Infrastructures exist both within technology and our interactions with different technologies. For example, social media has digital code that creates the structure and format of the app or website. However, social media is dependent on user interactions with it. This begs the question: are user interactions part of this infrastructure? More standardized infrastructure such as what is featured in President Biden’s infrastructure bill (bridges, roads, wifi networks, etc.) are necessary and essential to American citizens. However, none of this would be necessary if not for the presence of people in the U.S. who require roads, bridges, and wifi to complete their daily activities. Many of these keywords take an approach that is largely scientific or analytical in nature, somewhat removed from a human perspective or accounting for human interaction. This infrastructure keyword is no different. In this keyword, the public is thought of as more of a collective unit rather than a complex variety of individuals. This is another example of the reductive, capitalistic perspective that is often used when discussing greater concepts or issues such as the keyword at hand.
2 thoughts on “Infrastructure: Mary Margaret Clouse”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think it is very interesting to look at the concept of infrastructure at this lens. Essentially, those who for example are the construction workers of the civil projects for transparent or even the programers have been clumped into one category in the lineage of infrastructure. With recent digital developments that could potentially take over many of the positions that people currently work as and I think it is concerning how we already see them as a mass rather than individuals. The concept of infrastructure is essential, but I personally feel that when it come to actual people, they should remain separate than the machinery and inanimate objects.
Pointed, critical commentary. Nicely done.