Performing Urbanity: An Inquiry into the Modes of Knowing the City

  • Julio Paulos


This chapter discusses the elaboration and negotiation of a rezoning procedure that took place in Vienna, Austria. The study not only focuses on the static constellation of specific roles attributed to experts and stakeholders but also pays particular attention to the performativity of ‘urban knowledge and expertise’. An analytical framework is set up around the concepts of actor-network theory (ANT) through a brief diagnosis of the symmetries between ‘matters of concern’ and ‘modes of knowing’. Throughout the examined consortium, the sequence of a choreographed understanding of urbanity—allocating responsibilities and aligning concerns—is portrayed by suggesting an issue-oriented methodological approach aiming to understand how urbanity negotiates, performs and stabilizes expert claims.


  1. Baiocchi, G., D. Graizbord, and M. Rodríguez-Muñiz. 2013. Actor-Network Theory and the Ethnographic Imagination: An Exercise in Translation. Qualitative Sociology 36: 323. doi: 10.1007/s11133-013-9261-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blok, A. 2010. Mapping the Super-Whale: Towards a Mobile Ethnography of Situated Globalities. Mobilities 5: 507–528. doi: 10.1080/17450101.2010.510335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L. (1991) 2006. On Justification. Trans. Catherine Porter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brenner, N., D.J. Madden, and D. Wachsmuth. 2011. Assemblage Urbanism and the Challenges of Critical Urban Theory. CITY 15 (2): 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner, N., and C. Schmid. 2015. Towards a New Epistemology of the Urban? City 19: 151–182. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2015.1014712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M. 1980. Struggles and Negotiations to Define What is Problematic and What is Not: The Socio-logic of Translation. In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, ed. Karin D. Knorr, 197–221. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. J. Law, 196–223. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1987. Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis. In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, 83–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1991. Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, ed. John Law, 132–165. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. ———., ed. 1998. The Laws of the Markets. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2007. What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics, ed. D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, and L. Siu, 311–357. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2009. Elaborating the Notion of Performativity. Le Libellio d’Aegis 5 (1): 18–29.Google Scholar
  13. Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, A. 2005. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cussins, C. 1996. Ontological Choreography: Agency through Objectification in Infertility Clinics. Social Studies of Science 26 (3): 575–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1938) 2008. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, in The Later Works of John Dewey, Volume 12, 1925–1953: 1938. (Collected Works of John Dewey 1882–1953), ed. E.J. Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Farías, I. 2011. The Politics of Urban Assemblages. CITY 15 (3–4): 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Farías, I., and T. Bender. 2009. Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Farías, I., and A. Blok. 2016a. Technical democracy as a challenge to urban studies. City 20 (4): 539–548. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2016.1192418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ——— 2016b. STS in the City. (First draft) STS Handbook, 4th ed. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Farías, I., and A. Wilkie. 2015. Studio Studies: Operations, Topologies & Displacements. London; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. 1966. Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Collection Bibliothèque des Sciences humaines, Gallimard.Google Scholar
  23. Gad, C., and C. Jensen. 2010. On the Consequences of Post-ANT. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35 (1): 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gomart, E., and A. Hennion. 1999. A Sociology of Attachment: Music Amateurs, Drug Users. In Actor Network Theory and After, ed. John Law and John Hassard, 220–247. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Guggenheim, M. 2009a. Mutable Immobiles. Building Conversion as a Problem of Quasi-Technologies. In Urban Assemblages. How Actor-Network theory Changes Urban Studies, ed. Ignacio Farías and Thomas Bender, 161–178. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2009b. Travelling Types and the Law: Minarets, Caravans and Suicide Hospices. In Re-shaping Cities: How Global Mobility Transforms Architecture and Urban Form, ed. M. Guggenheim and O. Søderstrøm, 45–62. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. ———. (2016) Im/Mutable im/Mobiles: From the Socio-Materiality of Cities Towards a Differential Cosmopolitics. In Urban Cosmopolitics: Agencements, Assemblies, Atmospheres. Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Guggenheim, M., and J. Potthast. 2012. Symmetrical Twins: On the Relationship Between Actor-Network Theory and the Sociology of Critical Capacities. European Journal of Social Theory 15: 157. doi: 10.1177/1368431011423601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guggenheim, M., and O. Søderstrøm, eds. 2009. Re-shaping Cities: How Global Mobility Transforms Architecture and Urban Form. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Harraway, D. 1991. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14 (3, Autumn, 1988): 575–599.Google Scholar
  31. Hennion, A. 2013. « D’une sociologie de la médiation à une pragmatique des attachements », SociologieS [En ligne], Théories et recherches.
  32. ———. 2015. The Passion for Music: A Sociology of Mediation. Adlershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Jasanoff, S. 2004. The Idiom of Co-production. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, 1–12. London; New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenney, M. 2015. Counting, Accounting, and Accountability: Helen Verran’s Relational Empiricism. Social Studies of Science 1–23. DOI:  10.1177/0306312715607413
  35. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  36. ———. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lachmund, J. 2013. Greening Berlin: The Co-production of Science, Politics, and Urban Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B. 1988a. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. ———., ed. 1988b. The Politics of Explanation. Knowledge and Reflexivity. New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 1992. Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law, 225–258. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 1993. We have Never been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 1996. Aramis, or, The Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 1999a. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 1999b. On Recalling ANT. The Sociological Review 47: 15–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03480.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. ———. 2005. Re-Assembling the Social. An Introduction into Actor. Oxford: Network-Theory.Google Scholar
  46. Latour B., ed. 2011. Drawing Things Together. In The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470979587.ch9Google Scholar
  47. Latour, B., and E. Hermant. 1998. Paris ville invisible. Institut Synthelabo pour le progres de la connaissance. Paris: Le Plessis-Robinson.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 2009. Paris, Ville Invisible. Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond & La Découverte.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton.Google Scholar
  50. Laurent, B., and M. Tironi. 2015. A Field Test and Its Displacements. Accounting for an Experimental Mode of Industrial Innovation. CoDesign 11 (3–4): 208–221. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2015.1081241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Law, J. 1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity. Systems Practice 5: 379–393. doi: 10.1007/BF01059830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ———. 1999a. After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology. The Sociological Review 47: 1–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03479.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. ———. 2002. Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience. Duke Press.Google Scholar
  54. ———. 2007. Making a Mess with Method. In The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology, ed. W. Outhwaite and S.P. Turner, 595–606. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. ———. 2015. Modes of Knowing: Resources from the Baroque. In Modes of Knowing: Resources from the Baroque, ed. J. Law and R. Ruppert. Manchester: Mattering Press.Google Scholar
  56. Law J., and J Hassard. (1999b). ANT and After. Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Law, J., and M. Lien. 2013. Slippery: Field Notes on Empirical Ontology. Social Studies of Science 43 (3): 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Law, J., and A.M. Mol. 2001. Situating Technoscience: An Inquiry into Spatialities. Society and Space 19: 609–621.Google Scholar
  59. Law, J., and V. Singleton. 2012. Performing Technology’s Stories: On Social Constructivism. Performance and Performativity Technology and Culture 41 (4): 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MacKenzie, D. 2003. An Equation and Its Worlds: Bricolage, Exemplars, Disunity and Performativity in Financial Economics. Social Studies of Science 33: 831–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. MacKenzie, D., F. Muniesa, and L. Siu, eds. 2007. Do Economists Make Markets?: On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Marres N. 2005. No Issue No Public: Democratic Deficits After the Displacement of Politics. PhD Thesis, UvA, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  63. Marres, N. 2007. The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy. Social Studies of Science 37: 759–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McFarlane, C. 2011a. Assemblage and Critical Urbanism. CITY 15 (2): 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Metzger, J., P. Allmendinger, and S. Oosterlynck. 2014. Planning Against the Political: Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Mol, A. 1999. Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions. In Actor Network Theory and After, ed. J. Law and J. Hassard, 74–89. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  67. ———. 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke Press.Google Scholar
  68. ———. 2010. Actor-Network Theory: Sensitive Terms and Enduring Tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 50: 253–269.Google Scholar
  69. Moser, I., and J. Law. 1999. Good Passages, Bad Passages. The Sociological Review 47: 196–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03489.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nimmo, R. 2010. Milk, Modernity and the Making of the Human: Purifying the Social. (CRESC: Culture, Economy and the Social). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 2011. Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Social Research in a More-Than-Human World. Methodological Innovations Online 6 (3): 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rydin, Y. 2014. The Challenges of the “Material Turn” for Planning Studies. Planning Theory & Practice 0: 1–6. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2014.968007.Google Scholar
  73. Sayes, E. 2014. Actor–Network Theory and Methodology: Just What Does It Mean to Say that Nonhumans have Agency? Social Studies of Science 44: 134–149. doi: 10.1177/0306312713511867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schön, D.A. 1992. The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey’s Legacy to Education. Curriculum Inquiry 22 (2): 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Singleton, V., and J. Law. 2012. ANT and Politics: Working in and on the World. Qualitative Sociology 36 (4): 485–502.Google Scholar
  76. Star, S.L., and A. Strauss. 1999. Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Suchman, L. 2000. Organising Alignment: A Case of Bridge-Building. Organisation Articles 7 (2): 311–327.Google Scholar
  78. Suchman, L.A. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations. Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Suchman, L. 2011. Practice and its Overflows: Reflections on Order and Mess. TECNOSCIENZA. Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies 2 (1): 21–30.Google Scholar
  80. Thévenot, L. 2006. L’Action au pluriel. Paris: Éditions La Découverte.Google Scholar
  81. Winner, L. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109 (1): 121–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio Paulos
    • 1
  1. 1.ETH Wohnforum – CASE, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations