Paparazzi Ethnography

♣ Det Norske Veritas

October 19, 2012 by Arthur Mason

I gave a talk at Det Norske Veritas (DNV) about my research on energy consulting, by invitation of Bradd Libby who works in an Arctic research section of the organization.

Bradd and I met in January at the Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø.

It was then that I first heard him mention DNV’s interest in Arctic specific research, from climate change impacts to practical experiments for determining the quantity of ice build up on ocean vessels in Arctic conditions.

In 2011, at the Oslo Energy Forum in Holmenkollen, I met DNV chief executive officer Henrik O. Madsen, PhD, businessman and engineer. Henrik, for several nights, was emcee to the delight of attendees. Here is a photograph of Henrik on stage delivering a summary of the days events.

DNV is a “classification society” serving as a foundation for “Safeguarding life, property, and the environment”. The organization evaluates technical conditions of merchant vessels and provides services for managing risk. The company was retained by the US government for investigating the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 300 offices in 100 countries, 10,000 employees focusing on transport, energy, health care — its reach is comprehensive.

I had planned a talk on Historical Change in Visualization, when, over drinks the evening prior, Torild Nissen Lie, also of DNV, mentioned that my observations on how firms communicate would be of interest.

It was advice from a fortune cookie.

After drinks, I went back to the hotel and re-wrote my presentation to focus on how consulting firms create Communities of Interpretation.

A similar occurrence happened last week.

On the evening prior to my presentation before U. Tromsø faculty, Sidsel Saugestad, over a whisky, pointed out that I should drop the Visualization topic and lead with an ethnographic presentation.

Traipsing back to the computer keyboard, I reworked everything hours before presenting.

Thankfully, the two outcomes were the same. Both presentations turned out to be crowd pleasers. Phew!

But that is getting ahead of myself. On the morning of my DNV presentation, with travel directions from Bradd, I hopped a cab to Oslo central station suddenly realizing that I left my camera in the hotel room.

I hopped out and told the driver to circle the hotel and meet me at the entrance. Typically, I use the I-Phone camera, but had forgotten the charging cord in Tromsø, and would now rely on a point-and-shoot.

Lucky that I remembered.

There were so many interesting interior images I wanted to capture, including Bradd’s bricoleur constructions for carrying out experiments, which included assembling locally bought hardware store items (funnel, duct tape, screws, plastic pipe) into a capturing device for measuring sea spray — for placement on a research vessel.

But I refrained from taking photos as it was the first time we had all gotten together more formally.

The DNV “campus” — as folks including myself refer to the layout of buildings, is located on a knoll, that slides down into a cove located on the Oslo Fjord.

It is the site of an old glass factory, with the buildings now refurbished serving different purposes. The town is Høvik, a suburban center, west end of Oslo, in the municipality of Bærum, the latter noted for having the highest income per capita in Norway, highest proportion of university-educated individuals, and most fashionable residential areas.

During this time of year, autumn, the DNV campus is beautiful and reminded me of two other places, Belvedere Island, Tiburon, California, where I grew up, and Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, where I visited friends while an undergraduate at Columbia University. These towns are located on inlets, surrounded by deciduous trees, and whose forms of artificiality and enlightenment contrast that of the university form.

One of the first persons with whom I was introduced was T. K., who among other duties, served as one of the lead authors of the Barents 2020, a 300-page report assessing international standards for safe exploration, production, and transportation of oil and gas in the Barents Sea.

Five years in the making, the report creates knowledge from a working relationship with Russian counterparts and Western European specialists.

Efforts such as the Barents 2020 impress.

It is a reference document for the sciences, as evidenced last week at U. Tromsø, where scientists submitting proposals to the Research Council Norway Polar Program, cited the report in requests for further study on oil and gas development, a point I conveyed to T.K.

But discussion of the report also offered an opportunity to discuss DNV’s working relationship with VNIIGAZ, the scientific research institute of Russian natural gas giant GAZPROM.

T.K. acknowledged that there is generally an issue over the lack of knowledge sharing with Russian counterparts. Yet, he also stated that the knowledge issue is not so difficult as long as you maintain continual contact over the long term and settle in and familiarize yourself with the data on-site.

I had a chance to meet with Bradd’s team members all of whom held science and engineering backgrounds and are for the most part in their 30s and early 40s.

