(PDF) Introducing infrastructural harm:

Globalizations ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rglo20 Introducing infrastructural harm: rethinking moral entanglements, spatio-temporal dynamics, and resistance(s) Yannis Kallianos, Alexander Dunlap & Dimitris Dalakoglou To cite this article: Yannis Kallianos, Alexander Dunlap & Dimitris Dalakoglou (2022): Introducing infrastructural harm: rethinking moral entanglements, spatio-temporal dynamics, and resistance(s), Globalizations, DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2022.2153493 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2153493 Published online: 22 Dec 2022. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rglo20 GLOBALIZATIONS https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2153493 INTRODUCTION Introducing infrastructural harm: rethinking moral entanglements, spatio-temporal dynamics, and resistance(s) a b c Yannis Kallianos , Alexander Dunlap and Dimitris Dalakoglou a Urban Institute, University of Sheﬃeld, Sheﬃeld, UK; bCentre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; cDepartment of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY This introduction provides an initial approach to the conceptual framework of Received 1 December 2021 infrastructural harm. It draws upon existing scholarship to discuss Accepted 27 November 2022 infrastructures as relational arrangements co-formative of harm. By KEYWORDS approaching infrastructures as sites of ongoing socio-political and Infrastructure; necropolitics; environmental antagonism, we pay attention to the ways in which harm; ethics; resistance; infrastructural harm is generated, accretes, and transmutes across diﬀerent spatiotemporality scales and contexts. We consider harm as a process that exceeds the (in)direct consequences of infrastructure operation to extend to other arrangements. Building upon the diverse case studies discussed in this special issue, we investigate how the political and necropolitical properties of infrastructures are entangled with diﬀerent technologies, judicial forms, policies, regulations and everyday processes. By foregrounding these diverse manifestations of infrastructural harm, together with its material and immaterial expressions, we expand on the existing literature in order to further explore critical codiﬁcations of contemporary socio-technical arrangements. Introduction Economic, ecological and social crises are deﬁning features of technocapitalism. Today, however, such conditions have become (more) permanent with the ubiquitous spread of information tech- nologies and the intensiﬁcation of urbanization. While certain dimensions of these crises may be spectacular and abrupt, others are mundane, slow, and lingering. Infrastructure, we contend, is a productive lens through which to examine these modalities of crises and the diverse harms that they generate. Associated with notions of modernity and progress, infrastructures are powerful devices of enchantment and imagination (Dalakoglou & Kallianos, 2018; Edwards, 2003; Harvey & Knox, 2012). Nevertheless, as sociotechnical assemblages that enable increasing (dis)connection, and as materials that endure, infrastructures also have serious socio-ecological costs. These are related to a diverse array of factors that include climate change, species extinction, ground water depletion, waste generation, forest ﬁres, and the sustained ampliﬁcation of authoritarianism over nonhumans and humans (Dunlap & Jakobsen, 2020; Kröger, 2022). At issue here is the fact that infrastructures, while they enable certain modes of circulation, mobility and existence, also generate diﬀerential and lasting modes of harm. Life within this ongoing state of crisis shows how deleter- ious eﬀects emanating from infrastructures cannot always be predicted or anticipated. CONTACT Yannis Kallianos i.kallianos@sheﬃeld.ac.uk © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. This special issue emerges from the understanding that it is necessary to further explore the var- iegated ways in which the ‘materials of modernity’ have turned into ‘instruments of slow violence’ (Hecht, 2018, p. 130; see also Nixon, 2011). In order to generate critical insights on the strong inter- relationships between infrastructures, injustice, and social and ‘environmental harm’ (White, 2013), we put forward the idea of infrastructural harm. Building on White (2013, p. 31), who con- siders harm to stem from ‘direct and indirect social processes,’ we approach it as a socio-technical process which, by persisting in time and space, and by extending to other arrangements, generates lasting, uneven, and transformative damages to ecologies and communities.1 In employing the notion of infrastructural harm, we are particularly interested in highlighting the ways in which material apparatuses and immaterial assemblages of harm create and maintain long-lasting entan- glements with socio-cultural fabrics, environments, ecologies, and political, legal, and economic practices. In analyzing such emerging harms, we want to further expose the complications, embo- diments, accretions, and extent of ‘infrastructural violence’ (Li, 2018; Rodgers & O’Neill, 2012), along with its ‘slow’ (Nixon, 2011), ‘bureaucratic’ (Eldridge & Reinke, 2018) ‘sustainable’ (Dunlap, 2017), toxic (Murphy, 2013) and ‘digital’ (Chagnon et al., 2021; see also Murrey this issue) mani- festations and dimensions. Moreover, infrastructural harm is also mobilized as a way to examine the conﬂicts generated by socio-technical arrangements and their eﬀects. Our overarching question is: What political, technological, societal, and moral registers are revealed when we examine, ﬁrst, the harms created or triggered by the development and workings of infrastructures, and secondly, how people adapt, resist, and oppose such processes? Answering this question requires that we tread with sensitivity as we listen to our ecosystems, to discontent and marginalized human and nonhuman communities. We must do so to understand not only what constitutes and creates harm through infrastructures today, but also the historical processes that made the generation of such harm possible, as well as the diﬀerential ways in which infrastructure dynamics can be harmful across diﬀerent contexts. This implies employing a longue durée approach to examine how harm re-shapes the ‘political economy of existences’ (Kröger, 2022, p. 46), excavating and remembering those forms of life that previously existed in territories, how they changed, and what replaced them – from forests to plantations, wetlands to strip malls, and thriving ecosystems to urbanities dependent on extractivism(s). Thus, we propose that the notion of harm, although deeply intertwined with the idea of environmental pollution, expresses in an eﬀective way the much larger temporal scale, depth, and thickness of the diverse eﬀects that infra- structure can cause. Instead, however, of understanding harm as a process distinct from the building and function of modern infrastructure, we consider it as inherent to its broader workings. This implies acknowl- edging the extractive realities that necessitate urban infrastructural development (Chagnon et al., 2022) and even low-carbon infrastructures (Dunlap, 2021a). Such an approach allows us to focus on the processual, ‘slow,’ and cumulative forms and consequences of violence that are reinforced and extended by infrastructural development. Essential to this process is understanding how harm extends beyond the distributional ‘costs’ and ‘beneﬁts’ of environmental justice frame- works (Scheidel et al., 2018, 2020). These, in many instances, do not challenge the dominant ideo- logical framework and culture of development (Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020; Tornel, 2022). One way to start thinking about this is by ascertaining how and why the lasting harms of infrastructure, and the ideologies of development, progress, economic growth (and the underlying extractivism they imply), are tolerated and underestimated. Hence, while we take into consideration ‘infrastructural ecologies’ (Krieg et al., 2020), we also highlight how ecological adaptation to industrial infrastruc- tures is not without harmful rippling eﬀects on nonhuman lives (Mateer et al., 2021; Pellow, 2014). GLOBALIZATIONS 3 It is therefore imperative that we study the harm, or even the extermination, created by modernist infrastructural regimes, regardless of whether human and nonhuman communities learn to adapt to new material terrains and conditions. This introduction to the special issue proceeds by brieﬂy reviewing infrastructural research and key developments within the ﬁeld, before further elaborating on critical modalities of infrastruc- tural harm. It then goes on to consider three key analytical approaches to examining infrastructural harm. First, we discuss how harm persists, accumulates, and changes across space and time. Second, we examine the moral entanglements of infrastructure to consider the idea that in order to attend to the lasting harms of infrastructure, we need to bring ‘the material and the moral into a more sat- isfactory alignment’ (Ferguson, 2012, p. 562). Third, we turn our attention to the politics of resist- ance, contestation, and counter-infrastructures. Doing so entails exploring the complications of resisting infrastructural development and considering what ecologically appropriate and anti-capi- talist infrastructures are possible. We then summarize the special issue contributions highlighting their focus and engagement with the themes of space, time, ethics, and resistance/resurgence. In the conclusion, we reiterate our belief in the necessity of examining the necropolitical dimensions of infrastructures as an essential part of their everyday codiﬁcation and work. The ‘infrastructural turn’ and beyond: critical modalities of infrastructural harm The rigorous reconceptualisation of infrastructures in social sciences and humanities has revealed the signiﬁcant and diverse factors, complications, and contestations associated with modernist socio-technical design, construction, operation, and aﬀectiveness. Within this modernist frame, infrastructures are approached as relational and processual systems that ‘allow for the possibility of exchange over space’ through their capacity to facilitate mobility, connections, greater velocities, and ﬂows (Larkin, 2013, p. 327; see also Star & Bowker, 1996; Graham & Marvin, 2001). Although infrastructures are essential in the formation of connections and mobility, they are, at the same time, responsible for generating immobilities and disconnections (Dalakoglou & Harvey, 2012; Dalakoglou & Kallianos, 2014; Graham, 2011; Rodgers, 2012). Infrastructures are fragile systems that operate via disruption, uncertainty, complexity and disorder (Graham, 2010a; Harvey et al., 2018; Kallianos, 2018; Soppelsa, 2009; Zeiderman et al 2015).2 Here, we view their life aﬃrming and generative qualities as going hand-in-hand with deleterious and harmful eﬀects that disrupt livelihoods and underpin environmental injustice and ecological degradation. Even when infrastructures are not designed with malicious intent, they can, through their productive supply-webs, material and spatiotemporal arrangements, and promise, reinforce deleterious labour conditions and racial segregation (Ranganathan, 2016). The fact that a functioning infrastructure can constitute a beneﬁt for some and an impediment or struggle for others (Star, 1999) shows us how by operating ‘on multiple levels concurrently’ (Larkin, 2013, p. 335), infrastructure can sim- ultaneously mobilize ‘conﬂictual political ideals, ideologies and relations’ (McFarlane & Ruther- ford, 2008, p. 370). Infrastructure’s contradictory characteristics, which as Graham and McFarlane (2015, p. 12) argue, mean that we should not approach it as a ‘straightforward thing,’ are also made manifest by the fact that while it has been employed in modernity as a way ‘to miti- gate risk, it also involves new risks as it comes to fruition’ (Howe et al., 2016, p. 548). Within this context, Rodgers and O’Neill (2012, p. 403) employ the notion of ‘infrastructural violence’ to highlight ‘the fact that the workings of infrastructure can be substantially deleterious.’ For Appel (2012, p. 461), at the same time as infrastructures operate in a reliable manner, in terms of contributing to the market economy, they create overﬂows that spill out. Such a process, Appel 4 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. (2012) suggests, is strongly interconnected with the generation of violence through exclusion, dis- connection, and disentanglement from responsibility. To shed further light on the necropolitical consequences of infrastructures, Truscello (2020, p. 4) introduces the concept of ‘infrastructural brutalism,’ to indicate the historical context in which industrial capitalism, despite having ‘met the limits of its expansion and domination,’ still continues to uninterruptedly build infrastructures. Infrastructures are therefore not politically neutral, but rather embody and thus work to normalize values, symbols, and dependency.3 At the same time, they feed fantasies of political control that reproduce and solidify hegemonic, statist, and neoliberal political arrangements (Anand et al., 2018; Mann, 1984; Mitchell, 2011; Winner, 1980). The ‘necropolitics of infrastructure’ or ‘infra- structural brutalism’, as Truscello (2020: 15) calls it, places a name to this dependency, spatial dom- ination, and socio-ecological degradation, which, overall, operates as an accomplice to capitalism that has placed humanity on a trajectory towards the Sixth Extinction. We therefore encourage readers to ask: what does infrastructure really enable communities to do? What can the role of socio-technical arrangements be in creating more socio-ecologically sustainable alternatives? The modern infrastructural condition creates, and is dependent on, a ‘double-bind’ that aﬃrms life only through – directly and/or indirectly – processes of systematic subordination, desolation, and death. To a certain extent, the biopolitics of circulation and connection that are maintained and ensured through the present infrastructural condition, as well as the modern allure that these can produce, distract from the inherent necropolitical realities of infrastructure.4 To attend to infrastructural necropolitics, we chart the contradictory outcomes, logics, schisms, and trans- formations enacted in reference to the ‘work’ of infrastructure. By this we also mean a dynamic that extends and exceeds infrastructure’s capacities and capabilities beyond the context of design and planning to enact an array of (other) material, aﬀective, and aesthetic or symbolic processes (without necessarily aﬀecting or disrupting its planned function). As such, we conceptualize the entanglement between infrastructure’s planned function and the unintended assemblages brought into being by its operation to be formative of the work of infrastructure, and thus of the ways in which such arrangements can be generative of diﬀerential forms of harm (see also Kanoi et al., 2022). Critical here is a consideration of infrastructure’s built-in properties, through design and planning, that either establish or further solidify and perpetuate these processes, as well as to bring to the fore the diverse spatial and temporal scales within which infrastructure’s deleterious eﬀects can be manifested. Infrastructural life remains stimulating and menacing at the same time as it enacts an enormous and largely unknown cumulative socio-ecological cost. Lauren Berlant’s (2011, p. 1) conceptualization of ‘cruel optimism,’ as a relation ‘that exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your ﬂourishing,’ is instructive here. Infrastructural optimism, as reﬂected in the desire for greater and faster connectivity, the proliferation of market opportunities, the promise of progress and economic growth, and the continuous (self-)aﬃrmation of being ‘modern’ can produce harmful eﬀects. In many instances, infrastructure’s cruel optimism entangles with desires, work obligations, vulnerabilities and dependency enforced and imposed by bureaucratic and capitalist logics (see also Salas Landa, 2016). The optimistic relations and attach- ments that infrastructure can enact, and in particular how these can become an obstacle to collective well-being – a process also associated with the ways in which communities learn to adapt to and live through infrastructural harm – points to the strong association between the work of infrastructure and a process of normalizing neglect, injustice, political instability, and socio-cultural disruption. One-way infrastructures work in the everyday is by precluding other future potentialities. By addressing the multifunctional, multiscalar, relational, (in)visible, ambivalent, and entangled capacities of infrastructure, we approach it as ‘active, forceful and plural rather than passive, GLOBALIZATIONS 5 inactive and unitary’ (Lemke, 2015, p. 2); a ‘matter’ that is ‘always more-than-material’ and ‘never just a matter of engineering and ﬁnance’ (Barry, 2015). Infrastructures are active, even when they are no longer in operation, and/or even when they are not even built at all (Dalakoglou, 2018). Taking all these into consideration, the role of infrastructures in sustaining and/or further conso- lidating established power relations and forms of hierarchy, violence, and inequality deserves further acknowledgement. This also requires that we examine events of circumvention, appropria- tion and resistance to infrastructure that have emerged all around the world (Collier et al., 2016; Giovanopoulos et al., 2020). These infrastructure struggles, apart from making visible the diﬀerent expressions of infrastructural harm, also propose an understanding of infrastructures as potential technologies of resistance, participation, and emancipation (LaDuke & Cowen, 2020; Lennon, 2021; Siamanta, 2021). Such an approach acknowledges the future collective challenges of our time, which are inseparable from an ongoing process of education around how to transform, appropriate and create socio-ecologically sustainable infrastructures. Essential in this discussion is the fact that infrastructures and technologies that were previously gloriﬁed and considered as symbols of modernity and progress, are now perceived as embodying an ongoing and corrosive crisis which reﬂects various registers of everyday harm (Appel et al., 2018; Cowen, 2018; Dyer & Wakeﬁeld, 2015). By extending and manifesting diﬀerently over time, infra- structural harm has a damaging rippling eﬀect that can alter the quality and conditions of people’s lives. These enduring enmeshments are permeated by what Nixon (2011, p. 2) calls ‘slow violence,’ that is ‘a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all.’ We must focus on the multiple, consistent, and invisible dynamics of harm that are embodied, and assimilated as part of broader political and economic processes. This is imperative if we wish to understand the many deleterious eﬀects of oppression, ecological degradation, violence, and every- day disruptions – from police operations and neighbourhood ‘red lining’ (Gibson, 2007), to the cut- ting of trees, and the making of roads. This means looking at active and passive forms of violence and their corresponding harmful eﬀects and interconnections, as they emanate from the diﬀerent phases of infrastructural life (e.g. planning, development, operation, decommissioning). To what extent, then, can we consider their systematic and deadly eﬀects as incidental within the context of modernity? Acknowledging this debate, and re-deploying Klein’s (2007) theory of ‘dis- aster capitalism,’ Ofrias (2017, p. 450) puts forward the concept of the ‘incentive to contaminate’ as a way to think about ‘how “invisible harms” produce “invisible opportunities” for capital accumu- lation and other consolidations of power.’ For Ofrias (2017, p. 437), in certain occasions, contami- nation, as an inevitable process within the industrial and technological spectrum of capital, ‘acts as a chemical weapon, at least in eﬀect.’5 Such harm manifests most severely in communities, bodies, and spaces that are already structurally marginalized, oppressed, and dispossessed (Auyero & de Lara, 2012). We suggest that ecological destruction, including through its translation into socio- political harm, is an essential necropolitical component to (techno)capitalist and statist infrastructures. Infrastructural harm transcends contexts, collapsing certain scalar, temporal, and spatial seg- mentations. This can be clearly seen when we consider that we live in a ‘permanently polluted world’ (Liboiron et al., 2018) where wildﬁres, landﬁlls, marine pollution, and toxic contamination do not merely aﬀect one locality but, because they are interconnected, extend to permeate and satu- rate diﬀerent contexts (Liboiron, 2021). Examining infrastructural harm as a process that forms and is shaped through political scales requires the rethinking of established divisions between urban/ rural, centre/periphery, formal/informal, and local/global. Through such an approach, certain 6 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. harms might be visible at one scale and context while they can disappear at another (Liboiron et al., 2018, p. 335; see also Blok et al., 2016; Hecht, 2018). This way of understanding also draws attention to the fact that harm inhabits and shapes environments diﬀerentially (Hetherington, 2019), and is absorbed by bodies. The ongoing process of infrastructural harm assumes varied forms and has diverse eﬀects in diﬀerent contexts (Hoﬀman, 2017; Murphy, 2017). During these processes, ‘[t]he body consumes and is consumed’ (Stewart, 2005, p. 1024), thus blurring the lines between domination, consent, and desire – the cruel optimism of digestible chemicals and food products. We consider infrastructural harm to be contingent on how and when it connects to other processes, structures and bodies, and the context in which it is generated and enacted. By shaping environ- ments, habitual patterns and social fabrics, it (re)deﬁnes our capacity to form connections and associations. Infrastructural harm plays a deﬁnite role in the ways in which ‘aﬃnities take shape, or not’ (Mitropoulos, 2012, p. 116), since by enabling certain kinds of relationships, it hinders or disturbs others. Infrastructural harm also solidiﬁes the relationship between coloniality and infrastructures, which has been subject to renewed interest. Through her study of ﬁnance centres, Cowen (2020) examines how rural areas are internally colonized by railways and pipelines, as part of a process of urbanization through digitalization and surveillance. Lesutis (2021, p. 2), examining the Ugandan railway, reveals how this infrastructural system was instrumental to shaping Kenyan state formation. Oﬀering the concept of ‘infrastructural territorialization,’ Lesutis (2021, p. 2) refers to how a ‘contested’ and ‘speciﬁc’ infrastructural organization was techno-politically imposed on a territory. For Davies (2021), ‘the coloniality of infrastructure’ is also reﬂected in how colonial engineers are instrumental to creating ‘landscapes of export’ entangled with racist, sexist and ecologically destructive arrangements (see also Daggett, 2019). This extends to colonial regimes using, or weaponizing, infrastructutral failure to further subjugate and terrorize inhabi- tants, along with other politically and economically repressive activities, as Joanna Allan and col- leagues (2022) document in ‘Africa’s last colony,’ the Western Sahara. ‘Energy colonialism,’ a term introduced by Batel and Devine-Wright (2017; see also Batel & Küpers, 2022, this issue), relates to previous debates by speaking to the racist presuppositions and perspectives that guide and justify the construction of energy infrastructures. The colonality of infrastructure, moreover, extends to theortical and research criticism. The framework of ‘energy justice,’ Carlos Tornel (2022: 13) contends, ‘adhere to Western understandings of ‘"objective knowledge," the good life, freedom, happiness and development’ thereby reinforcing the ‘cultural logics of colo- nialism [that] are reproduced by state-led inclusivity, which encourages recognition, participation, and even distribution.’ Said simply, energy justice – and other academic theortical frameworks – risk reproducing state power and organizing socio-political terrain in favor of extractivist devel- opment and proﬁt-oriented energy companies. These approaches overlap with Dunlap’s (2020, p. 112,122) understanding of ‘infrastructural colonization,’ which, ‘despite technological allure,’ seeks to politicize ‘the process of land territor- ialization’ to understand the ‘eco-psychogeographical impact of infrastructure’ on humans and nonhumans. ‘Infrastructural colonization,’ Dunlap and Correa-Arce (2022, p. 461) contend, ‘spreads social war predicated on the ideology of modernity, discourses of progress and the fabrica- tion of desires/aspirations of populations – near and far – to justify its socio-ecological repercus- sions.’ For Dunlap and Correa-Arce (2022, p. 461), the key point is that politico-economic ‘invasion is infrastructural.’ While further enacting extractive colonial relationships, Stock (2022: 2) reveals how solar facilities ‘can be conceived as as an energy plantation’ that ‘functions as a rationally-ordered, hierarchical, eﬃcient, ideal and imperative social systems that is implemented GLOBALIZATIONS 7 as a solution to the climate crisis’. Building on these approaches, we claim that infrastructural harm colonizes territories, organisms, ecologies, and bodies. By colonizing the very ‘matter’ around which life is shaped and organized, such harm saturates relations with promises of improvement and prosperity, despite the fact that it often generates inequality, uncertainty, and despair. In a similar manner, ‘infrastructural coloniality’ (Dunlap, 2021b, this issue), is the by-product or after- life of infrastructural colonization, which reveals the forgetting and normalization of human and nonhuman coercion and degradation generated by (modernist) infrastructures. This forgetting fre- quently relates to colonial and capitalist land relations embedded in infrastructural construction or long-term development. The innovation economy and digital proﬁteering, for example, would not be possible without a process of colonial land dispossession based on genocidal military campaigns against Indigenous people (Tarvainen, 2022). Thus infrastructural harm does not merely colonize the present, it can also erase the past and disrupt and reconﬁgure our expectations and imagin- ations for the future. Approaching infrastructural harm This section discusses three key analytical approaches to examining infrastructural harm that can help shed further light on how arrangements of harm are normalized, experienced, governed, and confronted. Spatiotemporality, morality, and resistance all oﬀer important doorways into the work of harm. Focusing on space and time highlights how the violence of infrastructures accretes over time, relies on space, and is absorbed, adapted and manifests in harm. In addition, it transforms our understandings of the past, conditions our perception of the present, and alters, if not hinders, possible alternatives to present infrastructural arrangements (see also, Li, 2018, p. 330). Equally, morality, an essential characteristic of the concept of harm (Kahane & Savulescu, 2012, p. 318), reﬂects how infrastructural apparatuses entail and enact moral politics that assist in forming urban, modern, and ‘civil’ subjectivities as well as practices of accountability (McFarlane & Ruther- ford, 2008, p. 367). Finally, our examination of resistance allows us to pose important questions concerning one of the main infrastructural predicaments of our times. Namely, how to collectively attend to, confront, and resist the harm created and/or enacted by infrastructures when our every- day life is almost entirely dependent on networked socio-technical systems (Graham & Marvin, 2001, pp. 26–27; see also Truscello, 2020). The spaces and times of harm A spatial and temporal approach provides a critical analytical lens through which to highlight the modalities of infrastructural arrangements within the continuum of cumulative socio-cultural harm (Willow, 2019). It attends to the diﬀerential ways in which materialities, arrangements, and dynamics persist as well as transmute over time and space. To these ends, we must adopt a long-term and multiscalar perspective. This is essential if we are to pinpoint how harm is (re)in- frastructured from one particular material form and process to another and/or how it brings together seemingly disparate arrangements and practices. For example, highlighting how wind energy infrastructures, apart from the violence that they generate within local contexts (see Dunlap, 2021b, this issue), can have equally deleterious eﬀects for other communities when decommis- sioned and reclassiﬁed as waste (see Sovacool et al., 2020). Charting the long-term changing path of harm is fundamental. Doing so provides analytical and empirical knowledge that can be translated into socio-spatial justice practices. 8 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. Time can provide a useful lens through which to examine how harm from violent events is (re-)galvanized and (re-)enacted through banal and wider everyday processes. For instance, disas- ters, when examined spatiotemporally, can reveal how vulnerability has been infrastructured in the everyday. This can take place either through top-down governmental decisions that make certain spaces (even) more susceptible to catastrophes, or it can also be concretized via a process of unpre- paredness and unprotection (see also Tousignant, 2022, this issue). Smith (2006) explains such pro- cesses in detail in relation to Hurricane Katrina. By highlighting the diﬀerent socio-economic factors that co-shaped this disaster, he notes its causes and eﬀects as part of an infrastructural pro- cess, rather than an isolated natural event. Hecht’s (2018) conceptualization of ‘interscalar vehicles’ is equally illuminating since it points to how toxic harm can be channelled from one practice to another. As Hecht (2018, pp. 129–130) explains, part of the waste rock generated during the mining of uranium in Gabon – crucial for the making of French atomic bombs and nuclear power – was later used to make local shelters, which thus turned into ‘toxic infrastructure.’6 The capacity of infrastructural harm to persist and linger over time and space conﬁrms the long processual life of infrastructures. Deﬁned by longevities that ‘often exceed human lifetimes’ (Appel et al., 2018, p. 19), infrastructures do not easily vanish, but have many lives (Anand et al., 2018). Equally, the harm that they generate is ‘incremental and accretive’ (Nixon, 2011, p. 2). By inhabiting space, it also alters the very foundations and expectations of our future. As Kröger (2022, p. 23) explains, ‘there is a need to understand that extractivist expansions are also processes of existential extinctions.’ Employing a spatiotemporal approach moves us beyond spectacular expressions of violence to examine how slow and accumulative infrastructure eﬀects generate harm. By making visible the endurance of harm, through helping trace interconnections between its material and immaterial manifestations, a spatiotemporal approach highlights the fact that harm does not always appear in the same way or at the same time. Through this analytical lens, we can also examine how the velocities of fast-capitalism (through cables, pipelines, roads, etc) both shape and are shaped by infrastructural harm. By focusing on the diﬀerent rhythms, temporal vectors, and velocities of harm, it allows us to consider the extent to which fast-capitalism is promoted and materialized through its entanglement with slow violence. As such, attention to how techno-capitalism operates through the production of variegated modes of (in)visibility and rhythm is crucial in order to exam- ine how harm is ‘spatially as well as temporally dispersed from the initial event or events and their full impact’ (Cahill & Pain, 2019, p. 1057). We must therefore address these dynamics in order to enable action and to confront those harms that alter our collective futures. Moral entanglements Infrastructures are wedded to modernist and liberal ethical ideologies (Rodgers & O’Neill, 2012; Wakeﬁeld, 2018). By approaching infrastructural harm through morality, we hope to highlight how harm is associated with ethical dilemmas and with the question of ‘what counts as good and proper relations’ (Liboiron et al., 2018, p. 334). This perspective considers that infrastructures are co-formative of moral entanglements that ‘produce an ethics’ (Larkin, 2013, p. 331), thus becoming performative devices through which particular ‘moral behaviours’ are mobilized (Von Schnitzler, 2008, p. 908). Despite the practical beneﬁts they oﬀer, modern infrastructures are clear indicators of and monuments to the socio-ecological crisis ravaging the planet. Infrastructural harm, then, seeks to foreground how interconnections between infrastructure and morality are instrumental to the ways in which technological processes are entangled with power relations GLOBALIZATIONS 9 and governance. We are particularly interested in the ‘ethical plateaus’ (Fischer, 2003) that infra- structural harm makes possible, and in the ways in which these plateaus are co-formative of sub- jectivities and imaginaries (Fortun & Fortun, 2005). Fischer (2003, p. 36) conceptualizes ‘ethical plateaus’ as spaces ‘where multiple technologies interact to create a complex terrain or topology of perception and decision making.’7 Approaching infrastructure, and its variegated and lasting deleterious eﬀects, through ethical plateaus helps us consider how the entanglement of legal, tech- nological, cultural, and political dynamics produces moral politics and economies that reﬂect how people take positions and make judgments about particular infrastructural issues. Moreover, examining ethical plateaus of harm is fundamental to the process of organizing ‘structures of responsibility’ (Ferguson, 2012). In addition, the need to foster accountability is also related to the investigation of how violent and deleterious socio-technical arrangements oper- ate, enact, and extend to other processes and networks. Accountability is often enmeshed with the complex and interconnected operations of infrastructure, the strenuous, ongoing, and contested process of producing evidence (Liboiron et al., 2018, p. 339), and attempts to abdicate responsibility (Appel, 2012). Thus becoming familiar with the diverse modalities of infrastructural harm in neo- liberal technocapitalism is part of broader epistemological and political commitments for generat- ing ethical relations and moral ecologies (Liboiron et al., 2018; Scaramelli, 2019). Social structures of accountability are fundamental in creating indignation, resistance, and alternatives to capitalist infrastructures. Here, we are also interested in how harm’s spatial and temporal entanglements are imbued with moral dynamics. The question is whether distance, as Smith (2000) asks, ‘diminish[es] responsibil- ity?’ (Mayhew, 2015, p. 333). To consider this, we argue that distance serves as a tool that legiti- mates the refusal of accountability and, more practically, insulates people from the more dramatic negative impacts infrastructure has on others (Dunlap 2019). Consider, for example, the way the military attempts, through its use of drones, to ‘compartmentalise[d] psyches’ of sol- diers through distance and the gamiﬁcation of airstrikes (Chamayou, 2015, p. 123). Distance should therefore be viewed as not merely temporal or spatial, but rather as an ontological state; a process instrumental to manufacturing the ‘Other.’ This requires that we engage with the socio-political and cultural dimensions of distancing as well as acknowledge how temporal and geographical dis- tance, and thus the distinction between direct and indirect violence and harm, can create tolerance for capitalist activities and expansion (Ofrias, 2017), thereby also allowing the extermination of non-human life (Kröger, 2022). Further, we can move towards creating more discernible processes of responsibility through the study of relations between direct and indirect harms, understood as open and not ﬁxed. Ascribing responsibility is all the more signiﬁcant when we consider the diverse ways in which this process fails or is obstructed by institutional, formal, legal, and statist frame- works. Overall, attending to the moral entanglements that infrastructure enacts is fundamental, not only to tracing the political and moral economy of harm, but also, to examining how particular attempts to create structures and practices of accountability are tied to wider claims for collective action, justice, and ‘the right to infrastructure’ (Corsín Jiménez, 2014). Such moral entanglements show that imagining and building infrastructures away from and against the modernist paradigm is a process intrinsically tied to diﬀerent ethics, values and morals. Resistance, contestation and counter-infrastructures How do we resist, appropriate and remake our infrastructures? This question is critical if we are to unravel the present socio-political and ecological crisis, as well as imagine alternative collective 10 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. futures. Processes of resistance and appropriation signal the limitations of infrastructural harm, but also show how resisting harm can produce myriad alternative potentialities. Scott’s (1985) ‘weapons of the weak,’ urban permaculture approaches, and the extensive repertoires of direct confrontation, sabotage, demolition, and appropriation, all constitute important modalities here. Such practices have the capacity to chart and create a transformational infrastructural praxis. Nevertheless, the issue of how to resist harmful infrastructures is far from resolved. Truscello (2020, p. 234), exam- ining the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), which was ‘among the most successful of any petro-insurgency in history’ because of its obstruction of oil output, illuminates the contours of this pressing problem as follows: If the most successful petro-insurgency in the world could not remove or shut down the oil corpor- ations in the region, what lesson does this hold for the tactics used in other parts of the world in which eﬀorts to disrupt oil capitalism are far less militant? This indicates that direct confrontation is not enough, there is a need for greater participation, the cultivation of cultures of infrastructural resistance and the development of collective counter-tac- tics against dominant infrastructural arrangements. In fact, in order to resist infrastructural harm, what is required is a diversity of anti and counter-infrastructural tactics and strategies. However, this will not be possible until the socio-ecological costs of infrastructural systems, especially those related to digital or ‘smart’ infrastructures (Chagnon et al., 2021), are fully recog- nized. We need to further develop analytical tools for examining how the widespread acclimatation and regimentation to material and energy intensive infrastructures has normalized the harms of technological society. In other words, how have the enchantment and desire that infrastructures generate through technological allure, convenience, ideologies, and collective hopes and beliefs – notably ‘green’ or climate change mitigation claims (see Dunlap 2021b; Batel & Küpers 2022; Käkö- nen & Nygren 2022, this issue) – developed into dependence? This dependency in turn reinforces a constant fear of infrastructure breakdown. Infrastructural harm highlights the extractive costs of infrastructure and technological develop- ment. Lived experiences of chronic injustices, toxic environments, uncertainty, and oppression, can create strong emotions that oﬀer critical insights into the inner workings of infrastructural harm (Davies, 2018; Nixon, 2011) as well as resistance. Forms of resistance to infrastructure projects and contestation generally need to be connected with broader forms of socio-political accountabil- ity or, likewise, create their own accountability processes or consequences for developers and gov- erning authorities. State regulation, as Hickel (2020) shows, enforces high consumption through advertising, planned obsolescence, privatization schemes, wasteful arrangements and destructive industries. These produce and enable socio-ecological degradation in the name of economic growth and technological progress. This harm is further intensiﬁed by the police, military and mercenary forces deploying the art of scientiﬁc violence against people resisting infrastructure projects (Dun- lap & Brock, 2022; Menton & Le Billon, 2021; Verweijen & Dunlap, 2021). Such institutional and extra-judicial practices make resisting and appropriating industrial and digital infrastructures an enormous challenge. Today, more than ever, it is urgent that we start imagining and creating infrastructures that miti- gate and reverse the harms of infrastructural violence. Can we, for instance, imagine energy infra- structures that are non-exploitative (Siamanta, 2021; Dunlap, 2021a)? In line with Indigenous peoples across the world, LaDuke and Cowen (2020) stress the principle of reciprocity with ecosys- tems. Outlining the importance of community-scale energy generation systems, LaDuke and Cowen (2020) advocate hemp production, localized food production, the revitalization of railways and GLOBALIZATIONS 11 social infrastructures oﬀering clean water, shelter and care for the vulnerable. This approach is rooted in Indigenous self-determination, which includes re-thinking ‘berry patches’ or ecological systems (forest, trees, rivers, etc.), as the most ‘critical infrastructures’ to be defended (LaDuke & Cowen, 2020, p. 252). As Enns and Sneyd (2021, p. 14) argue, infrastructural justice requires taking into serious consideration ‘the infrastructural work done by nature.’ Defending territories – or the most critical infrastructures (e.g. ecosystems/habitats) – becomes foundational, thereby opening up possibilities for articulating alternative socio-ecological futures. Key to such an endeavour is the for- mulation of ways of appropriating, resisting and reusing oppressive infrastructures, all the while imbuing them with new values and relationships. Such practices extend to commoning by trans- forming abandoned airports into ecological community spaces (Dalakoglou, 2017), appropriating empty houses for squatting (SEK, 2014), and, overall, reconﬁguring and recycling infrastructural systems. Uncovering and rethinking infrastructural harms across the world: Special issue contributions. The contributions in this special issue inquire into diﬀerent manifestations of infrastructural harm across the world (Asia, South America, Africa and Europe), as well diverse infrastructures and socio-cultural dynamics and responses (e.g. waste dumps, wind turbines, power lines, mines, digital interruption, agricultural infrastructures and dams). Through investigating the ways in which infra- structural arrangements can be harmful to ecologies, economies and human and non-human commu- nities, the seven case studies trace the dynamics of infrastructural harm as associated with a wide variety of processes. These include contestation and resistance, colonialism, fabricating sustainability, (un)protection, exposure, disruption, regulation, non-building, (in)visibility and the assigning of responsibility. Based primarily on anthropological, geographical, historical, environmental, and STS approaches, the contributing authors oﬀer rich data and strong evidence illuminating the many ways in which infrastructural harm is generated, mutates, is enacted as a way of governance, and resisted. The article by Yannis Kallianos and Dimitris Dalakoglou touches upon the (in)visible and spa- tio-temporal modalities of infrastructural harm through a focused study of the only legal waste management facility in Athens, Greece. Based on long-term ﬁeldwork, the authors examine the ways in which the environmental violence, caused by the long-lasting operation of a particular landﬁll in order to deal with the city’s garbage, has transmuted into (infra)structural forms of harm that enmesh with various political and economic processes that unevenly reshape experiences of the city. Their contribution points to the diverse ways in which infrastructural harm, by being entangled with and repatterned according to other arrangements, persists by inhibiting alternative collective futures. Kallianos and Dalakoglou also indicate that in order to oppose the eﬀects of such harm, several communities have been devising critical modes of infrastructure pedagogy. These are built upon collective practices of accountability which are informed by critical visibility, public memory, and imagination. The contribution by Mira Käkönen and Anja Nygren employs a critical comparative approach to examine the historical development of dams in the Mekong (Laos and Cambodia), and the Grijalva (Mexico) river basins. Conceptualizing dams as infrastructural assemblages, the authors show that current forms of hydropower, by centralizing ‘nodes of hydro-social ordering’ and strengthening corporate and state power, generate vulnerabilities for riverine residents. The work of Käkönen and Nygren also points to the partial malleability of complex dam assemblages. When considered 12 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. in connection with proﬁt-maximizing operations, these assemblages obscure issues of responsibil- ity, augment climate vulnerabilities, and can have harmful eﬀects on local communities. ‘The more proﬁt-oriented the operation logic’, Käkönen and Nygren (2022: 16) conclude, ‘the more restricted the possibilities are to repurpose dams to serve climate governance, through which dams have for- cefully been re-legitimised’. In order to highlight the power formations and persistent socio- environmental harms that dams generate, and to reduce zones of opacity around issues of respon- sibility, they call for a detailed and nuanced analysis of the diverse and changing factors that con- stitute such infrastructural assemblages. Susana Batel and Sophia Küpers continue this exploration of dams and of infrastructural harm in the context of the ‘Global North.’ With research based on archives and interviews, the authors construct a psycho-social historiography of selected large-scale hydropower dams in Portugal. Their contribution explores how the concept of energy justice can be widened to take into account the harsh realities of dam ‘renewable energy colonialism’ across space and time. While developing the concept of ‘energy colonialism’, the article explores how the historical development of dams has been constituted by articulating an urban core-rural periphery ‘colonial logic’, which engenders practices of rural erasure, discrimination, and ecological degradation. Discourses on dam develop- ment, Batel and Küpers (2022: 9) show, ‘conceal the fact that the dams were being used to foster the industrialization and urbanziation of the country, especially in costal/urban centres, and also that the promised jobs and socio-economic development are, in fact, tentative and non-consequential’ in rural areas in the interior of the country. Delving further into the politics and practice of dam development in Portugal, Batel and Küpers’ article draws attention to critical spatiotemporal approaches enacted by Portuguese authorities that create and reveal the necropolitical and colonial dimensions of hydropower development in Portugal, which to this day remain under-scrutinised in the public realm. Continuing with the theme of energy infrastructures, Alexander Dunlap examines the intercon- nected realities of constructing energy transformers, high-voltage power lines, wind turbines, and European energy markets. Employing a multi-sited political ecology analysis of infrastructure (MSPEAI), his article connects various environmental conﬂicts based around a 400kv high-voltage power line (HVPL). The article reveals green infrastructural harms through ﬁve interlinked environmental conﬂicts across France, Catalonia and Spain, and impresses upon us the idea that – contrary to public relations discourses and government policy – there is no ‘renewable’ energy transition, only grid expansion and increased material and energy-use. Dunlap reveals how the tra- jectory of the European Green Deal (EGD) is intensifying the infrastructural colonization of rural landscapes and concretizing the reach of a (neo)liberal energy market. This reality runs counter to the proclaimed aspirations of environmentalists and Green New Deal advocates. Dunlap’s contri- bution concludes by asserting the necessity of implementing degrowth policies to reduce the spread of infrastructural harm that propels the current socio-ecological and climate catastrophe. Investigating the ‘indirect and uncertain but nonetheless active’ modalities of harm, the contri- bution by Noémi Tousignant takes us to Senegal, West Africa, to tell the story of how the enduring eﬀects of the colonial socio-technical regulation of aﬂatoxin in peanuts has resulted in a process she terms ‘residual unprotection.’ Tied to the development and promotion of infrastructures tailored to European markets, the farming, processing, and regulation of peanuts has been unequally and unevenly organized to prioritize exports. Over time, this has left local consumption open to harms associated with the production of partial knowledge, ignorance and doubt about aﬂatoxin. By putting forward the idea of ‘residual unprotection,’ Tousignant’s contribution aims to draw attention to the uneven distribution of harm ‘arising from unequal, denied, withdrawn or deferred GLOBALIZATIONS 13 protection,’ and thus to challenge established oppositions between active and passive forms of vio- lence. As a result, it oﬀers critical insights into the ways in which harm is generated through the ‘dispersed and long-lasting eﬀects’ of toxic infrastructures. Jesse Jonkman and Marjo de Theije propose the notion ‘insurgent infrastructures’ in their com- parative exploration of issues of political abandonment. Based on long-term ﬁeldwork in gold- mining regions in Colombia and Suriname, their article foregrounds local forms of socio-spatial organization that emerge as a response to political and economic neglect and exclusion. Jonkman and de Theije’s contribution points to critical dimensions of harm that emanate from a process of institutional non-building, thus leading local communities to build ‘bottom-up infrastructures.’ These infrastructures, they argue, provide space for alternative local powerholders (e.g. miners) ‘to exercise their own public authority,’ claim citizenship, and contest their political exclusion. Sim- ultaneously, they also help reproduce and extend the infrastructural reach of the state. By examin- ing the material and symbolic ways in which the act of institutional non-building co-shapes modes of infrastructural harm, Jonkman and de Theije elucidate the ways in which diverse moral position- alities can be enacted and performed around infrastructures and their eﬀects. Finally, Amber Murrey’s contribution employs a transregional decolonial methodological approach to examine ‘planned and targeted’ digital disruptions as a form of infrastructural harm and violence. Examining two major grassroots resistance movements in Ethiopia and Cameroon, Murrey traces the development of the practice of intentional use of internet blackouts to colonial infrastructural conﬁgurations. Situating the techno-political practices of shutdown and disruption within the longue durée of coloniality, enables Murrey to provide important insights on, ﬁrst, how colonial histories and legacies continue to shape forms of inequality, violence, and harm, and second, the ways in which forms of digital infrastructural harm are currently being employed as a mode of governance and counterinsurgency. Murrey’s article underlines the importance of digital infrastructures in facilitating dissent and amplifying anti-state critique for contemporary social movements, thus also indicating how communities of struggle devise ways to resist infrastructural harm. As such, the article sheds light on how digital technologies and infrastructures have become important sites of political contestation and struggle. These critical examinations of infrastructural harm bring to the fore its multifarious expressions and point to the diﬀerent ways in which communities have been resisting its generation, mutations, and eﬀects. By doing so, they highlight the need to expand our analytical lenses on the infrastruc- tural and modes of infrastructuring (Star & Bowker 2002; Bowker et al., 2010) in times of crisis. This, we argue, is necessary in our collective attempt to both make sense of the complex work of infrastructure as well as to (re)imagine an alternative ‘infrastructure’ of the future that is organized for collective well-being. Conclusion This special issue was born out of the need to provide a coherent analytical guide for further inves- tigation of the various ways in which infrastructures, and the deleterious eﬀects that they generate, work. A core objective of this endeavour has been to consider anew the ways in which the ubiquitous (and nowadays indispensable) presence of infrastructures is (re)shaping worlds. To address this pro- blematic, we pay close attention to spatiotemporalities, moralities and resistances as critical perspec- tives through which infrastructural harm can be examined. Approaching infrastructure through these three intersecting dimensions allows us to study the longue durée of its harmful consequences. In addition, it enables us to explore the extent to which the diﬀerent modes of slow infrastructural 14 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. violence permeate social and individual bodies, and (re)shape spaces, material assemblages and social relations across various scales and contexts. This knowledge, we hope, will feed into more eﬀective resistance, infrastructural appropriation and, on a wider scale, socio-ecological transformations that support ecologically sustainable and socially just infrastructures. A key idea permeating this special issue is that the necropolitical dimensions of infrastructure are essential to its diﬀerential, diﬀuse, and multivalent work. Viewed this way, the enduring eﬀects of the harm that infrastructure can and does cause, are approached as an integral part of its function. Thus, through problematizing infrastructure operation, we show how harm is inherent to modern socio-technical arrangements. By putting together this special issue, we hope to contrib- ute to the wider rethinking of infrastructure as a relation that shapes socio-ecological relationalities. We therefore draw attention to how the reshaping of existing socio-technical systems contributes to a process of unmaking the established power relations that permeate everyday life. Such a task, moreover, requires that we go beyond mere opposition to the existing infrastructural regime, and extend to subverting and appropriating oppressive infrastructures, as well as aﬃrming alterna- tive infrastructural arrangements. It also requires attention to the everyday practices through which infrastructural arrangements are either aﬃrmed or challenged. Only by doing so can we compre- hend how harm can be rooted, embodied, re-projected, and confronted. Notes 1. Our understanding of the idea of ‘community’ here is informed by critical discussions that broaden current conceptualisations of ‘communities of harm’ to include non-humans (Stewart, 2017, p. 28). 2. In general, moments of infrastructural crisis, as manifested by disruption/interruption, disconnection, collapse, failure, and a state of inoperability, bring to the forefront ‘congealed social interests’ that permeate their structural and material arrangements (Graham, 2010b: 13). Disruptions and crises, moreover, have also been used as a means to justify (novel) modes of securitisation (Cowen, 2010; see also Graham, 2011). 3. As Easterling (2014, p. 15) asserts, ‘contemporary infrastructure space is the secret weapon of the most powerful people in the world precisely because it orchestrates activities that can remain unstated but are nevertheless consequential.’ 4. Here, we employ the notion of necropolitics (Mbembe, 2003) in order to attend to the ways in which the workings of infrastructure sustain certain lives or ways of living, while exposing others – human and nonhuman communities – to precarious conditions of slow violence and harm. 5. Certain harms are not always considered to be dangerous, and in many cases are even legal (White, 2013, p. 1). Hall (2014, p. 130) also explains that ‘polluting practices are frequently not only state sanc- tioned but are often in fact actively promoted by states pursuant to their industrial, ﬁnancial and devel- opment goals.’ 6. Ward Churchill (2003) and LaDuke and Cruz (2012) document a similar process with regards to nuclear development in Native North America. 7. Fortun and Fortun (2005, p. 47) write that ‘[e]thical plateaus, like geological plateaus, are created through accretion and sedimentation, they ‘work’ by providing grounds, by molding and by press- ing-sometimes cataclysmically-against surrounding formations.’ Acknowledgements We would like to thank the authors participating in this special issue for their excellent and insightful con- tributions. We are also grateful to the editors at Globalizations, Barry Gills and Kevin Gray, who encouraged and supported the making of this special issue. This includes Kevin’s patience and care with teaching us the Editorial Manager system. Likewise, we are grateful to the reviewers who oﬀered useful and critical sugges- tions that helped make this introduction what it is. GLOBALIZATIONS 15 Disclosure statement No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding Dimitris Dalakoglou and Yannis Kallianos were supported by a VIDI grant from the Dutch Research Council (NWO 452-17-015; PI: D. Dalakoglou, 2017–2022). Notes to contributors Yannis Kallianos is a research associate at the Urban Institute, University of Sheﬃeld. Alexander Dunlap is a postdoctoral Fellow in the Centre for Development and Environment at the University of Oslo. Dimitris Dalakoglou is a Professor of Social Anthropology and co-director of the research lab on Infrastruc- tures, Sustainability and Commons at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. ORCID Yannis Kallianos http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9547-2657 Alexander Dunlap http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8852-9309 Dimitris Dalakoglou http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8505-1776 Bibliography Allan, J., Lemaadel, M., & Lakhal, H. (2022). Oppressive Energopolitics in Africa’s Last Colony: Energy, Subjectivities, and Resistance. Antipode, 54(1), 44–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.v54.1 Álvarez, L., & Coolsaet, B. (2020). Decolonizing environmental justice studies: A Latin American perspective. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 31(2), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1558272 Anand, N., Gupta, A., & Appel, H. (2018). The promise of infrastructure. Duke University Press. Appel, H. (2012). Walls and white elephants: Oil extraction, responsibility, and infrastructural violence in Equatorial Guinea. Ethnography, 13(4), 439–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138111435741 Appel, H., Anand, N., & Gupta, A. (2018). Introduction: Temporality, politics and the promise of infrastruc- ture. In N. Anand, A. Gupta, & H. Appel (Eds.), The promise of infrastructure (pp. 1–40). Duke University Press. Auyero, J., & de Lara, A. B. (2012). In harm’s way at the urban margins. Ethnography, 13(4), 531–557. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1466138111435746 Barry, A. (2015). Discussion: Infrastructural Times. Theorizing the Contemporary. Fieldsights. Available at: https://culanth.org/ﬁeldsights/discussion-infrastructural-times (Accessed 16 October 2021) Batel, S., & Devine-Wright, P. (2017). Energy colonialism and the role of the global in local responses to new energy infrastructures in the UK: A critical and exploratory empirical analysis. Antipode, 49(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12261 Batel, S., & Küpers, S. (2022). Politicizing hydroelectric power plants in Portugal: Spatio-temporal injustices and psychosocial impacts of renewable energy colonialism in the global north. Globalizations, 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2070110 Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press. Blok, A., Nakazora, M., & Winthereik, B. R. (2016). Infrastructuring environments. Science as Culture, 25(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2015.1081500 Bowker, G. C., Baker, K., Millerand, F., & Ribes, D. (2010). Toward Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked Environment. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup & M. Allen (Eds.), International Handbook of Internet Research (pp. 97–117). Springer. 16 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. Cahill, C., & Pain, R. (2019). Representing slow violence and resistance. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 18(5), 1054–1065. https://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/1923 Chagnon, C. W., Durante, F., Gills, B. K., Hagolani-Albov, S. E., Hokkanen, S., Kangasluoma, S. M., … Vuola, M. P. (2022). From extractivism to global extractivism: The evolution of an organizing concept. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2022.2069015. Chagnon, C. W., Hagolani-Albov, S. E., & Hokkanen, S. (2021). Extractivism at your ﬁngertips. In J. Shapiro, & J.-A. McNeish (Eds.), Our extractive Age (pp. 760–792). Routledge. Chamayou, G. (2015 [2013]). Drone theory. Penguin Books. Churchill, W. (2003). A breach of trust: The radioactive colonization of native North America. Acts of rebellion: The ward Churchill reader. Routledge, 111-140. Collier, S. J., Mizes, J. C., & Von Schnitzler, A. (2016). Preface: public infrastructures/infrastructural publics. Limn 7. Available at: https://limn.it/articles/preface-public-infrastructures-infrastructural publics/ (Accessed 16 October 2021) Corsín Jiménez, A. (2014). The right to infrastructure: A prototype for open source urbanism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(2), 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1068/d13077p Cowen, D. (2010). Containing insecurity: Logistic space, U.S. Port cities, and the “War on terror”. In S. Graham (Ed.), Disrupted cities: When infrastructure fails (pp. 69–83). Routledge. Cowen, D. (2018). Investigating Infrastructures: Introduction. Society and Space. https://www. societyandspace.org/forums/investigating-infrastructures (Accessed 10 November 2022) Cowen, D. (2020). Following the infrastructures of empire: Notes on cities, settler colonialism, and method. Urban Geography, 41(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1677990 Daggett, C. N. (2019). The birth of energy: Fossil fuels, thermodynamics, and the politics of work. Duke University Press. Dalakoglou, D. (2016). Infrastructural gap. City, 20(6), 822–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2016. 1241524 Dalakoglou, D. (2018). The road: An ethnography of (Im)mobility, spaces and cross-border infrastructures in the balkans. Manchester University Press. Dalakoglou, D., & Harvey, P. (2012). Roads and anthropology: Ethnographic perspectives on space, time and (Im)mobility. Mobilities, 7(4), 459–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2012.718426 Dalakoglou, D., & Kallianos, Y. (2014). Infrastructural ﬂows, interruptions and stasis in Athens of the crisis. City, 18(4-5), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2014.939473 Dalakoglou, D., & Kallianos, Y. (2018). ‘Eating mountains’ and ‘eating each other’: Disjunctive moderniz- ation, infrastructural imaginaries and crisis in Greece. Political Geography, 67, 76–87. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.polgeo.2018.08.009 Davies, A. (2021). The coloniality of infrastructure: Engineering, landscape and modernity in recife. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(4), 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018. 1470924. Davies, T. (2018). Toxic space and time: Slow violence, necropolitics, and petrochemical pollution. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(6), 1537–1553. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018. 1470924 Dunlap, A. (2017). Wind energy: Toward a “sustainable violence” in Oaxaca, Mexico. NACLA, 49(4), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2017.1409378. Dunlap, A. (2020). Bureaucratic land grabbing for infrastructural colonization: Renewable energy, L’Amassada and resistance in southern France. Human Geography, 13(2), 109–126. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1942778620918041 Dunlap, A. (2021a). Does renewable energy exist? Fossil fuel+ technologies and the search for renewable energy. In S. Batel, & D. P. Rudolph (Eds.), A critical approach to the social acceptance of renewable energy infrastructures – going beyond green growth and sustainability (pp. 1–12). Palgrave. Dunlap, A. (2021b). Spreading ‘green’ infrastructural harm: Mapping conﬂicts and socioecological disrup- tions within the European union’s transnational energy grid. Globalizations, 1–25. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14747731.2021.1996518 Dunlap, A., & Brock, A. (2022). Enforcing ecocide: Power, police and planetary militarization, Cham. Palgrave Macmillan. GLOBALIZATIONS 17 Dunlap, A., & Correa-Arce, M. (2022). ‘Murderous energy’ in Oaxaca, Mexico: Wind factories, territorial struggle and social warfare. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 49(2), 455–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03066150.2020.1862090 Dunlap, A., & Jakobsen, J. (2020). The violent technologies of extraction. Palgrave. Dyer, G., & Wakeﬁeld, S. (2015). Notes from the Anthropocene #2: Infrastructure. The Brooklyn Rail: Critical Perspectives on Arts, Politics, and Culture. Available at: http://brooklynrail.org/2015/03/ﬁeld-notes/notes- from-the-anthropocene-2 infrastructure (Accessed 16 October 2021) Easterling, K. (2014). Extrastatecraft: The power of infrastructure space. Verso Books. Edwards, P. N. (2003). Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In T. J. Misa, P. Brey, & A. Feenberg (Eds.), The history of sociotechnical systems: Modernity and technology (pp. 185–226). The MIT Press. Eldridge, E. R., & Reinke, A. J. (2018). Introduction: Ethnographic engagement with bureaucratic violence. Conﬂict and Society, 4(1), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.3167/arcs.2018.040108 Enns, C., & Sneyd, A. (2021). More-than-human infrastructural violence and infrastructural justice: A case study of the Chad–Cameroon pipeline project. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111(2), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1774348 Ferguson, J. (2012). Structures of responsibility. Ethnography, 13(4), 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1466138111435755 Fischer, M. M. J. (2003). Emergent forms of life and the anthropological voice. Duke University Press. Fortun, K., & Fortun, M. (2005). Scientiﬁc imaginaries and ethical plateaus in contemporary U.S. toxicology. American Anthropologist, 107(1), 43–45. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2005.107.1.043 Gibson, K. J. (2007). Bleeding Albina: A history of community disinvestment, 1940-2000. Transforming Anthropology, 15(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1525/tran.2007.15.1.03 Giovanopoulos, C., Kallianos, Y., Athanasiadis, I. N., & Dalakoglou, D. (2020). Deﬁning and classifying infra- structural contestation: Towards a synergy between anthropology and data science. In I. N. Athanasiadis, S. P. Frysinger, G. Schimak, & W. J. Knibbe (Eds.), Environmental software systems. Data Science in Action, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, (Vol. 554, pp. 32–47). Springer Verlag. Graham, S. (2010a). Disrupted cities: When infrastructure fails. Routledge. Graham, S. (2010). When infrastructure fails. In S. Graham (Ed.), Disrupted cities: When infrastructure fails (pp. 1–26). Routledge. Graham, S. (2011). Cities under siege: The New military urbanism. Verso. Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. Routledge. Graham, S., & McFarlane, C. (2015). Infrastructural lives: Urban infrastructure in context. Routledge. Hall, M. (2014). Environmental harm and environmental victims. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758013508682 Harvey, P., Jensen, C. B., & Morita, A. (2018). Infrastructures and social complexity: A companion. Routledge. Harvey, P., & Knox, H. (2012). The enchantments of infrastructure. Mobilities, 7(4), 521–536. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17450101.2012.718935 Hecht, G. (2018). Interscalar vehicles for an African anthropocene: On waste, temporality, and violence. Cultural Anthropology, 33(1), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca33.1.05 Hetherington, K. (2019). Infrastructure, environment, and life in the anthropocene. Duke University Press. Hickel, J. (2020). Less is more: How degrowth will save the world. Random House. Hoﬀman, D. (2017). Toxicity. Somatosphere. Available at: http://somatosphere.net/2017/toxicity.html/ (Accessed 16 October 2021) Howe, C., Lockrem, J., Appel, H., Hackett, E., Boyer, D., Hall, R., Schneider-Mayerson, M., Pope, A., Gupta, A., Rodwell, E., Ballestero, A., Durbin, T., El-Dahdah, F., Long, E., & Mody, C. (2016). Paradoxical infrastructures. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(3), 547–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0162243915620017 Kahane, G., & Savulescu, J. (2012). The concept of harm and the signiﬁcance of normality. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00574.x Käkönen, Mira, & Nygren, Anja. (2022). Resurgent dams: shifting power formations, persistent harms, and obscured responsibilities. Globalizations, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2098668 18 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. Kallianos, Y. (2018). Infrastructural disorder: The politics of disruption, contingency, and normalcy in waste infrastructures in Athens. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(4), 758–775. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0263775817740587 Kanoi, L., Koh, V., Lim, A., Yamada, S. and Dove, M.R. (2022). ‘What is infrastructure? What does it do?’: Anthropological perspectives on the workings of infrastructure(s). Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, 2(1), 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ac4429 Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Allen Lane. Krieg, L., Barua, M., & Fisher, J. (2020). Ecologizing Infrastructure: Infrastructural Ecologies. Society & Space Forum: 1-7. Available at: https://www.societyandspace.org/forums/ecologizing-infrastructure- infrastructural-ecologies (Accessed 22 October 2021) Kröger, M. (2022). Extractivisms, existences and extinctions: Monoculture plantations and Amazon deforesta- tion. Routledge. LaDuke, W., & Cowen, D. (2020). Beyond wiindigo infrastructure. South Atlantic Quarterly, 119(2), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-8177747 LaDuke, W., & Cruz, S. A. (2012). The militarization of Indian country. Michigan State University Press. Larkin, B. (2013). The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42(1), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522 Lemke, T. (2015). New materialisms: Foucault and the ‘government of things’. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(4), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413519340 Lennon, M. (2021). Energy transitions in a time of intersecting precarities: From reductive environmentalism to antiracist praxis. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, 101930–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021. 101930 Lesutis, G. (2021). Infrastructural territorialisations: Mega-infrastructures and the (re)making of Kenya. Political Geography, 90, 102459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102459 Li, T. M. (2018). After the land grab: Infrastructural violence and the “maﬁa system” in Indonesia’s oil palm plantation zones. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 96, 328–337. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.10.012 Liboiron, M. (2021). Pollution is colonialism. Duke University Press. Liboiron, M., Tironi, M., & Calvillo, N. (2018). Toxic politics: Acting in a permanently polluted world. Social Studies of Science, 48(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718783087 Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms, and results. European Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600004239 Mateer, J., Springer, S., Locret-Collet, M., & Acker, M. (2021). Anarchist political ecology. Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Mayhew, S. (Ed.) (2015). Moral geography. In A dictionary of geography (pp. 333–334). (5th ed.) Oxford University Press. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11 McFarlane, C., & Rutherford, J. (2008). Political infrastructures: Governing and experiencing the fabric of the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2427.2008.00792.x Menton, M., & Le Billon, P. (2021). Environmental defenders: Deadly struggles for life and territory. Routledge. Mitchell, T. (2011). Carbon democracy: Political power in the Age of Oil. Verso. Mitropoulos, A. (2012). Contract & contagion: From biopolitics to oikonomia. Minor Compositions. Murphy, M. (2013). Chemical infrastructures of the St. Clair river. In S. Boudia, & N. Jas (Eds.), Toxicants, health and regulation since 1945 (pp. 103–115). Pickering & Chatto Publishers. Murphy, M. (2017). Alterlife and decolonial chemical relations. Cultural Anthropology, 32(4), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca32.4.02 Nixon, R. (2011). Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Harvard University Press. Ofrias, L. (2017). Invisible harms, invisible proﬁts: A theory of the incentive to contaminate. Culture, Theory and Critique, 58(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2017.1357478 Pellow, D. N. (2014). Total liberation: The power and promise of animal rights and the radical earth movement. University of Minnesota Press. Ranganathan, M. (2016). Thinking with ﬂint: Racial liberalism and the roots of an American water tragedy. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 27(3), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1206583 GLOBALIZATIONS 19 Rodgers, D. (2012). Haussmannization in the tropics: Abject urbanism and infrastructural violence in urban Nicaragua. Ethnography, 13(4), 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138111435740. Rodgers, D., & O’Neill, B. (2012). Infrastructural violence: Introduction to the special issue. Ethnography, 13(4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138111435738 Salas Landa, M. (2016). Crude residues: The workings of failing oil infrastructure in Poza Rica, Veracruz, Mexico. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 48(4), 718–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0308518X15594618 Scaramelli, C. (2019). The delta is dead: Moral ecologies of infrastructure in Turkey. Cultural Anthropology, 34(3), 388–416. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca34.3.04 Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., Liu, J., Navas, G., Mingorría, S., Demaria, F., Avila, S., Roy, B., Ertör, I., Temper, L., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2020). Environmental conﬂicts and defenders: A global overview. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102104–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102104 Scheidel, A., Temper, L., Demaria, F., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2018). Ecological distribution conﬂicts as forces for sustainability: An overview and conceptual framework. Sustainability Science, 13(3), 585–598. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0519-0 Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press. SEK (Squatting Europe Kollective). (2014). The squatters’ movement in Europe. Pluto. Siamanta, Z. C. (2021). Conceptualizing alternatives to contemporary renewable energy development: Community renewable energy ecologies (CREE). Journal of Political Ecology, 28(1), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2297 Smith, D. M. (2000). Moral geographies: Ethics in a world of diﬀerence. Edinburgh University Press. Smith, N. (2006). There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster. In: Understanding Katrina: Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Social Science Research Council. Available at: https://items.ssrc.org/understanding- katrina/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-natural-disaster/ (Accessed 12 November 2021) Soppelsa, P. S. (2009). Finding fragility in Paris: The politics of infrastructure after haussmann. Proceedings of the Western Society for French History, 37, 233–247. Sovacool, B. K., Hook, A., Martiskainen, M., Brock, A., & Turnheim, B. (2020). The decarbonisation divide: Contextualizing landscapes of low-carbon exploitation and toxicity in Africa. Global Environmental Change, 60, 102028–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102028 Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–391. https:// doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326 Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (1996). Sorting things out: Classiﬁcation and its consequences. MIT Press. Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2002). How to Infrastructure. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs (pp. 151–162). London: Sage publications. Stewart, H. (2017). Toxic landscape: Excavating a polluted world. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 32(2), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.23660. Stewart, K. (2005). Cultural poesis: The generativity of emergent things. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1027–1042). Sage. Stock, Ryan. (2022). Power for the Plantationocene: solar parks as the colonial form of an energy plantation. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2022.2120812 Tarvainen, A. (2022). The modern/colonial hell of innovation economy: Future as a return to colonial mythol- ogies. Globalizations, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2048460 Tornel, C. (2022). Decolonizing energy justice from the ground up: Political ecology, ontology, and energy landscapes. Progress in Human Geography. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03091325221132561. Tousignant, N. (2022). Residual unprotection: Aﬂatoxin research and regulation in Senegal’s postcolonial peanut infrastructures. Globalizations, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2125524 Truscello, M. (2020). Infrastructural brutalism: Art and the necropolitics of infrastructure. MIT Press. Verweijen, J., & Dunlap, A. (2021). The evolving techniques of social engineering, land control and managing protest against extractivism: Introducing political (re)actions ‘from above’. Political Geography, 83, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102342. Von Schnitzler, A. (2008). Citizenship prepaid: Water, calculability, and techno-politics in South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 34(4), 899–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070802456821 Wakeﬁeld, S. (2018). Infrastructures of liberal life: From modernity and progress to resilience and ruins. Geography Compass, 12(7), e12377. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12377. White, R. (2013). Environmental harm: An eco-justice perspective. Policy Press. 20 Y. KALLIANOS ET AL. Willow, A. J. (2019). Understanding extrACTIVISM: Culture and power in natural resource disputes. Routledge. Winner, L. (1980). Do artefacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136. Zeiderman, A., Kaker, S. A., Silver, J., & Wood, A. (2015). Uncertainty and urban life. Public Culture, 27(2), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2841868

(PDF) Introducing infrastructural harm: rethinking moral entanglements, spatio-temporal dynamics, and resistance(s)