Advertisement

Governance as multiplicity: the Assemblage Thinking perspective

  • Helen BriassoulisEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Governance, the process of steering for collective action, is being theorized and empirically explored on a variety of subjects, private and collective issues and spatial levels. Depending on epistemological and theoretical preferences, studies adopt a hierarchical/centralized or a relational/decentralized conception of governance although they increasingly recognize that ‘hybrid governance,’ a mix of multiple models and modes, prevails in practice. Theoretical and empirical studies alike discuss sparingly, if at all, ontological issues, i.e., the nature of the ‘what’ is governed, despite their prominence for meaningful empirical analysis. A ‘system’ ontology is mostly presumed that usually produces static, context-insensitive accounts of dynamic governance phenomena and one-size-fits-all and ‘best practices’ recommendations. Since the 2000s, Assemblage Thinking (AT), a current of poststructuralist thinking, is being utilized on the grounds that the assemblage ontology better supports, conceptually and methodologically, the situated study of governance. This paper offers an overview of the application of AT in governance studies and an introductory exploration into the capacity of AT to frame a compleat approach for the applied study of governance conceived not as unitary process but as multiplicity. After summarizing the discourse on governance, the paper highlights the main features of AT and critically reviews selected assemblage-based governance studies. Then, it discusses the conceptual affinities between governance and assemblage, reconceptualizes governance, outlines the contours of an assemblage-based methodology and proposes an AT-based approach to governance. A discussion of the value of AT for applied governance studies and future research challenges conclude the paper.

Keywords

Assemblage Ontology Multiplicity Deleuze DeLanda Governance 

Notes

References

  1. Albrecht, M., Kortelainen, J., Sawatzky, M., Lukkarinen, J., & Rytteri, T. (2017). Translating bioenergy policy in Europe: Mutation, aims and boosterism in EU energy governance. Geoforum, 87, 73–84.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2007). Beyond the territorial fix: Regional assemblages, politics and power. Regional Studies, 41(9), 1161–1175.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B., Keanes, M., McFarlane, C., & Swanton, D. (2012). On assemblages and geography. Dialogues in Human Geography, 2(2), 171–189.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, B., & McFarlane, C. (2011). Assemblage and geography. Area, 43(2), 124–127.Google Scholar
  5. Aurora-Jonsson, S., Westholm, L., Petit, A., & Temu, B. J. (2016). Carbon and cash in climate assemblages: The making of a new global citizenship. Antipode, 48(1), 74–96.Google Scholar
  6. Bache, I. (2003). Europeanization: A governance approach. Paper presented at the EUSA 8th International Biennial Conference, Nashville, March 27–29, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, T., & McGuirk, P. (2016). Assemblage thinking as methodology: Commitments and practices for critical policy research. Territory, Politics, Governance.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1231631.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, J. (2005). The agency of assemblages and the North American Blackout. Public Culture, 17(3), 445–465.Google Scholar
  9. Bevir, M. (2009). Key concepts in governance. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Bevir, M. (2013). A theory of governance. Berkeley: UCP, Gaia Books.Google Scholar
  11. Bonta, M., & Protevi, J. (2004). Deleuze and geophilosophy. A guide and glossary. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Wochnik, A. (2015). Making territory through infrastructure: The governance of natural gas transit in Europe. Geoforum, 64, 217–228.Google Scholar
  13. Briassoulis, H. (2005). Analysis of policy integration: Conceptual and methodological considerations. In H. Briassoulis (Ed.), Policy integration for complex environmental problems. The example of mediterranean desertification (pp. 49–80). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Briassoulis, H. (2015). The socio-ecological fit of human responses to environmental degradation: An integrated assessment methodology. Environmental Management, 56(6), 1448–1466.Google Scholar
  15. Briassoulis, H. (2017a). Response assemblages and their socio-ecological fit. Dialogues in Human Geography, 7(2), 166–185.Google Scholar
  16. Briassoulis, H. (2017b). Why I fell for assemblages. Dialogues in Human Geography, 7(2), 212–220.Google Scholar
  17. Bueger, C. (2014). Thinking assemblages methodologically: Some rules of thumb. In M. Acuto & S. Curtis (Eds.), Reassembling international theory: Assemblage thinking and international relations (pp. 58–66). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Bueger, C. (2017). Territory, authority, expertise: Global governance and the counter-piracy assemblage. European Journal of International Relations.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117725155.Google Scholar
  19. Carolan, Μ. (2013). Doing and enacting economies of value: Thinking through the assemblage. New Zealand Geographer, 69, 176–179.Google Scholar
  20. CEC (2001). European governance: A white paper. Commission of the European Communities. COM (01) 428 final.Google Scholar
  21. Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356.Google Scholar
  22. Clarke, J., Bainton, D., Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2015). Making policy move: Towards a politics of translation and assemblage. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cochrane, A. (2010). Exploring the regional politics of ‘sustainability’: Making up sustainable communities in the South-East of England. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 370–381.Google Scholar
  24. Colebatch, H. K. (2014). Making sense of governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 307–316.Google Scholar
  25. Colebrook, C. (2004). Understanding Deleuze. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen Unwin.Google Scholar
  26. Crampton, J. (2015). Collect it all: National security, big data and governance. Geoforum, 80, 519–531.Google Scholar
  27. Davies, A. R. (2013). Cleantech clusters: Transformational assemblages for a just, green economy or just business as usual? Global Environmental Change, 23, 1285–1295.Google Scholar
  28. DeLanda, M. (2002). Intensive science and virtual philosophy. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  30. DeLanda, M. (2011). Philosophy and simulation: The emergence of synthetic reason. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  31. DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7.Google Scholar
  33. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1984). What is philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Detsis, V., Briassoulis, H., & Kosmas, C. (2017). The socio-ecological dynamics of human responses in a land degradation-affected region: The Messara Valley, Crete, Greece. Land, 6, 3.  https://doi.org/10.3390/land6030045.Google Scholar
  36. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.Google Scholar
  37. Dowling, R., McGuirk, P. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2014). Retrofitting cities: Local governance in Sydney, Australia. Cities, 38, 18–24.Google Scholar
  38. Ezzamel, M., & Reed, M. (2008). Governance: A code of multiple colours. Human Relations, 61(5), 597–615.Google Scholar
  39. Fairbanks, L., Campbell, L. M., Boucquey, N., & St. Martin, K. (2018). Assembling enclosure: Reading marine spatial planning for alternatives. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(1), 144–161.Google Scholar
  40. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.Google Scholar
  42. Foucault, M. (1977). What is the dispositif? https://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/01/what-is-the-dispositif/. Accessed December 4, 2018.
  43. Gabriel, N. (2014). Urban political ecology: Environmental imaginary, governance, and thenon-human. Geography Compass, 8(1), 38–48.Google Scholar
  44. Grossmann, K., & Haase, A. (2015). Neighborhood change beyond clear storylines: What can assemblage and complexity theories contribute to understandings of seemingly paradoxical neighborhood development? Urban Geography, 37, 727–747.Google Scholar
  45. Haarstad, H. (2016). Where are urban energy transitions governed? Conceptualizing the complex governance arrangements for low-carbon mobility in Europe. Cities, 54, 4–10.Google Scholar
  46. Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Heritier, A. (2002). New modes of governance in Europe: Policy making without legislating? Wien: Reihe Politikwissenschaft/Institut für Höhere Studien, Abt. Politikwissenschaft 81. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-246304. Accessed February 16, 2018.
  48. Hillier, J., & Van Wezemael, J. (2008). ‘Empty, Swept and Garnished’: The Public Finance Initiative case of Throckley Middle School. Space and Polity, 12(2), 157–181.Google Scholar