Present at my talk were about 18 persons. That we had been discussing the techno-science role of DNV, I decided to begin my talk by paraphrasing a passage from Norbert Elias in which he points out that 18th century court society developed an extraordinarily sensitive feeling for the status and importance that should be attributed to persons on the basis of speech, manner or appearance.

My work deals with appearances, which serve as an instrument of self-assertion and social differentiation, the display of rank through outward form. As such, I wanted to prepare folks for what was coming.

Bradd was funny. He introduced me by giving his own stereotype of what cultural anthropologists do, describing us as wearing wide rimmed hats and hanging out in tropical villages (“but in this case Arthur studies people like us!”).

So we laughed and that was a good beginning.

I presented a combination of works, referring to recent manuscripts which can be accessed on my StudioPolar.com site.

A unique occurrence that took place, or at least I thought it was indicative of the general interest in my talk: at 2PM Fridays, the group typically meets for a wine bottle lottery and candy share. Whomever wins the wine bottle, brings candy the next week, or something of that design. At any rate, we began at 1PM and I was advised that nearer to 2PM — I could expect folks departing for the friday mini-celebration.

To my surprise — and I had hoped only to speak 40 minutes but actually ended at 1:55PM — most folks stayed and asked questions until about 2:20PM, which I found gratifying.

The questions were good. One question concerned whether I was making too many generalizations, based upon a case study of natural gas restructuring in North America. Or rather, whether my entire presentation was too general.

And this was an accurate critique, in the sense that I was introducing, ambitiously, at least 7 points in my talk, referring to a historical shift in visualization toward more abstract forms of interpretation; the role of energy consultants in creating consensus among competing parties; the role of government after the OPEC embargo in creating institutions that could collect data that would provide independent firms to thrive; the general point about a semantic collapse in national energy systems during the 1980s; and the overall collapse of 3 historical autonomous forms of Knowledge and Human Interests, as once laid out by Jurgen Habermas but which now represents, under environmental sciences, a combination of prediction, vision, and ethics — Really, quite a lot to cover in less than one hour.

Looking back, I should have stated that what I do is a combination of Historical Constructivism and Philosophical Empiricism and that a statement of such at the beginning would probably have cleared up things.

But instead, I responded by appealing to empirical grounds, stating yes, the European condition is quite different (regulation, technical aspects of pipes, marketing), but that in general, the Western European and American case can — as a general form, be considered unique, in comparison to, say, the Middle Eastern form, which still regards visuals as truthful when shown in an immediacy of the recognizable image, which, for those in the room at any rate, can only be grasped as falsity.

But it was a good point.

Another set of issues surrounded the performativity of visuals, whether consultants can do more than justify an independent stance over development or whether they can perform certain futures. Here, I demurred and provided a 3-point answer: all of the above.

There was a question over whether emancipation of the earth was simply anthropomorphizing the planet. Again, to speak otherwise would bring us back into a Weberian conception of science as a vocation (a separation of the current collapse of knowledge and human interests). That was my response at any rate.

Finally, there was a funny question about the Kantian aesthetic, and whether we would ever go back to the anti-Kantian aesthetic, in terms of visuals. I responded by pointing to Norbert Elias‘ History of Manners, suggesting that we have been moving steadily across history toward an aesthetics of increased refinement and delicacy.

That likely, the shift from an anti-Kantian to a Kantian aesthetic reflects this trend, where today, instead of seeing the violence perpetrated upon the earth by reference to images of “pollution” (or such immediately recognizable images of environmental insult), we now prefer to look upon images of graphs– the relationship of surface temperature to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as one example — as if prediction is now the only form of determining environmental remediation.

Overall, I thought the presentation went well.

Afterward, I had a final opportunity to convene with Bradd and his section leader M.W. We talked on a variety of issues, including unique areas of Bradd’s research on potentially disruptive (innovative) technologies for the Arctic.

Our discussion resulted in follow up themes that I am hoping to collaborate on with Bradd for developing a stronger relationship between my own research and the DNV Arctic research team. These include, communication and conveyance of risk; the formal system of networks in the Arctic; a social science exploration of identifying contours of proprietary knowledge; a topic I suggested, geoengineering, because I felt that once we identify ourselves as the purveyors of climate change, while it may result in political action, as Al Gore states in Inconvenient Truth, it most likely will result in, well, more scientific progress! (testing on the earth, knowing that we can now manage it).

Finally, it was time to go home. Bradd and I walked down to the shuttle that would carry us to the train heading for Oslo.

Bradd lives in Norway with his family, but I told him, and not without some laughter, that he was still very much of the American Risk Taker ilk — placing me, as he did, a cultural anthropologist in front of his colleagues to see what happens, an experimental gesture to be sure, and I was grateful for the opportunity. We shook hands at Oslo central station and proceeded to our respective destinations.

Posted in Paparazzi Ethnography | Tagged Cold Spring Harbor, Høvik, Holmenkollen, Tiburon | Leave a Comment »

♣ Oslo

October 16, 2012 by Arthur Mason

10/22: Dinner at Bjørnsletta.

I left the city briefly, at least out of downtown, taking the subway to dine at the home of Alan Tiecher, IT consultant for SEKKK Corp., a consulting firm with 300 employees here in Oslo.

We had met in Berkeley, at a Carbon Sequestration workshop last year and kept in contact over email. Alan invited me to dinner, to meet his wife and family and to provide tips on Norwegian interpersonal relationships as I begin my Fulbright research. We discussed my upcoming meeting the following morning with Tomvon, see later post.

Over several beers and a traditional Norwegian meal (cutlet, potatoes, lingonberry sauce), we discussed our different career paths. Alan and his wife, Christina, along with two small children, had travel extensively, having lived in Berkeley, in Chile, visiting South Africa frequently. Alan had spent four years in the United Kingdom, at university near the city of Bath.

Christina holds an IT senior position as analyst with a firm in downtown Oslo but was considering a change in careers.

As Alan walked me back to the elevated subway stop, I seem to have surprised him by pointing out that a change in careers is difficult, especially successful ones as in cases such as his wife. Only through great conviction, I said, is it possible to remain relevant thereby neutralizing the power of currency. My surprise came when he responded that I indeed thought money was relevant.

10/19: I gave a talk at DNV today and will post my impressions shortly.

The Guard House outside of Det Norske Veritas (DNV), an architectural blend of panopticon security and kiosk disney.

10/18: I swooped into Oslo last night, arriving late from Tromsø and taking the train into town. The entirety of University of Tromsø it seemed, was working over night to complete proposals for the Research Council Norway, myself no exception, and was exhausted on the flight over.

It was a fury of efforts. I was the North American in town at that moment and thus, was thrown on to proposals other than mine, to meet the international requirements of the call, subsequently finding myself competing against myself.

I awoke in a different climate entirely, Oslo far south from Tromsø, and began putting together my talk for DNV, invited by Brad Libby, for friday. Early evening, I met up with Torild Nissen Lie, also of DNV, with whom I shared a few drinks and spoked about work and life in general. Torild has a fascinating career at DNV, a huge company involved in oil and gas development. She hired 20 folks over the past 2 years, and it was interesting to hear about employment practices of high end professionals.

Without going into details, we had a good laugh over the differences between academic and entrepreneurial affiliations.

Here is a quick video of Torild and Bradd, along side Emma Wilson on the left, when we were all together not too long ago at the Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø.
I had Torild laughing over a point about the importance we place on the body in relation to knowledge. In my paper tomorrow, for example, I point out that posture and thinking are linked to either magical causality or rational techo-economic causality — that, when giving thought to multi billion dollar West African offshore oil and gas development, kneeling with palms held tightly together in the form of prayer would unlikely be considered an appropriate form for contemplating success.

Posted in Paparazzi Ethnography | Tagged Bjørnsletta, Høvik, Oslo | Leave a Comment »

→ U. Tromsø

September 28, 2012 by Arthur Mason

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.

Posted in Paparazzi Ethnography | Tagged Tromsø | Leave a Comment »

Anywhere That is Not Now

September 22, 2012 by Arthur Mason

9/23: We are developing a Pan-Arctic research program called PanArcticon: Providing Insight into Arctic Development (website soon).

PanArcticon introduces new approaches to the study of experts, institutions, and forms of knowledge that guide arctic energy development. Current support includes two multi-year NSF awards; Norwegian Fulbright award; Aleksanteri Fellowship; Ciriacy-Wantrup Fellowship; and grants from the Canadian government.

We developed a few main themes including what we call: Anywhere That is Not Now, in which we refer to our project as one of documenting the slide of the unconventional into the conventional, that is, examining the cumulative symbolic impacts that provide capacity for enshrining Arctic oil and gas development as conventional. As such, PanArcticon is in the business of creating thick descriptions about Arctic energy. Stay tuned.

Posted in Paparazzi Ethnography | Tagged Paparazzi Ethnography | Leave a Comment »

ArcSEES

September 16, 2012 by Arthur Mason

9/13: We submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF), titled Pan-Arctic Visions of Sustainability among Indigenous Peoples and the Hydrocarbon Industry (yay!).

The project calls for collaboration of American, Western European, and Russian scholars to study differences between individually and collectively constituted visions of sustainability. Such a fabulous drafting effort! I decided to create a post for the proposal. If funded, we need to document the entire project right here on Paparazzi Ethnography.

The Participants:

We plan for workshops in Norway and northwest Russia focusing on the folks affected by hydrocarbon development, including study of local investment schemes. The idea of workshops came from the “evil genius” — as I refer to my faithful assistant Annamots, seen here in our lair at Sutardja Dai Hall, UC Berkeley — Voilà:

Participants at workshops include folks living out on the land where pipelines and oil rigs cross pastures, hunting and fishing grounds, including Indigenous peoples and the oil industry laborers working on infrastructure alongside.

Florian Stammler, of Arctic Centre at Rovaniemi, suggested this approach, providing the relevant expertise on networks with reindeer herding communities in Russia, as seen here (r), asking critical questions at the Aleksanteri conference in Helsinki, Finland.

As to workshop structure, we will elevate the importance of local voices, assigning key leadership positions to local Indigenous members. Also, Norwegian-Russian cross border engagement through workshop participant exchanges will provide opportunities for communities in Russia to learn about Norwegian human rights in the context of oil and gas.

These ideas stem from Maria Stoilkova, Eastern European expert, as seen here left in New Orleans, Louisiana, attending the Anthropological Association Meeting. The workshops will be held in conjunction with quantitative research for mix methods comparative approaches to individual and collective visions of sustainability.

And this development comes from our collaboration with a Norwegian Research Foundation funded project, directed by Dr. Ilan Kelman, who is seen here in his office at the research institute CICERO in Oslo, Norway.

Carly Dokis has a fabulously completed Ph.D. dissertation from which we constructed the intellectual merit of the proposal, which examines workshops as a Euro-American forum of consultation wrought with potential and hazards, as Carly is shown here, dining with us in Svolvaer, Norway, at a candle making shop.

Our project mentors, Bjørn Berkli, seen below in his office in Tromsø, Norway, this past August, and Nina Poussenkova, shown in the main conference room of IMEMO in Moscow, where we had the opportunity of taking a tour of the building, provide important in-country expertise.

And we know who these two early career scholars are.

You guessed it.

None other than San Francisco’s own Samantha Catalyst, Photographist and International Travelry Specialist, and Octavia Shadowz, Cocktail Waitress and Faschion Designer, both uniquely involved in the project, working at what capacity, only they know best.

Well, that’s the participants. We will return in the coming months, when we begin to hear back from the National Science Foundation Cognizants!!

Posted in Paparazzi Ethnography | Tagged Berkeley | Leave a Comment »

Enroute to Uppsala

August 13, 2012 by Arthur Mason

8/14: I visited today the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study.

Pia Hultgren was kind enough to bring me around. I had recently submitted a EURIAS fellowship application on the role of economic knowledge in energy development, which includes a stay at the Collegium. Here is Pia in her office. The Collegium is located and in fact, takes up the North Wing of the 18th c. Linneanum, a botanical garden’s palace in honor of Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), father of taxonomy, for his system of classifying organisms.

The Collegium is quite beautiful. It is a small center with areas for scholars to hang out and read and write.

Those few academics awarded a fellowship typically take one year, living in the quarters provided by the Collegium to prepare a book or set of manuscripts dealing with some facet of economic knowledge.

Actually, there are a variety of persons attending the Collegium, from writers, philosophers, economists, and also music composers.

In addition to quiet time to think one’s thoughts, there are a lot of opportunities to present ideas, at various lecture halls within the Linneanum walls, like the one above.

There is a second wing, actually, which holds tropical plants during the winter, and at the far end of this wing can be found a cactus garden.

It is a fabulous place. My own project plans to focus on expertise in economic decision making and the role of performative knowledge.

After the tour of the Linneanum we visited the grounds of the Prefect Villa, the Collegium’s adjacent 19th c. residence.

We will see what happens with the application. Thank you Pia! for a wonderful tour!

