Collaborative repair as dealienation: an exploration of degrowth technology practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The degrowth hypothesis could be summarised by the following: even if limitless growth were biophysically possible—which it is almost certainly not—it would not be desirable. The degrowth project bills itself as more than just critique: it is “a normative concept with analytical and practical applications” (Kallis et al 2018). Yet while scholarship has meaningfully engaged with ecological economics and political ecology to interrogate the metabolic imbalances and distributional asymmetries of growth-centric society, empirical investigation of alternative “living degrowth” are rare (Brossman and Islar 2020). Degrowth research focusing on questions of technological normativity, or “technology practice” (Drengson 1995) are few and mostly limited to work adopting largely quantitative, or metabolic, approaches to technology, for instance in the ‘low-tech’ movement. These predominantly biophysical framings are clearly necessary in apprehending, and acting upon, the impossibility of endless growth and commodity innovation/production. They are however, less adequate in accounting for the undesirability of endless growth and material accelerations, and in indicating new, more desirable pathways for technology practice moving forward. \nThe present empirical study consists in first-person observation and interviews carried out in a Montreal amateur repair community in 2021-2022. The phenomenon of collaborative repair, or Repair Cafés, is a practice geared to the downscaling of material throughput through the collectivisation of tools, space and repair knowledge. Through observation and analysis, a cluster of questions was asked: how could we begin to think about degrowth technology practice? What would it look like? Can the features of collaborative repair offer us hints? Drawing on recent scholarly efforts to revive ‘alienation’ as a valid theme for social inquiry, and in addressing the noted need for degrowth to think more seriously about “dealienation” (Brownhill et al 2012), the present study looks at collaborative repair as a testing site for the suitability of these concepts, and for their potential application in a proposed degrowth research mandate focused on technology practice. This study is founded on a methodological conviction that when one engages in practice, one not only does something, one also understands that one is doing something, inevitably investing the action with meaning (Jaeggi 2018). From this point of view, and beyond metabolic and redistributive ends, collaborative repair effects a rehabilitation of meaningful subject-subject, subject-time and subject-object relations—relations typically characterised by alienation in industrial commodity economies. The present study also recommends that degrowth think seriously about “resonance” (Rosa 2019) as a more useful and coherent alternative to ‘autonomy’ when conceptualising alienation’s ‘other’. Such a framing appears critical for both elaborating a degrowth critique of technology and enriching discussions of how degrowth normativity bears on practice. �
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,050 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,020 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».