  49. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multilevel governance and European integration. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  50. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2014). The two orders of governance failure: Design mismatchesand policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 317–327.Google Scholar
  51. Jessop, B. (2002). Governance and metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication (pp. 101–116). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Jessop, B. (2005). Critical realism and the strategic-relational approach. New Formations, 56, 40–53.Google Scholar
  53. Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D, 26, 389–401.Google Scholar
  54. Kohne, M. (2014). Multi-stakeholder initiative governance as assemblage: Roundtable on sustainable palm oil as a political resource in land conflicts related to oil palm plantations. Agriculture and Human Values, 31, 469–480.Google Scholar
  55. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., & Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for life. Interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Koster, M. (2015). Citizenship agendas, urban governance and social housing in the Netherlands: an assemblage approach. Citizenship Studies, 19(2), 214–228.Google Scholar
  57. Koster, M., & van Leynseele, Y. (2018). Brokers as assemblers: Studying development through the lens of brokerage. Ethnos.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2017.1362451.Google Scholar
  58. Lafferty, W. M. (Ed.). (2004). Governance for sustainable development. The challenge of adapting form to function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  59. Le Heron, E., Le Heron, R., & Lewis, N. (2013). Wine economy as open assemblage: Thinking beyond sector and region. New Zealand Geographer, 69, 221–234.Google Scholar
  60. Lester, A. (2012). Personifying colonial governance: George Arthur and the transition from humanitarian to development discourse. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(6), 1468–1488.Google Scholar
  61. Levi-Faur, D. (2012). Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Lewis, N., Le Heron, R., Campbell, H., Henry, M., Le Heron, E., Pawson, E., et al. (2013). Assembling biological economies: Region-shaping initiatives in making and retaining value. New Zealand Geographer, 69, 180–196.Google Scholar
  63. Li, T. M. (2007). Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy and Society, 36(2), 263–293.Google Scholar
  64. Lockwood, M., & Davidson, J. (2010). Environmental governance and the hybrid regime of Australian natural resource management. Geoforum, 41, 388–398.Google Scholar
  65. McCann, E. (2011). Veritable inventions: Cities, policies and assemblage. Area, 43(2), 143–147.Google Scholar
  66. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2013). A multi-disciplinary approach to policy transfer research: Geographies, assemblages, mobilities and mutations. Policy Studies, 34(1), 2–18.Google Scholar
  67. McFarlane, C. (2009). Translocal assemblages: Space, power and social movements. Geoforum, 40, 561–567.Google Scholar
  68. Montenegro, L. M., & Bulgacov, S. (2014). Reflections on actor-network theory, governance networks, and strategic outcomes. Brazilian Administration Review, 11(1), 107–124.Google Scholar
  69. Nel, A. (2015a). The choreography of sacrifice: Market environmentalism, biopolitics and environmental damage. Geoforum, 65, 246–254.Google Scholar
  70. Nel, A. (2015b). The neoliberalisation of forestry governance, market environmentalism and re-territorialisation in Uganda. Third World Quarterly, 36(12), 2294–2315.Google Scholar
  71. Nel, A. (2017). Contested carbon: Carbon forestry as a speculatively virtual, falteringly material and disputed territorial assemblage. Geoforum, 81, 144–152.Google Scholar
  72. Newman, J., & Clarke, J. (2009). Publics, politics and power: Remaking the public in public services. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Newton, T., Deetz, S., & Reed, M. (2011). Responses to social constructionism and critical realism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 32(1), 7–26.Google Scholar
  74. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the IAD framework. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 21–64). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  76. Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27.Google Scholar
  77. Palmer, J., & Owens, S. (2015). Indirect land-use change and biofuels: The contribution of assemblage theory to place-specific environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 53, 18–26.Google Scholar
  78. Peters, B. G. (2014). Is governance for everybody? Policy and Society, 33, 301–306.Google Scholar
  79. Phillips, J. (2006). Agencement/Assemblage. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2–3), 108–109.Google Scholar
  80. Pierre, J., & Peters, G. B. (2005). Governing complex societies. Trajectories and scenarios. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  81. Prince, R. (2010). Policy transfer as policy assemblage: Making policy for the creative industries in New Zealand. Environment and Planning A, 42(1), 169–186.Google Scholar
  82. Prince, R. (2012). Policy transfer, consultants and the geographies of governance. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 188–203.Google Scholar
  83. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264.Google Scholar
  84. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the State: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.Google Scholar
  85. Rosin, C., Dwiartama, A., Grant, D., & Hopkins, D. (2013). Using provenance to create stability: State-led territorialisation of Central Ottago as assemblage. New Zealand Geographer, 69, 235–248.Google Scholar
  86. Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2007). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the European Union. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV). C-07-02.Google Scholar
  87. Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sawatzky, M., & Albrecht, M. (2017). Translating EU renewable energy policy for insular energy systems: Reunion Island’s quest for energy autonomy. Fennia, 195(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  89. Sayer, A. (1984). Method in social science: A realist approach. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  90. Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.Google Scholar
  91. Smith, D. W. (2007). Deleuze and the question of desire: Toward an immanent theory of ethics. Parrhesia, 2, 66–78.Google Scholar
  92. Stoker, G. (1998). Designing institutions for governance in complex environments: Normative, rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted. ESRC Fellowship Paper No. 1, June 2004.Google Scholar
  93. Torfing, J., & Sørensen, E. (2014). The European debate on governance networks: Towards a new and viable paradigm? Policy and Society, 33(4), 329–344.Google Scholar
  94. Treib, O., Bähr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 1–20.Google Scholar
  95. van Wezemael, J. (2008). The contribution of assemblage theory and minor politics for democratic network governance. Planning Theory, 7(2), 165–185.Google Scholar
  96. Woodard, K., & Jones, J. P. (2009). Post-structuralism. In D. Gregory, R. Johnston, G. Pratt, M. Watts, & S. Whatmore (Eds.), Dictionary of human geography (pp. 571–573). Chicherster, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of the AegeanMytilini, LesvosGreece

Personalised recommendations