Assembling Interfaces to Make Sense of the Future

  • Nathaniel O’Grady


This chapter engages and develops the popular concept of interface to critically examine analytic processes found in the FRS. Interface is an important concept initially because it allows for an understanding of fire risk projections as premised on the capacity of different objects to relate to one another, from data and software itself to human analysts who interact with computer screens. These relations are probed on different registers. They exist materially, involving physical connections and transformations. But they are also evident in more nuanced, affective forms. Whilst interface is shown to have become a crucial tool in itself for calculating fire risk, this chapter argues that making analytic processes relationally based in this manner makes them vulnerable to new forms of complication. As a concept showing both how analysis is facilitated and obstructed, interface is explored through the case of the Fire Service Emergency Cover Toolkit, a software used to assess the correlation between resource deployment and the distribution of fire risk.


  1. Adey, P. (2014). Security Atmospheres Or the Crystallisation of Worlds. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(5), 834–851. Scholar
  2. Amoore, L. (2006). Biometric Borders: Governing Mobilities in the War on Terror. Political Geography, 25(3), 336–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amoore, L. (2014). Security and the Incalculable. Security Dialogue, 45, 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ash, J. (2013). Rethinking Affective Atmospheres: Technology, Perturbation and Space Times of the Non-Human. Geoforum, 49, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ash, J. (2015). The Interface Envelope: Gaming, Technology and Power. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  6. Bergson, H. (2001). Time and Free Will: Essays on the Immediate Data of Consciousness. London: Dover.Google Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G. (1986). Foucault. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory and Population. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Galloway, A. (2012). The Interface Effect. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hayles, N. K. (2005). My Mother was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Subjects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hookway, B. (2014). Interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mayer-Schoenberg, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. New York: John Murray.Google Scholar
  13. McCormack, D. P. (2008). Engineering Affective Atmospheres on the Moving Geographies of the 1897 Andrée Expedition. Cultural Geographies, 15(4), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Michael, M., & Rosengarten, M. (2012). HIV, Globalization and Topology: Of Prepositions and Propositions. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4–5), 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neyland, D. (2015). On Organizing Algorithms. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(1), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Grady, N. (2014). Securing Circulation Through Mobility: Milieu and Emergency Response in the British Fire and Rescue Service. Mobilities, 9(4), 512–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ong, A., & Collier, S. (Eds.). (2005). Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Steigler, B. (1998). Technics and Time: The Fault of Epimethius. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Vissmann, C. (2008). Files: Law, Media and Technology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, H. F. (2017). On Geography and Encounter: Bodies, Borders, and Difference. Progress in Human Geography, 41(4), 451–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathaniel O’Grady
    • 1
  1. 1.Geography and Environmental ManagementUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations