The social and the spatial are inseparable and the spatial form of the social has causal effectivity (Massey, 1992:71)
In framing the study of contemporary practice in the field of the IoT and, in particular, in its formative years of 2011 to 2013, it is worth considering spatial and social frameworks that can help not only think of the IoT as an extension of current network paradigm but also locate the practice of the early IoT developers in a broader context of socio-spatial relations. As it was noted already, the spatial aspects
just f*****g do it' McCahill (2015).
65 The IoT is developed across number of fields and industries. In 2015 the top 10 categories of smart things included: smart homes, wearables, smart city, smart grids, industrial internet, healthcare, smart retail, smart supply chain, smart farming (see Lueth, 2015).
are of relevance, both in terms of practice and spatial production as it not only helps to articulate the practice in relation to different spatialities but also uncover how the space of IoT has emerged. The 'space of the IoT' here could be addressed at least in two different terms. As a space of network technologies that further penetrates the relations between physical and virtual world, and as a social space, closely related to the social activities of the advocates of this space and the social conditions within which this space has emerged.
As has been suggested, thinking about spatiality not only facilitates cognition about the functionality of space in a context of everyday actions, but it is also a mode of political thinking (Lefebvre, 1968; Massey, 1992, 1994, 2005; Arendt, 1998;
Harvey, 2000; Dikeç, 2012). For example, in his book The Production of Space (1991, first published in 1974) Henry Lefebvre argued that in considering creation of any new form, tools or environments that have the capacity to shape the social world, it is necessary to address the everyday practice, social relations and needs of 'social man' (Lefebvre 1995:83,146). As one of the early thinkers in the field of social geography Lefebvre argued that space is not homogenous but rather endlessly created and recreated by different modes of the social and power relations. In building his argument he uncovered three distinct spatial domains in which everyday practice of a social human being is located:
representations of space, representational spaces and spatial practice.
The brief outline of these three domains can serve as a starting point from which to consider the spatial, social and power relations in emerging IoT framework.
The 'representations of space' is what he calls the dominant space. The spaces of built environments, scientific innovation, infrastructures or a space where the main mode of production takes place, he characterises as “closed, sterilised, emptied out space” (Lefebvre, 1991:165). More recently, this spatial domain has been re-articulated in terms of spaces that have been a “subject of progressive standardisations and coordinations that have taken centuries to put in to place”
(Thrift, 2009:97). The second category of ‘representational spaces’, speaks of space that is already produced and directly lived through its associated images and symbols, and a space where people become 'inhabitants' and ‘users'. In his own words: “This is the dominated – and hence passively experienced – space,
which the imagination seeks to change and appropriate” (Lefebvre, 1991:39). As such this is also a space inhabited by artists, writers, and “a few philosophers who aspire to do more than describe” (Lefebvre, 1991:42). To articulate this spatial category, he uses metaphors such as “it is alive, it speaks, it embraces the loci of passion” (Lefebvre, 1991:42). The third category he explores is that of
‘spatial practice’, or a society’s space. It is a space of everyday experience in which bodies assert the rhythms of being and interaction. To re-articulate this third category, Nigel Thrift, years later, named it as Place Space. As he puts it:
“in everyday life, what is striking is how people are able to use events over which they often have very little control to open up little spaces in which they can assert themselves, however faintly.” (Thrift, 2009:103)
While Lefebvre's analysis was situated in the historic context of the 1960s and explored through his observations of city life, its relevance is far reaching. For example, let us consider the space extended by the information network technologies which IoT is said to build upon. Research in the fields of geography, urban and media studies have often revealed similarities between the global vision of the Internet and that of 'old localities' such as a city and its existing networks of streets and utility infrastructures (Graham, 1998; Graham and Marvin, 2002; Souza e Silva and Sutko, 2009). Castells (1996) argued that the global increase in flow and movements has created a new dimension in which the “dominant social processes are reorganised and managed” (Castells, 1996:411). As Stalder (2006) pointed out, Castells' initial analysis made a sharp distinction between the space of flows, “as the space for the elites and socially dominant processes, and the space of places, as the space of isolated and increasingly powerless local populations” (Stalder, 2006:151). Thus, to an extent, Castells initial view of early network space was rather similar to that of Lefebvre's vision of city space, as space colonised by a dominant elite and capital flows66. Although, as Stalder showed (unlike Lefebvre, who was forever concerned with the struggle and prospects of counter movements), Castell's initial analysis67 did not anticipate the power of network self-organisation and the rapid expansion at the edges of
66 The space of flows was first mentioned in Castells' The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban Regional Process (1989).
67 Though it is fair to say that this vision he later altered in his text 'Grassrooting the space of flows' (1999).
the network, or in other words the everyday practice of people outside the dominant space.
In considering spatial relations in the domain of the IoT, the dominant space, at the time of this study, was marked by overall dominance of the network technologies but also, more specifically, and domain related, by the tracking and identification technologies, or the use of RFID to manage the global flow of things and goods. The RFID technologies were often used in 'intelligent' traffic management and, electronic toll collection in the United States and Asia (Landt, 2005). In the UK, the Oyster card ticketing system used on the London Underground (since 2003) was one of the largest RFID network implementation success stories. Likewise, the RFID applications were also implemented within the retail sector (Konomi, and Roussos, 2006). As explored in the previous sections of this thesis, the dominant space, inhabited by the major technology companies or established research centres was also created via the IoT discourse, in debates about the IoT development as a framework for emergent technologies, a visionary infrastructure and future applications.
Nevertheless, as Lefebvre already stated: “the concept [of dominant space] only attains its full meaning when it is contrasted with the opposite and inseparable concept of appropriation” (Lefebvre, 1991:165)68. But, as he pointed out, it is only by means of the critical study of space that the concept of appropriation can be clarified, as it is not always easy to decide in what respect, how, “by whom and for whom they have been appropriated” (Lefebvre, 1991:165). Furthermore, he made a clear distinction between the appropriation and practice of détournement or diversion in which an original purpose of space has become susceptible for being diverted or put to a different use, from its initial one. In this process the production of new space emerges (Lefebvre, 1991:167).
Both concepts are relevant in the context of this study. As I have indicated in the introduction of this thesis, and will explore how the Pachube community grew
68 Lefebvre draws on Marx's concept of appropriation that is sharply opposed to that of property (See Marx Capital Vol. 1, page 729-73). Nevertheless, he points out that Marx did not discriminate between appropriation and domination. “For him labour and technology, by dominating material nature, thereby immediately transforms it according to the needs of [social] man” (Lefebvre, 1991:165).
out of a loosely associated group of activists and artists who appropriated the existing technologies, and, I will argue, built 'a new space' where IoT could be re-imagined. However, to analyse this groups relation to a dominant IoT space, their location at the centre or on the edges of the networks (or for that matter their chosen methods for action), I will briefly turn to a few other aspects of spatial discourse that could further facilitate this study.
One such aspect is a changing concept of place/space relations and the consequences it has on how we perceive the space extended by global flows and technological networks. Both Lefebvre and Thrift have argued that practice takes place in a physical place, or what Thrift described as an idea of place “caught up with the idea of a natural register” (Thrift, 2009:102). Early IT analysts argued that place/space today represents an overlap of near and far relations (Giddens, 1990; Therborn, 1998;
Held et. al., 1999; Amin, 2002) or a site of intersection between the local and urban influences, culture and flows (Massey, 1991, 1994; Graham and Marvin, 1996).
Today, in a context of IoT, some have argued that with IoT's focus on connecting things in a physical world, the meaning of place space is “retuned” again (Coyne, 2010). While the empirical study of this thesis will not directly address the 'retuning' of place/space discussion as such, the thesis will build upon these previous arguments that the notion of place has been changed by the network technologies and address 'retuning' only when relevant.
In the debates around changing meaning of space/place in the 1990s brought forward several distinct ways that could serve us in considering both the spatial practice of Pachube community and what 'retuning' the emerging IoT framework could bring.
First, it was argued that the emergence of network space has changed our perception of what constitutes 'place'. In the mid 1990s, researchers across several disciplines engaged in these discussions and some argued that the very idea that 'place' is somewhat more 'real', or that some spaces are more 'human' than others, is changing69.
69 Thrift (2009) suggested, that such a notion of place is born out of the intellectual certainties of humanism and that in a contemporary setting scholars are moving away from this certainty about what ‘human’ and ‘being’ might be. Graham (1998) identified there were three perspectives merging together that explored the nature of information technologies and, subsequently shaped the debate about changing nature of space place. These were perspectives of “substitution and transcendence' (dominated by technological Utopians [he references science fiction writers and early writings in Wired magazine in this category]), the 'co-evolution' perspective (drawing from political economy and cultural studies) and the 'recombination' perspective (derived from work in
For example, Batty (1997) while sketching out the preliminary topology of interrelations between virtual cyberspace and physical place70 argued for the need to redefine reality with its variance: fiction, abstraction and virtuality. This change in perception on what constituted place in the networked realm today might be best illustrated by the latter-day studies in communication science. For example, Healey et al. (2008), motivated by Heidegger's discussion of 'being-with', that defines the interpersonal closeness or distance to that matter, proposed a concept of communication space. While rooting their analysis in a comparative study of community interaction online and offline, they argued that the differences in interpersonal closeness are independent of both space and place and, that variety of communication spaces can be associated with notion of place. As they put it:
“technology of virtual spaces is encountered not just as a version of space in the physical world, nor just in terms of place, but also in terms of the type of human encounters that it enables or impedes; the ways in which people can bring each other closer, keep each other at a distance or be there for each other” (Healey et al., 2008).
Likewise, they suggested that people need different levels of mutual involvement on different occasions, pointing towards public or private domains of different spaces.
The impact of this re-articulation of the place/space in terms of both physical and virtual realms will be further explored in the study part of this thesis as my observations of Pachube community seemed seamlessly existed in both these realms. However, it would be relevant here to reflect on the broader impact of the way we perceive public and private and how it might also be further altered by this emerging domain. This can already be illustrated by the IoT devices,
actor-network theory)” (Graham, 1998:165).
70 Batty's four categories included: place/space: the original domain of geography abstracting place into space using traditional methods; / cspace: abstractions of space into (computer) space, inside computers and their networks; / cyberspace: new spaces that emerge from cspace through using computers to communicate; and /cyberplace: the impact of the infrastructure of cyberspace on the infrastructure of traditional place. (Batty, 1997). Two of his four domains are particularly relevant in a context of the IoT, but also highlight the stance of two distinct topological forms in which space and place are articulated. The Cyberspace, a term borrowed from science fiction writer William Gibson (1984), is where interactivity between remote computers and people take place. Cyberplace, on other hand, is the place of all physical infrastructures such as command and control structures, CCTV in public places, buildings, wires, machines, and cars, or in other words the domain of the IoT. For Batty, as it is for the vision of IoT, the network paradigm takes place anywhere and everywhere.
However, such anarchic organisation, in his view, is linked through some common purpose;
in particular, Batty embraced the organisational examples such as virtual communities, groups that talk and act across the net, remote processing, communication, decision-making, production processes, urban planning, data access and so forth.
located in the space place, be it in city square, at home or near body proximity and complex questions it raises about what Hanna Arendt once called, the
“withering away” of the public and private realms71. As several privacy related debates, for example, in the USA have shown, today we can expect no privacy in public spaces, be it physical or digital72.
Similarly, the private ownership of seemingly public physical spaces is on the rise73, while the Internet and Web 2.0 platforms in particular, are often perceived to be a public realm, where everything we say is heard by everyone else.
Furthermore, the very notion of social in the contemporary context have been re-articulated or as Lovink (2011) puts it “these days the social is a feature. It is no longer a problem [as in nineteenth and twentieth centuries when the Social Problem predominated] or a sector in society provided for deviant, sick and elderly. Now the beast is tamed” (Lovink, 2011:6). The rise of the 'tamed social', was already foreseen by Arendt who characterised it as a “curiously hybrid realm where private interests assume public significance” (Arendt, 1998:61-69).
As discussed in previous section, the IoT is built upon this hybrid realm of social platforms and, as such, will bring the attitudes of expedient utility, and of
“process” thinking further into our everyday life, thus continue the diminishing of the public and privet realms.
The history of smart meter roll-out can be a good example to illustrate not only this shift towards the merger of private and public realms in a context of IoT, but also another aspect that thinking about space/place brings forward. The development of new technologies, and in particular, new technological infrastructures are not value-neutral and are closely related to geographically located places, hence also to social, economic and political activity and interests (Harvey, 1985; Staple, 1993;
Swyngedouw, 1993). For example, Graham (1998) argued that the development of new technological infrastructures is an “asymmetric social struggle to gain and
71 Arendt argued this withering away is a consequence of the expansion of the social. For her, the social was a “curiously hybrid realm where private interests assume public significance”
and in such a situation “there can be no true public realm, only private activities displayed in the open” (Arendt, 1998:61-69).
72 For example see Slobogin (2002) on the discussion of public places and the right to anonymity;
and Kravets (2010ab) on example cases in a context of electronic surveillance that followed Obamas administration's insistence that people 'should expect no privacy while in public”.
73 See Shenker (2017) on The Guardian's investigation of pseudo-public spaces in UK.
maintain social power, the power to control space and social processes over distance”
(Graham, 1998:176). In his polemical article on the early rolle-out of smart meters, Graham (1997) argued that the shift to liberalized competition, that accompanied the early roll-out, not only supported the market fragmentation but also created what he called “the urban geographies of network polarization” by “cherry picking” “some affluent consumers” and “socially dumping” “over 4 million poorer UK electricity consumers” (Graham, 1997:141-142). He also, already in 1997, foreseen the emergence of privacy concerns as he wrote: “As energy utilities push “beyond the meter” into the consumer's home, they will be able to assemble much more detailed and precise information, based on actual behaviour rather than surrogate indicates such as bill total and census information” (Graham, 1997:145).
For another ten years, in UK, the smart meter roll-out was rather slow, their implementation was costly for the providers and no much data about energy saving potential was generated. However, things started to change when the notions of climate change, carbon emission reduction and future sustainability models enter the mainstream debate and technological innovation gained political interest. As a report produced by Sustainability First (2006), “aimed to mainstream sustainability into public policy”, stated: “prospects of higher energy retail-prices, coupled with the risk of failing to meet UK targets for CO2 reduction in 2010, and new EU-policy developments, have served to re-kindle policy and political interest (in smart metering systems).” (Owen, & Ward, 2006:10). Since then it has become generally assumed that smart metering, by providing more information to consumers, will encourage more efficient use of energy, and offer cost reduction and revenue growth for suppliers.
This shift coupling market liberalization with issues of sustainability, however, lacks support of any studies in the UK. Data on which UK projections of 3 to 10%
reduction in consumption and cost are based on a few studies conducted in Norway, EU and USA. Nevertheless, these studies can also serve us to highlight the change in social struggles that have emerged in later stages of the roll-outs74. For example, a
74 EU 2020 strategy stipulated that smart meters should be installed in 80%of homes by 2020. The strategy was developed as part of £11bn investment project, which came out of European Union directive 2009/72/EC, “Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC”. See also: https://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/smart-metering-deployment-european-union.