Paparazzi Ethnography

10/16: Visions and Transformation of the Arctic – workshop.
We met today, mostly to talk about the technocratic impulse of modernity and its future vision. As such, I could not help reflecting on what was missing, and indeed, that which was on display as part of the past, yesterday when I went to the Tromsø museum.
Here then, are some unbridled comments from a techno cosmopolitan workshop on futures, alongside a few unbridled images of captured heritage, actual lifeways as lived yesterday well into the future, on the ground.

Up now is Dag Avango from Sweden talking about involvement in a Swedish national MISTRA funded project utilizing Actor Network Theory for denaturalizing the deterministic language of climate change as an environmental response for development.

Resources (not something given but constructed defined by actors in order to function within actor networks); Voices, (resources require voices to articulate them) Governance (historically specific contexts). So, these are some of the new analytical tools for evaluating competing visions. One of his main questions: how do actors construct visions and why? Which actors visions gain influence in different time periods and why? Why do some futures become realities and others unheard?

Dag approaches his work through archival research.

Okay. Now up, we have Stian Bones. Norwegian Polar Politics 1870-2014. Ah. a Book project. Interesting. Building on an already published historical account. Using cultural and political economic approach in contrast with a “realist” theory, which focuses on state interests and power in the international system. Okay, what else. The role played by individual actors is important. So, a polar politics in a culture of anarchy, Hobbsian (antagonists in an international political system), Lockean (rivals negotiate and compromise), Kantian (friends for common common good).

Okay, well, now it is my turn to start talking bah. blah blah blah.

Wow. That was good. I actually got as far as “the shift from the anti-Kantian to the Kantian aesthetic”.

So up now is Astrid Ogilvie. Norsaga Locations. Looking at transportation flows of the Ole Norse. Reconstruction of a temperature record for southern Norway for the period 1758-2007. Looking at diaries for when ice break up took place and transforming that to numbers. No surprise, today is warmer.

There is Annika Nilsson up now from Stockholm Environmental Institute. Great communicator, talking about a paradox of climate change in the Arctic and further extraction, and therefore, the faulty science-policy interface. “It is not the climate that is making the Arctic, but the people with their interests who are creating the Arctic, and institutionalizing an image of the Arctic”.

Kari Aga Myklebost. Now up talking about Norwegian and Russian relations sharing a common border since 1826. A historian, with a great new publication Caution and Compliance, Norwegian-Russian Diplomatic Relations 1812-2014, establishing new arenas between Russ and Norway on vulnerable resources in the North. Part of the Barents Region created by Norway government was to deal with the welfare gap existing in this transnational region between the two states.

Another thing: Russian is a big actor in an asymmetric relationship to Norway, great power- small power relations, in contrast to say, Swedish- or Danish- Russian relations. Moving from bilateral state relations to civil society it would be the other way around, Norway has a much more strong civil society with a sharp social welfare contrast in the Border areas, which was discussed both today, but also during the mid 19th century. And finally, how do you explain the stable border relations given this double asymmetry — where is the will to cooperate coming from.

Peder Roberts: Historical construction of Arctic resources. Whaling — particularly blue whales were not harvested until the exploding harpoon, and until that development, were not brought into relations of markets and commodities. So they resisted the market for some time, much like my natural gas discussion of the Arctic. Resources as political power versus economic exchange. Under the context of whaling, for example, when Indigenous groups seek to have access to whaling, they become boundaried by the regulations by whaling commissions which limit them as a discrete group with certain rights.

I was asking — why utilize a new Latourian language or could this story be told without a Latourian language? I had to do so. The language of networks and structures provides some durability — that is a good response, but would there be a loss in contingency. And then Dag responds also, that path determinacy can be unraveled by network theory.

Okay. Now Gunhild Hoogensen is up, talking about extractive industries in the Arctic. Talking about notions of security, moving from Cold War to the present, from the political to the extractive industries, protecting environmental security, placing values on the environment, and the definition of the state. That is, preserving those which we find valuable given climate change, and prioritizing resources. Looking at the ways one understands security and the dominant forms and non-dominant forms of knowledge that are and are not part of the security debate, and how do debates proceed with different voices, for example, how do Indigenous groups view oil and gas industries.

Gunnar Sander: Prospects of Arctic Shipping. Wow, what an interesting talk. There are three routes. The North East passage (and a subsection of the North East Passage), the wide open ocean passage and the North West passage. Canada does not want traffic for political reasons because of a threat of sovereignty and environmental risks. But also, there is no infrastructure. While in the North East passage, Russia does want traffic. Nevertheless, there needs to be a re-build up and upgrading of ports, navigational systems, and search and rescue and icebreakers. There are only 25 of 50 ports that are operational.

Well. This guy knows everything, about oil and gas also. A fine balance between how much money the state is willing to invest into the system versus asking the fleet to pay, but then high tariffs would lead to alternative routes.

So, what he says is that “we hear about transits” but that is not the case. And yet again, there are transits. So for example, by comparison, there are 18000 ships moving through the Suez canal in 2011, while only 33 ships across the northern route.

Drivers of shipping. There are transit traffic (container and bulk) going from Asia to Western Europe and Destinational Traffic. In sum, it is not direction of change (we know that), and ultimately where the Arctic is going (we know that) – but it is a matter of when, the exact time that the Arctic will be open ocean in summer.

Tore Henriksen: Arctic shipping through challenging waters.

