Master Plans as Cosmograms: Articulating Oceanic Forces and Urban Forms After the 2010 Earthquake and Tsunami in Chile

  • Ignacio Farías


The 2010 tsunami that severely affected coastal towns in Chile posed a novel cosmopolitical challenge: how to cope with the radical asymmetry between human life and overwhelming oceanic forces. In this article, I discuss the different ways master plans for sustainable reconstruction proposed to recompose an urban cosmos where human life with future tsunamis would be possible. I focus on three distinct cosmogrammatic operations: the territorialization of tsunami risk, the classification of entities and urban activities, and commoning of urban works. Through these operations, master plans seek not just to govern human populations, in order to reduce their exposure to mortal danger, but also to govern tsunamis, in order to soften, or even civilize, their behavior in the city.


  1. Amin, Ash, and Nigel Thrift. 2002. Cities. Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge, Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Arcas, Diego, Cristian Garía, Marcelo Lagos, Teresa Ramirez M., and Severino. 2010. Magnitude and Impact from the 2010 Chilean Tsunami. Paper presented at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Chapman Conference: Giant Earthquakes and their Tsunamis.Google Scholar
  3. Arenas, Federico, Rodrigo Hidalgo, and Marcelo Lagos. 2010. Los Riesgos Naturales En La Planificación Territorial. Temas de La Agenda Publica. Centro de Políticas Públicas UC 5 (39): 1–11.Google Scholar
  4. Barry, Andrew. 1999. Demonstrations: Sites and Sights of Direct Action. Economy and Society 28 (1): 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bassett, Edward. 1938. The Master Plan, with a Discussion of the Theory of Community Land Planning Legislation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, Ulrich. 1993. Die Erfindung Des Politischen. Zu Einer Theorie Reflexiver Modernisierung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  7. Brenner, Neil. 2009. What is Critical Urban Theory? CITY 13 (2): 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, Nigel. 2014. Heat Engines: Pyrotechnics and the Geology of the Social. Presented at the Symposium Inventing the Social, Goldsmiths College, University of London, May 29.Google Scholar
  9. De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. De Landa, Manuel. 2000. A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History. New York: Swerve Editions.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, Gilles, and Claire Parnet. 1987. Dialogues. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and its Problems. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  13. Dunham, Allison. 1958. City Planning: An Analysis of the Content of the Master Plan. Journal of Law and Economics 1: 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farías, Ignacio. 2009a. Interview with Nigel Thrift. In Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies, 118. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2009b. Introduction: Decentering the Object of Urban Studies. In Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies, ed. Ignacio Farías and Thomas Bender, 1–24. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2011a. The Politics of Urban Assemblages. CITY 15 (3–4): 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2011b. Tourist Maps as Diagrams of Destination Space. Space and Culture 14 (4): 398–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2014. Misrecognizing Tsunamis: Ontological Politics and Cosmopolitical Challenges in Early Warning Systems. The Sociological Review 62 (SI): 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2016. Devising Hybrid Forums. Technical Democracy in a Dangerous World. CITY 20 (4): 549–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, République Française.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The Theory of Action Communicative. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Hannerz, Ulf. 1980. Exploring the City: Inquiries Toward an Urban Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harvey, David. 1985. The Urbanization of Capital. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, Caroline, and Peter Galison. 1998. Picturing Science, Producing Art. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Lagos, Marcelo, and Marco Cisternas. 2008. El Nuevo Riesgo de Tsunami: Considerando El Peor Escenario. Scripta Nova in Revista Electrónica de Geografía Y Ciencias Sociales XII 270 (29): 1–8.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2004. Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics?: Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck. Common Knowledge 10 (3): 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2007. Turning Around Politics: A Note on Gerard de Vries’ Paper. Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 2015. From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public. In Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 14–43. Karlsruhe, Cambridge: ZKM, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marres, Noortje. 2007. The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy. Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 759–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McFarlane. 2011. Assemblage and Critical Urbanism. CITY 15 (2): 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morton, Timothy. 2010. The Ecological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schmitt, Carl. 2013. Die Diktatur: Von Den Anfängen Des Modernen Souveränitätsgedankens Bis Zum Proletarischen Klassenkampf. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  36. Söderström, Ola. 1996. Paper Cities: Visual Thinking in Urban Planning. Cultural Geographies 3 (3): 275.Google Scholar
  37. Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. A Cosmopolitical Proposal. In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 994–1003. Cambridge, MA, Karlsruhe: MIT Press, ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  38. Thévenot, Laurent. 2007. The Plurality of Cognitive Formats and Engagements. European Journal of Social Theory 10 (3): 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tironi, Manuel. 2012. Pastelero a Tus Pasteles: Experticias, Modalidades de Tecnificación Y Controversias Urbanas En Santiago de Chile. In Produciendo Lo Social. Usos de Las Ciencias Sociales En El Chile Reciente, ed. Tomás Ariztía, 255–284. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales.Google Scholar
  40. Tironi, Manuel, and Ignacio Farías. 2015. Building a Park, Immunising Life: Environmental Management and Radical Asymmetry. Geoforum 66: 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tresch, John. 2007. Technological World-Pictures: Cosmic Things and Cosmograms. Isis 98 (1): 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ureta, Sebastián. 2014. The Shelter That Wasn’t There: On the Politics of Co-Ordinating Multiple Urban Assemblages in Santiago, Chile. Urban Studies 51 (2): 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ignacio Farías
    • 1
  1. 1.MCTS, TU MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations