Third, most studies agree that invisible infrastructure does become visible but only in moments of crisis and malfunction. Susan Leigh Star (1999:382) states that normally “the invisible quality of working infrastructure becomes visible when it Maria breaks”. Similarly, Kaika (2004:266) states that the of infrastructural connectivity surfaces “domestic uncanny” during moments of crisis. Paul Edwards (2003:185) notes that most salient characteristic of “the is the degree to which most technology is not salient for most people, most of the technology … Graham and Thrift also point out that infrastructures tend to become manifest when time.” “they cease to function or when the by them are While these sustained interrupted.” (2007:8). authors do not attribute crisis and visibility to technological determinism, they tend to underplay the human agency and the political gains one may obtain from surfacing infrastructure, materially or symbolically. actions and conceptualization of repair as ownership contradict the third Sandu’s assumption. To begin with, the pipes added during occupation have never disappeared tenants’ materially from sight. As I will describe below, through a combination of “the building’s and improvisation, pipes have always been visible (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). While recalcitrance” they might not have been symbolically salient prior to the restitution wars, they become so during disputes over the ownership and privatization of nationalized houses. When Sandu talks about his family interventions on the pipes and parts of the house that needed repair, he mobilizes plumbing and politicizes infrastructure, adding symbolic visibility to the already existing material visibility.
Third, most studies agree that invisible infrastructure does become visible but only in moments of crisis and malfunction. Susan Leigh Star (1999:382) states that “the normally invisible quality of working infrastructure becomes visible when it breaks”. Similarly, Maria Kaika (2004:266) states that the “domestic uncanny” of infrastructural connectivity surfaces during moments of crisis. Paul Edwards (2003:185) notes that “the most salient characteristic of technology … is the degree to which most technology is not salient for most people, most of the time.” Graham and Thrift also point out that infrastructures tend to become manifest when “they cease to function or when the sustained by them are interrupted.” (2007:8). While these authors do not attribute crisis and visibility to technological determinism, they tend to underplay the human agency and the political gains one may obtain from surfacing infrastructure, materially or symbolically. Sandu’s actions and conceptualization of repair as ownership contradict the third assumption. To begin with, the pipes added during tenants’ occupation have never disappeared materially from sight. As I will describe below, through a combination of “the building’s recalcitrance” and improvisation, pipes have always been visible (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). While they might not have been symbolically salient prior to the restitution wars, they become so during disputes over the ownership and privatization of nationalized houses. When Sandu talks about his family interventions on the pipes and parts of the house that needed repair, he mobilizes plumbing and politicizes infrastructure, adding symbolic visibility to the already existing material visibility.
28-1-chelcea%20.docx