Peter Arbo, has the final word, discussing refreshing perspectives brought by STS, systems theory, Luhmann, institutional theory, governance, a mix of various approaches applied — both the empirical and theoretical level.

Annika now discussing collaborative potentials: PhD programs as collaborations. How can we develop courses that share expertise and resources to increase the quality of PhD education in Arctic social sciences. Another possibility is guest exchanges. What could we actually gain from each others networks in a systematic manner.

okay well…



10/13: Postcard for Nadia Filimonova (!):
From the Norwegian Museum of Northern Art (Nordnorsk Kunstmuseum), probably a depiction of Lofoton, titled Malstrømmen, 1929, by artist Per Krohg (1889-1965), from the permanent collection in the third floor gallery.

We took a break from writing proposals and decided to take Peter Arbo up on his offer to visit his wife’s art opening downtown, at the Norwegian Museum of Northern Art. The program was focused on textiles.

By this time, my lecture to the anthropology department the day before on consultant expertise in creating arctic oil and gas futures was long past. At some point toward the middle of my talk, Sidsel Saugestad suggested I speak more slowly, and so realized I was nervous– having previously presented mainly to energy audiences.

Thanks Sidsel! for always looking out for me. I appreciated the gesture.

Another faculty, Bjørn Bjerkli talked about onshore-offshore differences, suggesting onshore creates a qualified claim in the context of indigenous rights, by which by definitions are temporalized with reference to the past. Well, I almost cut him off right then and there, because he was absolutely correct, in that both indigenous and experts signify two poles of temporality the latter concerned with the future. Elsewhere, I even discuss the gesture and gaze of a future perspective.

Jorun Ramstad, another faculty asked about issues of proprietary nature, and whether it was difficult to gather data.

This was a great question, because it allowed me to present Paparazzi Ethnography as my method for getting around such problems. In fact, I was able to pull up this very site right then and there, and go through methods I use for capturing fleeting phenomena. Other good questions came up, for example, the issue of optimism and certainty.

And it is true, that consultants are much more optimistic and speak with certainty than researchers working at a university who feel more comfortable with uncertainty. As part of my response, I suggested that the future can serve as a surrogate for progress and thus gloss over issues having to do with a present defined by risk society.

We all then went upstairs for coffee. To a plate of fabulous homemade blueberry cheesecake, we began delving into aspects of my talk in the context of developing a PhD seminar for spring 2013. Semiotics and the political economy of the sign was a major theme in our discussion. I was delighted. Seldom in interdisciplinary meetings does semiotics arise. It was then, afterward, I had the opportunity to meet up with Curt Rice, Vice President of Research, and Peter Arbo, Political Science professor who works on Arctic Futures. It was good to see Curt. He is such a polished academic and administrator, a role model to be sure. That is when Peter suggested we go down to the opening.
Relatively newly minted PhD in anthropology, and CICERO maximus genius, Marius Næass, of whom I write in my Tromsø post below, came along and we bumped into UiT postdoctoral fellow, Maaike Knol. We were lucky to be able to fit two art openings in during the day, the second, about portraiture and photography in the context of desires to be beautiful and the sacrifices made along the way.

10/12:
A lecture given by myself today. Right now actually. I will be back…

10/10: Arrived in Tromsø this morning…
…via an airplane all to myself.

Gørill Nilsen, Professor and Head of the Dept. of Archaeology and Social Anthropology was kind enough to offer me her computer upon my arrival so I could provide this little blog update. Marete Johansen, Administrative Honcho for the department was hospitable. She gave me an office, scrambled around for a flash stick, provided me keys to the place, and even set me up with an email account for the duration of my Fulbright stay, and beyond.

So there you have it.

Now it is time for me to do some heavy lifting. I have to complete my presentation for Friday. There are also several sections for two proposals I have to draft before my meeting with Marius Næss tomorrow morning. That much, alongside whatever else I have to complete (articles, applications, etc). Wait a minute, maybe it is time to get some coffee and heavy lifting later. But come to think on it, before signing off, I like these Norwegian computer keyboards. At the touch of my finger, there is the æ (where the ” typically is) and oops, here is an ø where the ; is typically found. Ah, now here is something you donæt see often, the å where the brackets usually are located. Okay. Away we go for coffee…


10/8: Inflection points enroute…

9/27: We just received a draft agenda for the workshop, Visions and Transformations of the Arctic, taking place at U. Tromsø on Oct. 16. It looks exciting! We will post here the final copy.

Seminar Lecture: Department of Anthropology, U. Tromsø (October 12).

Title: Of Expectation and Intermediary Expertise in Energy Development

 Abstract: I will talk about consultant advisory service firms driving the location, structure, and content of high-level conversations within the newly globalized energy markets and the role that consultant assessments play in policy and planning — calling attention to a subtle but pervasive change in US and European energy prediction since the 1970s, including a shift in determining regulation from juridical evaluation to favoring economic efficiency through mathematical models.

Workshop: Visions and Transformations of the Arctic (October 16).

Title: PanArcticon — Providing Insight into Arctic development

Peter Arbo and Gunhild Gjøv Hoogensen of U. Tromsø, along with Annika Nilsson, Peder Roberts, and Dag Avango, coming in from Sweden, Environmental Research Institute. We plan to present our Arctic oil and gas proposals, looking for synergies of approaches moving forward.

Read Full Post »