Advertisement

Diffusion of Power

  • Tina Sikka
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Sociology book series (BRIEFSSOCY)

Abstract

This Chapter outlines the various characteristics of Helen Longino’s diffusion of power virtue using concrete examples. It is maintained that the arguments that structure, assumptions, and theories that underpin sulphate SRM climate engineering is especially incongruous with the value of the diffusion of power. In addition to the power inequities related to participation in the of practice science, it is also noted that this virtue is intimately tied to the question of consequences, effects, and outcomes. As such, it is argued that what required is an analysis that includes the effects this technology will have on people, the natural world, systems of governance, and future generations.

Keywords

Power Geoengineering Helen Longino Representation Haida Iron fertilization Anthropocene 

References

  1. Barouch, L. (2016). Heart disease: Differences in men and women. John Hopkins Medicine, Heart & Vascular Institute. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/clinical_services/centers_excellence/womens_cardiovascular_health_center/patient_information/health_topics/heart_disease_gender_differences.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.
  2. Barr, et al. (1992) A model for AIDS drug development. Presentation at Eighth International Conference on AIDS, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Bookchin, M. (1987). Social ecology versus deep ecology: A challenge for the ecology movement (pp. 4–5). Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project.Google Scholar
  4. Bronson, D. (2011). Earth grab: Geopiracy, the new biomassters and capturing climate genes. Nairobi/New York: Fahamu/Pambazuka.Google Scholar
  5. Carr, W. A., et al. (2013). Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now. Climatic Change, 121(3), 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Case Note. (2012). The Ecuadorian exemplar: The first ever vindication of constitutional rights of nature. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 21(1), 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapin, S. F., et al. (2011). Earth Stewardship: Science for action to sustain the human-earth system. Ecosphere, 2(8), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. (2008). Political Database of the Americas (PDBA). http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html. Accessed 14 Feb 2017.
  9. Corner, A., et al. (2013). Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 938–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Correa, G. (1992). The invisible epidemic: The story of women and AIDS. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  11. Craik, N., et al. (2013). Regulating geoengineering research through domestic environmental protection frameworks: Reflections on the recent Canadian ocean fertilization case. Carbon & Climate Law Review, 7, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind: The Anthropocene. Nature, 415, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B. J., & Bonter, D. N. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edgar, H., & Rothman, D. J. (1990). New rules for new drugs: The challenge of AIIDS to the regulatory process. Milibank Quarterly, 68, 111–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Factor, S. (2015). The experimental economy of geoengineering. Journal of Cultural Economy, 8(3), 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Field, D., Voss, P., Kuczenski, T., et al. (2003). Reaffirming social landscape analysis in landscape ecology: A conceptual framework. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haklay, M. (2012). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information – Overview and typology of participation. In D. Z. Sui, S. Elwood, & M. F. Goodchild (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: Volunteered geographic information (VGI) in theory and practice (pp. 105–122). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Harding, S. (1986a). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Harding, S. (1986b). The instability of the analytical categories of feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(4), 645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinterberger, A. (2013). Curating the postcolonial critique. Social Studies of Science, 43(4), 619–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horton, J. B., et al. (2014). Liability for solar geoengineering: Historical precedents, contemporary innovations, and governance possibilities. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 22, 225–273.Google Scholar
  23. Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King, R. J. (1991). Caring about nature: Feminist ethics and the environment. Hypatia, 6(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleinman, D. L. (Ed.). (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kravitz, B., et al. (2011). The geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). Atmospheric Science Letters, 12, 162–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krohn, W., & Weyer, J. (1994). Society as a laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy, 21(3), 173–183.Google Scholar
  29. Lalander, R. (2014). Rights of nature and the indigenous peoples in Bolivia and Ecuador: A straitjacket for progressive development politics? Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies, 3(2), 148–173.Google Scholar
