\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n How do Environments Come to Matter?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ingmar Lippert.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Science as Culture, 27(2): 265–275. 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n ![\"How](\"//bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg\"\n\t "\\"")
researchgate\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@Article{Lippert.I:2016SaC,\r\n author = {Ingmar Lippert},\r\n journal = {Science as Culture},\r\n title = {How do Environments Come to Matter?},\r\n doi = {10/cgf4},\r\n url_researchgate = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321048038},\r\n number = {2},\r\n pages = {265--275},\r\n subtitle = {Review essay of Gwen Ottinger's '{Refining Expertise: How Responsible Engineers Subvert Environmental Justice Challenges}', New York University Press and Candis Callison's '{How Climate Change Comes to Matter: The Communal Life of Facts}', Duke University Press},\r\n volume = {27},\r\n abstract = {Environments seem to matter in many ways, as resources, as constraints, as enablers, and in complex ambivalence and entanglements. But how do they come to matter? Is “the environment” merely a cosmic signifier, an issue of semiotics? I take the stance that environments have been mattering for humans all along. A universalising claim; but environments, and the use of specific environmental matters, matter even to shape the string that forms carrier bags, for herbs and for stories. Academic seeds, too, require environments in which they can travel, books and logistic giants, or tablet computers and electricity infrastructures implicating environmental struggles over electronic waste, emissions from Amazon delivery, etc. At the same time these environments shape what they contain, reconfigure its internal relations and reality effects. That and how environments matter is not merely an environmentalist issue. I shall argue that Ottinger’s and Callison’s approaches are strikingly, though very implicitly, different. To develop this argument, I first present the books and discuss how environments come to matter in their accounts. Second, I compare how their different takes on mattering problematise a shared core subject of their books – the discourse of public understanding of science (PUS). In closing, I turn to how their alternative analytics generate different understandings of environmental agents.},\r\n keywords = {environmental STS, science and technology studies, environmental studies, environmental humanities, agency, matter, mattering},\r\n timestamp = {2020-06-20 09:46},\r\n year = {2018},\r\n}\r\n\r\n\n
\n\n\n
\n Environments seem to matter in many ways, as resources, as constraints, as enablers, and in complex ambivalence and entanglements. But how do they come to matter? Is “the environment” merely a cosmic signifier, an issue of semiotics? I take the stance that environments have been mattering for humans all along. A universalising claim; but environments, and the use of specific environmental matters, matter even to shape the string that forms carrier bags, for herbs and for stories. Academic seeds, too, require environments in which they can travel, books and logistic giants, or tablet computers and electricity infrastructures implicating environmental struggles over electronic waste, emissions from Amazon delivery, etc. At the same time these environments shape what they contain, reconfigure its internal relations and reality effects. That and how environments matter is not merely an environmentalist issue. I shall argue that Ottinger’s and Callison’s approaches are strikingly, though very implicitly, different. To develop this argument, I first present the books and discuss how environments come to matter in their accounts. Second, I compare how their different takes on mattering problematise a shared core subject of their books – the discourse of public understanding of science (PUS). In closing, I turn to how their alternative analytics generate different understandings of environmental agents.\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Essay Review: Greening Berlin.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ingmar Lippert; and Josefine Raasch.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Berlin Review of Books. 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n publisher\n \n \n \n ssoar\n \n \n \n wayback\n \n \n \n academia.edu\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@Article{Lippert.I:2017GreeningBerlin,\r\n author = {Ingmar Lippert and Josefine Raasch},\r\n date = {2018-03-26},\r\n journal = {Berlin Review of Books},\r\n title = {Essay Review: Greening Berlin},\r\n subtitle = {Review essay of Jens Lachmann's '{Greening Berlin: The Co-Production of Science, Politics, and Urban Nature}', MIT Press},\r\n abstract = {In his book Greening Berlin, Jens Lachmund (2013) contributes to the growing genre of the social studies of environmental science and governance. Focusing on Berlin’s biotope-protection policy, Lachmund’s work provides an analysis of the co-emerging of ecology and urban environmental planning. By that, he adds to the recent historiography of nature conservation and landscape planning. The book is published by MIT Press in the ‘Inside Technology’ Series, which aims to combine historiographic books on technology with methodologies developed in sociological or scientific knowledge communities. Lachmund’s book fits well into this series as it ‘combines insights and methods from social studies of science and technology, from environmental sociology, from environmental history, and from urban studies to shed light on the nexus of science, politics, and the spaces of the natural environment’ (p. 5). This framing provides the background we have in mind when we review this book from the perspective of the social studies of science and technology (STS). Before turning to a discussion of Lachmund’s detailed argument, we begin our review with a brief reflection on the discourse of current (urban) environmental science and governance.},\r\n keywords = {environmental history, environmental humanities, co-production, science and technology studies, urban governance, environmental governance},\r\n timestamp = {2020-06-20 09:47},\r\n url_publisher = {http://berlinbooks.org/brb/2018/03/essay-review-greening-berlin/},\r\n url_ssoar = {https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-62695-0},\r\n url_wayback = {https://web.archive.org/web/20180523100210/http://berlinbooks.org/brb/2018/03/essay-review-greening-berlin/},\r\n url_academia.edu = {https://www.academia.edu/36797541/Essay_Review_Greening_Berlin},\r\n year = {2018},\r\n}\r\n\n
\n\n\n
\n In his book Greening Berlin, Jens Lachmund (2013) contributes to the growing genre of the social studies of environmental science and governance. Focusing on Berlin’s biotope-protection policy, Lachmund’s work provides an analysis of the co-emerging of ecology and urban environmental planning. By that, he adds to the recent historiography of nature conservation and landscape planning. The book is published by MIT Press in the ‘Inside Technology’ Series, which aims to combine historiographic books on technology with methodologies developed in sociological or scientific knowledge communities. Lachmund’s book fits well into this series as it ‘combines insights and methods from social studies of science and technology, from environmental sociology, from environmental history, and from urban studies to shed light on the nexus of science, politics, and the spaces of the natural environment’ (p. 5). This framing provides the background we have in mind when we review this book from the perspective of the social studies of science and technology (STS). Before turning to a discussion of Lachmund’s detailed argument, we begin our review with a brief reflection on the discourse of current (urban) environmental science and governance.\n
\n\n\n
![\"Loading..\"](\"//bibbase.org/img/ajax-loader.gif\")
\n\n![\"bibbase.org\"\n](\"//bibbase.org/img/logo.svg\"\n "\\"BibBase")
\n \n