Perhaps this approach is best framed as a kind of micro-politics, which excavates the politics of water-related technologies, their uses, and their enrolment in political agendas, all of which are simultaneously and inherently socio-technically (and hence materially) constituted (see, for example, Sara Pritchards (2012) analysis in this special issue of French hydro-imperialism). However, this focus on the micro-political is not myopic; rather, the papers in this special issue articulate water along with broader issues: science, colonialism, and the relationship between water and modernity. On this latter topic, Ill digress for a moment with the intent of providing some useful context. On the one hand, the experience of modernity is intimately, viscerally associated with water. In the West, the role of water as a resource, and aesthetic and cultural views of its place in society, changed dramatically during the 19th century: water-use practices became a source of sensual pleasure, the object of new, water-intensive personal hygiene routines, and a marker of civilization (Gandy, 2002, 2004; Goubert, 1989; Illich, 1985). The bourgeois residents of 19thcentury European cities, for example, celebrated hygiene as a moral virtue. Medical researchers and social reformers allied to assert a link between clean material surroundings and moral rectitude (Luckin, 1987; Stoler, 1995). Simultaneously, new scientific theories of disease transmission via bacteria began supplanting formerly widespread notions of miasmic contamination (Gandy, 2006; Goubert, 1989; Hamlin, 1990, 2000). Microscopes and bacteriology began to change both our water assessment techniques its properties, quality, risk to the human body and water control technologies. As new discourses of safe water emerged (associated with new water practices incumbent upon modern citizens), local, place-based practices and perceptions of qualities of different waters were deemed backward, or

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013

618

Social Studies of Science 42(4)

uncivilized, and replaced by a more unied understanding of water dened by a scientic analysis of its biophysical properties, although this did not completely displace non-scientific views of water (Hamlin, 2000; Strang, 2004). Scientific constructions of water were, in turn, central to economic modernization, as water became, literally, a lubricant for industrialization, urbanization, and agricultural intensication; these transformations required secure, continuous supplies of large amounts of relatively high-quality water. Dams and newly regulated rivers could provide such supplies, which prompted technological innovation in hydraulic works and drinking water supply networks (see, for example, Melosi, 2000a,b; Hamlin, 1990; Tarr and Dupuy, 1988). In the 20th century, dams and reservoirs became symbolic of the twin projects of modernization and nation-building and indeed of both colonialism and independence (dSouza, 2006; Khagram, 2004). The domestic counterpoints of the dam were the washbasin and the private flush toilet in the boudoir, symbolic of the sensual and aesthetic roles played by water in urbanization and cultural modernization. These technologies embodied a set of assumptions about waters renewability, abundance, and self-cleaning abilities, underpinning acceptance of the then-new practice of using surface watercourses as the ultimate sink for pollution, diluting and carrying away wastes from the factories and cities (Tarr, 1996). As the papers in this special issue suggest, the modernization of water, in turn, entails new forms of governance, and newly emergent processes of state formation that administer both water use practices and the water technologies designed to support them. To give just two examples: new forms of municipal government emerged to deliver water supply (Bakker, 2011); and new regional governance mechanisms emerged to administer irrigation schemes (supplanting or complementing pre-existing forms in many parts of the world) (Mosse, 2003; Carroll, 2012). The shifting publicprivate divide (often accompanied by an erasure of communal forms of water governance) is central to this albeit incomplete process. As Patrick Carroll notes in his article in this issue, water became an object of government (and, I would add, of development) a boundary object, mediating between science and governance, and allied with various forms of governance, ranging from Carrolls technoscientific state formations to Wades (1988) village republics. Water is thus inherently political, not only because it is an object of conventional politics, but also because of its material imbrication in the socio-technical formations through which political processes unfold. This approach owes something to recent debates over studies of technology (notably, as Ashley Carse (2012) observes in his article in this issue, the productive tension between top-down perspectives on the role of systembuilders, and bottom-up actor (or artifact)-centered studies of the social construction of technology). This approach also is indebted to recent discussions of techno-politics, particularly in anthropology, history, geography, and sociology (Bijker, 2007; Bijker et al., 1987; Mitchell, 2002). The thematic thread running through the papers in this special issue thus comes into focus: the interrelationship between water technologies, water management paradigms and associated processes of knowledge formation, organizational forms (such as the hydro-state), and governance practices. These relations are mediated through specific political projects, whether associated with colonialism, imperialism, land reclamation, or contemporary development. On this basis, the papers