Later that day, I milled toward downtown Uppsala to meet with Dr. Ferdinand (“Fred”) Banks, energy economist at Uppsala University. Fred has written quite few superb pieces on natural gas energy systems, a point to which I will return in a moment.

Here is Fred, seeing me off at the train station, after our lunch. Overall, I believe Fred and I got along pretty well. His labor, to which I pay tribute, a narrowness of interest toward his commitment to the idea, perhaps left him feeling warm and fuzzy inside.

I had been looking forward to this meeting. Let me begin by stating Fred B. makes a stir across the blogosphere, a point to which Jonathan Stern remarked upon during his lecture in Oslo during the Petromaks conference in 2010.

I wrote a little cheat sheet while we were chatting, as typical that I do, scribbling on paper, even though my computer was beside me, writing on both sides:

So what exactly is written on this fragment of paper? Let us take a look:

“Statements that can be used by the left or right in a variety of formats” — (experts provide commentary that, while not necessarily neutral, provide a kind of neutrality of form, in that they can be operable in a variety of formats, and utilized by various different types of competing actors, much like, say, polling during an election).

“Int. Energy Economists ass. Pipes from Russia, Gas from Norway, Gas to China, From Middle East holding price up, Exxon investments not paid off” (Fred walks through a vision of what the normal is in gas industry, things that even the most casual of observers should not be mistaken, referring also to meetings he attends).

“Argon Lab, Chicago- breeder reactor, Paris- school run by an oil company” (Fred traipsing across the landscape in reference to various other experts in different locations doing interesting things).

“Ask comparative questions- how long before prices are negotiated” (Fred suggests how I should obtain real information from experts, by not asking questions that provide direct answers, but instead, creating a comparative base of answers in a polite way that illicit ego stroking and a grid of knowledge that can be compared across different informants).

“Santa Barbara oil/gas James Hamilton Michael Lynch on oil – Stern ‘I’m not an economist’, ‘what does that mean?’ Carol Dahl- Colorado Adam Simisnky EIA University of Scotland, Bornstein – Berkeley electricity knows a lot” (more suggestions of folks to examine, and J. Stern’s first sentence to Fred).

Doodads really.

Perhaps the biggest no-brainer of all, a simpleton’s advice really, but one that nails the square on the head is: The biggest thing consultants have in their favor is that [their clients] don’t know anything” (his most sustained critique of experts, “they’re smart but they just don’t know anything”).

I did not quite get this point for sometime, until I began to recognize that my job really is to inquire into the boundary that separates what surplus knowledge someone has to know in order to be just ahead of a client, and what kinds of additional accessories assist in that advancement of notice.

8/13: Meeting tomorrow with Pia Hultgren, for a tour of the Swedish Collegium where I have a EURIAS application in play. Afterward, with Ferdinand Banks, natural gas specialist at Uppsala University.

Tracking down F. Banks, or Fred, concerns method. He carries out his own paparazzi ethnography of sorts on global gas industry, though I doubt he would admit to doing so in such language. His style, what constitutes data when considering relevant developments in industry, and as an economist, results in expressing himself by way of historical economic descriptions, and; sensitivity to underlying gossip about the conditions that could potentially impact developments. In the latter case, only Jonathan Stern lectures off the record in similar manner, a point I return to later.

What I mean is that F. Banks writings identify — in addition to underlying issues, structural conditions in very specific ways, that characterize developments — such personal observations as data, which include conversations with people, responses by experts to his questions, quotes from newspapers, types of observations as inter-textual data, reflecting a special type of empiricism that focuses on fleeting phenomena of events.

These fleeting phenomena often become the talismans (widely recognized by others) that reduce the complexity of facts into simplicity of decisions. For this reason, I want to understand what types of connections he is making as a form of method.

Posted in Paparazzi Ethnography | Tagged Stockholm, Uppsala | Leave a Comment »

♣ Oslo • ♠ Stockholm

August 11, 2012 by Arthur Mason

8/13: I lunched today with Annika Nilsson, Senior Research Fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), working on Arctic environmental issues. We had a lot to discuss, Oof, so good to finally connect!

Annika works closely with Dag Avango, Researcher at nearby Royal Institute of Technology, and Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv, from U. Tromsø. As a coincidence, Annika and Dag are heading up to work with Gunild this fall, on Arctic resource development, actors, and networks. Since I will be up there as well, hashing out the European Research Council proposal (with Peter Arbo and Sidsel Saugestad), at once, we suggested we both coordinate our travel dates to organize a symposium on Arctic resource development at U. Tromsø, which certainly would be helpful for me, given Annika and Dag’s great work on networks and knowledge production in the Arctic.

Just a tangent here, we had great weather, dined outdoors near the SEI, what fabulous buffet style lunch at the nearby cafe.

I always make the most of a sit down meal, the ritual dimension of sharing so important on such occasions. Among the ancients, kinsmen were those who shared with their commensals. As such, it was only natural that they and their kindred god should seal and strengthen their fellowship by meeting together to nourish their common life by a common meal.

“Only persons who are a part of the circle within which each person’s life is sacred [through the shared meal] can be considered a comrade” (Robertson Smith p. 269 Religion of the Semites).

Okay. Enough Religion 101. Back to the story.

Annika works among remodeled late 19th century buildings that once served as a veterinary school. Just shows to go how life in urban Stockholm has changed these past one-hundred years, with absolutely no need for industry upkeep of horse and carriage. Perhaps academic activity will one day take place out of converted car sales parking lots.

I did not realize that we had so much in common! project wise that is, so it was for this reason, we took the time to catch up on alignment. For example, Annika is participating on Assessing Arctic Futures: Voices, Resources and Governance — quite similar to a proposal on sustainability we are putting together, due next month — the we here being Florian Stammler (Arctic Centre, Roveniemi), Maria Stoilkova (U. Florida), and UC Berkeley ERG’s own Evil Genius, Anna Katenbacher, my assistant who continually keeps my head above Ostriching into the ground.

Annika is also working on the Barents oil gas development project, and developing a working paper through another researcher, Nadezhda Fillimonova, recently graduated from Uppsala U. with a Master’s degree (congrats Nadia!), over which I became quite excited to hear about, given my own current research on the Barents Shtokman project.

In fact, I am just now putting together a briefing paper for Annika’s end-of-the-week workshop with colleagues to let them know I have been in town, that we connected over lunch, and that we are ready to move forward on a few proposals.

Thanks again Annika! for a great meal and chat.

Onward to Uppsala!

8/12: To Stockholm.

Airport sushi (my Berkeley reprieve).

What canned vegetables see (inside Stockholm subway station).

Voilà

Stockholm is such a beautiful city.

I was here just several months ago, paying a visit to Nadezhda Fillimonova, working then at Stockholm Environment Institute, about whom I blog below. But the city in April bears no resemblance to what I am seeing before me today, so green and warm.

8/11: CICER-O (on Saturday)

On Saturday, I visited Dr. Ilan Kelman. I was lucky to come across his acquaintance from a one, Dr. Marius Næss, with whom I lunched just several days previously in Tromsø, mentioned in my Tromsø post below. Our meeting was today brief, but in fact, we were capable of rolling out, as it were, in this quieted exchange, several research interests over which we share a mutual direction.

Dr. Kelman hails from the great North American city of Toronto, a favorite of mine to be sure, with its Chicago look and NYC feel. Tip-tap, Tip-tap was the sound of the metronomic form by which we moved across our priorities as we got to know each other at high-noon, and may I add here, how refreshing it is to be able to cross paths so nimbly, as if acquainted already with each other’s typologies of form.
Ilan is lead author on a superb (and successful) Norwegian Research Council application on oil and gas communities in the Arctic and sustainable visions of the future, which is one purpose for our meeting — on a Saturday afternoon, a real no-no in terms of Life-Balance issues, as was instructed to me this past week at Fulbright Norway orientation. But, oh well, as Ilan hails from N. America, we were happy to meet at the CICERO building on a weekend.

CICERO has a Mad Men TV-show set feel. Lucky for me there was plenty of coffee from a typical latte making machine I have become quite familiar with, and for which I include in my descriptions surrounding the corporeality of expertise.

We covered a whole slew of items, including a lengthy discussion on Ilan’s Island Vulnerability Studies and Disaster Research, which can be found more generally on his website.

Something that caught my attention was the walk back to central Oslo. CICERO is on the road to Holmenkollen, which enroute by foot, I managed only to find by main thoroughfare, although the Google maps suggested alternate routes. And on my way back, these routes became apparent to me. What they are, in fact, and the reason for which I could not trace the original path to CICERO, are small walking paths along side little streams flowing down from Holmenkollen.

What a fabulous way to walk through a city.