Acronym: SMAR-TECH
Title: On the spatial dimension of technology. Reflections from the smart city paradigm
SANTANGELO Marco
EU-POLIS, DIST - Politecnico di Torino, Italy
marco.santangelo@polito.it
POLLIO Andrea
EU-POLIS, DIST - Politecnico di Torino, Italy
andretwp@gmail.com
Thematic issue: Relationship between human beings, their spatial organization and technology
Keywords: Smart city, technology, space, context, assemblages
Discipline of the authors: Human and Urban Geography, STD sciences
Abstract:
In this contribution we would like to reflect on the relationship between human beings and
technology starting from the recent and well-known smart city paradigm. This paradigm is strictly
related to the use of technology in contemporary societies and has attracted as much attention in
different arenas (political, academic, civil society organisations, etc.) as much criticism for its
vagueness and inconsistency (Hollands, 2008; Vanolo, 2013).
Large part of the attention to this paradigm, besides, is related to the first part of the expression,
the word “smart”, and the reference is to a set of behavioural and cultural components that are
linked to the knowledge and the use of new technologies (or traditional ones used in innovative
ways). From this perspective, even the social component of innovation is related to models in
which technology, culture and entrepreneurialism create new ways to organize the civil society, in
a scenario of technological hyper-rationale that is used to hide power redefinition processes (Mac
Callum et al. 2009; Söderström, Paasche, Klauser, 2013).
What is also interesting, nevertheless, is the second part of the expression: “city”. Cities seems, in
fact, to regain a main role in promoting development processes and practices in the current deep
economic, social, political crisis. What remains to be explored is the relationship between the two
terms of the expression: how cities are changing - and to what extent - because of technology?
1
Because of a paradigm that considers technology as a solutions for all the problems of cities (and
citizens)?
Two theoretical issues seem interesting to deepen the reflection on the relationship between
space (as space of human activities, in cities in specific) and technology: (i) how technology is
related with contexts; (ii) the outcomes of the space/technology relationship.
The first issue is influenced by the scarce attention paid to contexts in smart city policies
and practices (the transfer of such practices being more sensitive to know-how than know-where;
on transferring policies and practices, Dolowitz, Marsh, 2000; Peck, 2011). The second issue is
strictly related to the first, the attention to the context influencing the relationship between space
and technology. In this regard, literature on assemblages (McFarlane, 2011; Brenner et al., 2011)
seems useful to analyze and interpret the way in which technologies (not only the most innovative
ones) and space of human organizations and activities interact. The term “assemblage” itself can
be considered as a composition of elements of very diverse origin: human, non-human, organic,
inorganic, technical and natural (McFarlane, 2011). Space can thus be understood and analyzed as
a hybrid space, resulting from hybrid geographies in which human and non-human actors
contribute to redefine how, and where, human activities are taking place (Whatmore, 2002).
The smart city paradigm, opaque and weak as it may be considered, represents an attempt
to re-design the world by introducing technology as a support to socio-economic and territorial reorganization. But if we start considering technology as part of the socio-economic and territorial
system itself, and not as a support, its spatial dimension appears rather unexplored. This paper
intends to contribute to the analysis of the spatial dimension of technology starting from, but not
limiting to, smart city discourses and practices in contemporary cities.
References:
Brenner N., Madden D. J., Wachsmuth D. (2011), “Assemblage urbanism and the challenges of
critical urban theory”, City, 15(2), pp. 225-240.
Dolowitz D. P., Marsh D. (2000), “Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in
Contemporary Policy-Making”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and
Administration, 13(1), pp. 5-24.
Hollands R. G. (2008), “Will the real smart city please stand up?”, City: analysis of urban trends,
culture, theory, policy, action, 12(3), pp. 303-320.
2
MacCallum D., Moulaert F., Hillier J., Vicari S. (2009), Social Innovation and Territorial
Development, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.
McFarlane C. (2011), “Assemblage and critical urbanism”, City, 15(2), pp. 204-224.
Peck J. (2011), “Geographies of Policy: from transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation”, Progress
in Human Geography, 35(6), pp. 773-797.
Sharp J. P., Routledge P., Philo C., Paddison R. (2000) (eds.), Entaglements of power.
Geographies of domination/resistance, Routledge, London and New York.
Söderström O., Paasche T., Klauser F., “‘Word Mark: SMARTER CITIES; Serial Number:
79077782’: the discursive making of the smart city model” , City (submitted for publication).
Vanolo A. (2013), “Smartmentality: the Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy”, Urban Studies, DOI:
10.1177/0042098013494427.
Whatmore S. (2002), Hybrid Geographies. Natures, Cultures, Spaces, Sage, London-Thousand
Oaks-New Delhi.
3