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013

Bakker

619

provide a very rich formulation of the political nature of water itself particularly as articulated with the political nature of water infrastructure.

The materiality of water (II): Water as biopolitical

Now, let me turn to a question that is less obviously related to the papers in this special issue: How might we conceptualize water as simultaneously political and biopolitical? Let me begin with the observation that waters materially connects individual bodies to the collective body politic; for example, by transporting vectors of disease and pollution. For this reason, the regulation and control of water-borne bodily wastes, the disposal of which has become an intensely private activity under modernity, is thus an inescapably collective act, and is essential to the health of the population, as well as the individual. Water is thus biopolitical in the Foucauldian sense: modern governments seek to optimize both water resources and our individual water-use practices in order to secure the health and productivity of the population. This control is enacted through formal regulation, but also is self-policed through the cultural aesthetics of health and hygiene, ranging from entire bodies of water to individual human bodies. In Indonesia, for example, discourses of water-related hygiene were deployed both as evidence of the superiority of modern colonists compared with natives, but also to justify racially segregated water supply systems (Kooy and Bakker, 2008a,b). Similarly in Australia, public health practices were allied with, often overtly racist, strategies of population management. Controlling Australias aboriginal population served to demarcate and define white behavior and identities (Bashford, 2004). And this was not unique to colonial contexts: Jean-Pierre Goubert has shown how the class identity of the urban French bourgeoisie was constructed in part through the spread of the private boudoir and the use of increasingly elaborate (and expensive) hygiene-related devices and practices, which in turn justified increased investment in networked water supply systems in order to water the city (Goubert, 1989). Similar processes have been documented for other cities, such as Guayaquil, New York, and Athens, suggesting that the way we use and relate to water is quintessentially biopolitical. By this I mean that water is simultaneously fetishized and self-consciously constitutive of both individual identity and population health (Gandy, 2004; Kaika, 2005; Swyngedouw, 2004). Framing water as biopolitical implies a link between the constitution and consolidation of political and economic power, on the one hand, and the control of socio-natures, on the other (as Pritchard observes in her article in this issue). This, in turn, implies that studies of water must engage not only with the socio-technical, but also with the socionatural (leaving aside the question of whether one can, or should, distinguish between the two). Some of the other papers in this special issue offer similar insights. Jessica Barnes (2012), for example, argues that we must move beyond treating technological artifacts (in her case, pumps along the river Nile) as actors, and engage with water itself as an actor. What is of interest is not merely the pump, but rather the articulation between the pump, the water, the river, the land, and farmers as a socio-natural assemblage. Similarly, in developing a concept of natural infrastructure, and in asking how we might theorize infrastructure ecologically, Carse (2012) asks us to consider what we have

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013

620

Social Studies of Science 42(4)