  30. Lauritzen, P. (1989). A feminist ethic and the new romanticism – mothering as a model of moral relations. Hypatia, 4(3), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Longino, H. E. (1988). Science, objectivity, and feminist values. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Longino, H. (1993). Subjects, power, and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 101–120). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Longino, H. E. (1995). Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 39–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Longino, H. (2002). Reply to Philip Kitcher. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 573–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Longino, H. E. (2008). Values, heuristics, and the politics of knowledge. In M. Carrier, D. Howard, & J. Kourany (Eds.), The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice, science and values revisited (pp. 68–86). Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lynch, T., & Norris, S. (2016). On the enduring importance of deep ecology. Environmental Ethics, 38(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McDowell, L. (1993). Space, place and gender relations: Part II. Identity, difference, feminist geometries and geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 3, 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDowell, L. (2016). Space, gender, knowledge: Feminist readings. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Merchant, C. (1994). Ecology: Key Concepts in critical theory. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  42. Moore, D. (2013). Ocean fertilization experiment loses in B.C. court; charges now likely. The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/ocean-fertilization-experiment-loses-in-bc-court-charges-now-likely/article16672031/ 3 February 2014. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.
  43. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Retrieved February 2, 2017.Google Scholar
  44. Our Children’s Trust. (2017). Landmark U.S. Federal climate lawsuit. https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/. Accessed 14 Feb 2017.
  45. Parkhill, K., et al. (2013). Deliberation and responsible innovation: A geoengineering case study. In Owen et al. (Eds.), Responsible Innovation (pp. 219–240). London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pidgeon, N., et al. (2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change, 3, 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poumadère, M., et al. (2011). Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: Nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(5), 712–727.Google Scholar
  48. Reynolds, J. (2011). The regulation of climate engineering. Law, Innovation and Technology, 3(1), 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reynolds, J. (2014). Climate engineering field research: The Favorable Setting of international environmental law. Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment, 5(2), 417–486.Google Scholar
  50. Ricke, K. L., et al. (2011). Effectiveness of stratospheric solar-radiation management as a function of climate sensitivity. Nature Climate Change: Letters.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1328. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robock, A., et al. (2010). A test for geoengineering? Science, 327(5965), 530–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Root, T. L., Price, J. T., Hall, K. R., et al. (2003). Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature, 421, 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sachs, C. (2014). Women working in the environment: Resourceful natures. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  54. Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol. (2013). Science for environment policy in- depth report: Environmental citizen science. European Commission DG Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.
  55. Shelton, D. (2015). Nature as a legal person. Vertigo, 22. https://vertigo.revues.org/16188#ftn59. Accessed 11 Feb 2017.
  56. Sikka, T. (2013). An analysis of the connection between climate change, technological solutions and potential disaster management: The contribution of geoengineering research. In W. Filho (Ed.), Climate change and disaster risk management (pp. 535–551). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., et al. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio, Sciences Module, 36(8), 614–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Swyngedouw, E. (2011). Whose environment? The end of nature, climate change and the process of post-politicization. Ambiente & Sociedade, 14, 2.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2011000200006. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. UN Women and Mary Robinson Foundation. (2013). The full view: Advancing the goal of gender balance in multilateral and intergovernmental processes. UN Women.Google Scholar
  60. Warren, K. (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whatmore, S. (1997). Dissecting the autonomous self: Hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 15(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams, M., et al. (2011). The Anthropocene: A new epoch of geological time? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A., 2011(369), 835–1111.Google Scholar
  63. Wu, J., et al. (2016). Impact of initial hospital diagnosis on mortality for acute myocardial infarction: A national cohort study. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872616661693. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
  64. Wylie, A. (1995). Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a feminist philosophy. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(1), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yusoff, K. (2013). The geoengine: Geoengineering and the geopolitics of planetary modification. Environment and Planning A, 45(12), 2799–2808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zalasiewicz, J., et al. (2011). Stratigraphy of the Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A., 369, 1036–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zimmerman, M. E. (1994). Contesting Earth’s future: RadicaI ecology and postmodernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Sikka
    • 1
  1. 1.Media and Cultural StudiesNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations