Knowledge systems toward Social Technology

Aleinikoff, T. A., & Klusmeyer, D. (2001). Plural Nationality: Facing the Future in a Migratory World. In T. A. Aleinikoff, & D. Klusmeyer, Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices (pp. 63-88). Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer provide a historical understanding of nationality from the perspective of the nation-state. The authors then develop and discuss categories of obtaining (dual) citizenship. Discussions and a survey approach include the tension of single and plural nationalities and traditional provisions for obtaining (one or more) nationality. Space is given to the discussion of the loss of nationality, but this is done mostly within the context of moving from one nationality to another. The perspective of people without a nation is given only brief discussion. Topics include: migration, nationality, international law, state to state tension, state to individual tension Inserting various technologies into Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer’s discussion a model very much like Lessig’s regulation imposing upon an individual. By understanding the tensions described within the article an understanding of sociotechnical structures evolves. Concepts of how borders are conceived and passed through begin to emerge. Critical understanding of borders and nationalities provide a framework for examining the management of tensions between privilege of person and/or technology. This article is not written from the perspective of socialtechnology. Rather from this writer’s perspective it is useful especially as a leg in Lessig’s model of regulation. The lack of critical engagement with stateless people is a blow to the integrity of the article, yet the way other topics were effectively handled points to a conceptual model for the continuation of scholarship not considered. The continued scholarship too invites adaptation of Lessig and perhaps adoption from other theoretical models.

Vardy, M., & Smith, M. (2017). Resilience. Environmental Humanities, 9(1), 175-179. doi:10.1215/22011919-382919 Vardy and Smith write a succinct primer and critique on resilience theory. Resilience theory as described in the article is applied in diverse fields from “urban planning, international security, environmental policy, financial regulation, development economics” (p 175), as well as “emergency preparedness, self-help, and libraries” (Berg, Galvan, & Tewell, 2017). Resilience theory is viewed as being applied without regard to appropriate circumstances. The across the board application of narratives of resilience encourage narratives of system survival and de-emphasizing elements “marginal to system survival” (p 176). To demonstrate their thesis, Vardy and Smith summarize existing literature of resilience theory while examine those rhetorics in a framework of precarity. Concepts: resilience, precarity, vulnerability, system survival, radical change, adaptation The concepts of the article seek to delineate what is advantageous to a system from what is other to the system; the concepts seek to separate what is useful to a system versus what is not useful. Resilience theory is presented as a “discourse …to present narratives that all too often adhere to univocal holism and homogeneity in a way that excludes the messiness of the world” (p 176); it can be thought of as a kind of determinism. While technological determinism claims a technology as the progenitor of all that come after, resilience theory relates all elements with an agency and as either belonging or not belonging to systems. Those elements belonging to the system have their agency validated by belonging to the system. Those elements not belonging to the system are marginalized and their agency endangered. Understanding resiliency theory from a design perspective allows a more nuanced interpretation of social constructions. As resilience theory moves forward in critique academics are taking up the model to examine how individuals participate in institutions. Academics are taking up the challenge, implicit in resilience theory, that individuals are responsible as individuals for success or failure within systems which are designed for various purposes. An excellent accompaniment to this article is the presentation reference earlier; citation: Berg, J., Galvan, A., & Tewell, E. (2017). Academic Libraries and the False Promises of Resiliency. Libraries and Archives in the Anthropocene Colloquium, (p. 32). Retrieved from https://eamontewell.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/academic-libraries-and-the-false-promises-of-resiliency-laac-2017.pdf