lost by confining ourselves to the sphere of the socio-technical and by over-looking the material aspects of technology not only in a biophysical sense, but also in a metabolic (to use the Marxian term) sense. To frame this another way: by materially connecting individuals to the collective, and by linking humans so integrally to the non-human world, water poses the problem of collective action in a particularly acute way. Various disciplines have attempted to formulate terms with which to describe this interconnectedness. Economists and social scientists speak of the health benefits of clean water as a public good: non-rivalrous (in that one persons enjoyment of water-related health should not detract from anothers), non-excludable (in that individuals cannot be excluded from the collective benefits of public health), and non-substitutable. Natural scientists speak of waters circulation via the hydrological cycle (including the cycle through human bodies), and have coined the term eco-hydrology to describe the interactions between water and the environment. Political ecologists prefer the term hydro-social cycle, expanding this set of relationships to include the built (or artificial) as well as natural environments, emphasizing the fact that water connects individuals not only politically and socially but also materially. Again, religious traditions have a completely distinct set of terms, revolving around waters symbolic importance and sacred character. And scholars who investigate political aspects of the environment have coined terms such as ecological governance (my preferred term). All of these perspectives attempt to capture the role of water as an integrator of individual beings, communities, and ecosystems as it flows through the hydrological cycle. The utility of the papers in this special issue and perhaps their most novel collective contribution is that they bring this insight to bear on discussions of the micro-politics water infrastructure. Yet they do so without engaging with the concept of biopolitics which may be an avenue for future exploration and research. Another suggestion for the authors of this set of papers is future engagement with scholarship on the political ecology of water. For example, Erik Swyngedouw (1999, 2004) argues that it is not the hybrid (or quasi-object) that should have ontological priority but rather the process of hybridization the historicalgeographical process of production, of becoming, of perpetual transgression (Swyngedouw, 1996: 73; 1999: 447). The emphasis on the production of quasi-objects reflects the origins of this approach in historical materialism. In addition to studying the pump or the dam, in other words, we should also analyze the historical and geographical processes whereby the pump is produced. This is, indeed, something that most of the papers in this special issue actually do, hence the suggestion for future engagement with Swyngedouws work and with debates over the political economic and political ecology of infrastructure more generally.

Water: Socio-technical, socio-natural

Underlying many contemporary conversations about nature and society is a common desire to shift our frames of reference by saying something quite simple: namely, that things other than humans make a difference for the way social relations unfold. Frequently, researchers seek to animate the non-human by seeking to understand its productive capacities: what matter does rather than what its essence is (Anderson and Tolia-Kelly, 2004: 672, emphasis added). Referencing the material in this way

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013

Bakker

621

acknowledges the embeddedness of social action. In other words, this way of framing materiality tries to do for the biophysical world what Karl Polanyi (1944) did for the social: for example, to show how conventional, contemporary framings of particular concepts or processes (such as a particular technology such as a dam, or the entire process of globalization) rely on the abstraction (or dis-embedding) of concepts like the economic from their socio-natural and socio-technical contexts. To put this another way: the invocation of the concept of materiality (as was the case in the original proposal for this special issue) is an acknowledgement that the things (pumps, dams, canals), which make a difference for the way social relations unfold, are not merely pre-given substrates that enable and constrain social action; rather, they are themselves historically and geographically produced in a way that is simultaneously socio-natural and socio-technical. Thus, although there may be a straightforward motivation behind an invocation of materiality, it is in practice a difficult concept to deploy, as it calls into question many of the precepts and concepts with which we customarily order the world. To discuss materiality, for example, is to engage with metaphysical questions of agency particularly when different socio-natures may be sources of unpredictability, unruliness, and in some cases resistance to human intentions. De-centering agency away from humans becomes a central task for the researcher and a particularly revealing one when applied to technologies such as dams, or water supply networks, which (apparently) are so emblematic of our ability to control nature. This question could be have been more fully developed in this special issue, and its relevance to the study of the social construction of technology more fully explored. Should we adopt a relational view of agency? Do we need to rework our understanding of social constructionism (and, in particular, the commonplace view that construction often implies, in Butlers (1993) phrase, the cancellation of the natural by the social)? And how might this lead us to engage with debates over the naturesociety binary? These are compelling questions prompted by the papers in this special issue, with which further studies of water and infrastructure might usefully engage. References
Anderson B and Tolia-Kelly D (2004) Matter(s) in social and cultural geography. Geoforum 35: 669674. Bakker K (2011) Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and the Worlds Urban Water Crisis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Barnes J (2012) Pumping possibility: Agricultural expansion through desert reclamation in Egypt. Social Studies of Science 42(4): 517538. Bashford A (2004) Imperial Hygiene: A Critical History of Colonialism, Nationalism, and Public Health. London: Macmillan. Bijker W (2007) Dikes and dams: Thick with politics. Isis 98(1): 109123. Bijker W, Hughes T and Pinch T (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Butler J (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York and London: Routledge. Carroll P (2012) Water and technoscientific state formation in California. Social Studies of Science 42(4): 489516.

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013

622

Social Studies of Science 42(4)

Carse A (2012) Nature as infrastructure: Making and managing the Panama Canal watershed. Social Studies of Science 42(4): 539563. Coutard O (1999) The Governance of Large Technical Systems. London: Routledge. dSouza R (2006) Water in British India: The making of a colonial hydrology. History Compass 4(4): 621628. Gandy M (1999) The Paris sewers and the rationalization of urban space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24(1): 2344. Gandy M (2002) Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gandy M (2004) Rethinking urban metabolism: Water, space and the modern city. City 8(3): 363379. Gandy M (2006) The bacteriological city and its discontents. Historical Geography 34: 1425. Goubert JP (1989) The Conquest of Water: The Advent of Health in the Industrial Age. London: Polity. Hamlin C (1990) A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth Century Britain. Bristol, UK and Berkeley, CA: Adam Hilger and University of California Press. Hamlin C (2000) Waters or water? Master narratives in water history and their implications for contemporary water policy. Water Policy 2: 313325. Kaika M (2005) City of Flows: Modernity, Nature and the City. London: Routledge. Khagram S (2004) Dams and Development: Transnational Struggles for Water and Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kooy M and Bakker K (2008a) Splintered networks: Urban water governance in Jakarta. Geoforum 39(6): 18431858. Kooy M and Bakker K (2008b) Technologies of government: Constituting subjectivities, spaces, and infrastructures in colonial and contemporary Jakarta. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(2): 375391. Luckin B (1987) Pollution and Control: A Social History of the River Thames in the Nineteenth Century. Boston: Hilger. Melosi M (2000a) Pure and plentiful: The development of modern waterworks in the United States. Water Policy 2: 243265. Melosi M (2000b) The sanitary city: Urban infrastructure in America from colonial times to the present. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mitchell T (2002) The Rule of Experts: Egypt, Technopolitics, Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mosse D (2003) The Rule of Water: Statecraft, Ecology, and Collective Action in South India. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Polanyi K (1944) The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar and Rinehart. Pritchard S (2012) From hydroimperialism to hydrocapitalism: French hydraulics in France, North Africa, and beyond. Social Studies of Science 42(4): 591615. Sneddon C (2012) The sinew of development: Cold War geopolitics, technical expertise, and water resource development in Southeast Asia, 19541975. Social Studies of Science 42(4): 564590. Stoler A (1995) Race and the Education of Desire: Foucaults History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Strang V (2004) The Meaning of Water. Oxford: Berg. Swyngedouw E (1996) The city as hybrid: On nature, society and cyborg urbanization. Capitalism Nature Socialism 7(2): 6580.

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013

Bakker

623

Swyngedouw E (1999) Modernity and hybridity: Nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 18901930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89(3): 443465. Swyngedouw E (2004) Social Power and the Urbanization of Water: Flows of Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Tarr J (1996) The Search for the Ultimate Sink: Urban Pollution in Historical Perspective. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press. Tarr J and Dupuy G (eds) (1988) Technology and the Rise of the Networked City in Europe and America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Wade R (1988) Village Republics: Economic Conditions for Collective Action in South India. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Biographical note
Karen Bakker is Professor and Canada Research Chair in the Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, where she also serves as Director of the Program on Water Governance.

Downloaded from sss.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on August 12, 2013