Building Community Resilience in the Anthropocene: A Study of International Policy Experiments with Digital Technology in Jakarta

  • David ChandlerEmail author


This chapter explores hacking as a mode of resilience, which calls into being a new approach to international policy practice, where awareness of embedded relationships enables the empowerment of communities, not merely to respond to disasters but to creatively engage with emerging problems or threats. This approach is often methodologically contraposed to a failed or failing modernist discourse of security, which assumed that security threats could be ‘solved,’ ‘prevented’ or ‘removed’ through technological or engineering approaches. Hacking as a methodology thus becomes less dependent on its etymological roots in computing technology and becomes a transformative process of building engaged communities through experimentation and grasping momentary and fluid connections and inter-relations.


  1. Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired Magazine 16 (7), 23 June.
  2. Anggakara, K., Frederika, M. & Rahwidiati, D. (2016). Reconnecting the state with its citizens: From talk to action. Pulse Lab Jakarta, 2 June.
  3. Aradau, C. & Blanke, T. (2015). The (Big) Data-security assemblage: Knowledge and critique. Big Data and Society 2 (2). Scholar
  4. Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies 23, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (2009). World risk society and manufactured uncertainties. IRIS: European Journal of Philosophy and Public Debate I (2), 291–299.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. (eds.) (2003). Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. BNPB. (2014) The Indonesian National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB), Indonesia: National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2013–2015).
  11. Bonneuil, C. & Fressoz, J.-B. (2016). The shock of the Anthropocene. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Bowker, G. C. (2000). Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science 30 (5), 643–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chandler, D. (2010). Neither international nor global: Rethinking the problematic subject of security. Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies 3, 89–101.Google Scholar
  15. Chandler, D. (2015). A world without causation: Big Data and the coming of age of posthumanism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43 (3), 833–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chardronnet, E. (2015). McKenzie Wark: “You don’t just need to hack to be a hacker”. Makery, 9 February.
  17. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, N. (2011). Inhuman nature: Sociable life on a dynamic planet. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Clough, P. (2009). The new empiricism: Affect and sociological method. European Journal of Social Theory 12 (1), 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Connolly, W. (2013). The fragility of things: Self-organizing processes, neoliberal fantasies, and democratic activism. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coole, D. & Frost, S. (eds.) (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Crutzen, P. & Stoermer, E. (2000). The “Anthropocene”. Global Change News 41, 17–18.Google Scholar
  23. DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  24. Duffield. M. (2013). Disaster-resilience in the network age access-denial and the rise of cyber-humanitarianism. Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) Working Paper, 23.Google Scholar
  25. Fagan, M. (2016). Security in the Anthropocene: Environment, ecology, escape. European Journal of International Relations, OnlineFirst 7 April.Google Scholar
  26. Galloway, A. (2014). Laruelle: Against the digital. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Geros, C. L. (2015). Does Jakarta have any viable options to defend itself from ocean inundation? National Geographic, 21 December.
  28. GFDRR. (2013). Using participatory mapping for disaster preparedness in Jakarta. OpenStreetMap brings together communities to strengthen resilience.
  29. GFDRR. (2015). World Bank global facility for disaster reduction and recovery. Stories of Impact: Building Resilient Communities across Indonesia.
  30. Gibson-Graham, J. K. & Roelvink, G. (2010). An economic ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode 41 (s1), 320–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Grothoff, C. & Porup, J. M. (2016). The NSA’s SKYNET program may be killing thousands of innocent people. Ars Technica, 16 February.
  33. Grosz, E. (2011). Becoming undone: Darwinian reflections on life, politics, and art. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haldrup, S. V. & Rosén, F. (2013). Developing resilience: A retreat from grand planning. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 1 (2), 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Halpern, O. (2014). Beautiful data: A history of vision and reason since 1945. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities 6, 159–65. Scholar
  37. Harman, G. (2010). Towards speculative realism: Essays and lectures. Winchester: Zero Books.Google Scholar
  38. Hayles, K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Holderness, T. & Turpin, E. (2015). White paper – Assessing the role of social media for civic co‑management during monsoon flooding in Jakarta, Indonesia.
  40. Holderness, T. & Turpin, E. (2016a). How tweeting about floods became a civic duty in Jakarta. Guardian, 25 January.
  41. Holderness, T. & Turpin, E. (2016b) From Social Media to GeoSocial Intelligence: Crowdsourcing Civic Co-Management for Flood Response in Jakarta, Indonesia. In Social Media for Government. First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanisation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, December 2010,
  42. Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big Data, Open Data, data infrastructures & their consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Koch, W. (2015). Could a titanic seawall save this quickly sinking city? National Geographic, 10 December.
  44. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Latour, B. (2013). Facing Gaia, six lectures on the political theology of nature: Being the Gifford lectures on natural religion, Edinburgh, 18th-28th of February 2013 (draft version 1-3-13).Google Scholar
  47. Latour, B. (2014). Agency at the time of the Anthropocene. New Literary History 45, 1–18. Scholar
  48. Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S. & Boullier, D. (2012). “The Whole is Always Smaller than Its Parts” – a digital test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads. British Journal of Sociology 63 (4), 590–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Law, J. & Hassard, J. (eds.) (1999). Actor Network Theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Macfarlane, R. (2016). Generation Anthropocene: How humans have altered the planet for ever. Guardian, 1 April.
  51. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mayer-Schönberger, V. & Cukier, K. (2013). Big Data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  53. McQuillan, D. (2014). The countercultural potential of citizen science. Media/Culture Journal 17 (6).
  54. Mezzi, P. (2016). The Great Garuda, the masterplan to save Jakarta. Abitare, 24 January.
  55. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. MSF. (2015). Initial MSF internal review: Attack on Kunduz Trauma Centre, Afghanistan (Geneva: Medicins sans Frontieres).
  57. Pickering, A. (2010). The cybernetic brain: Sketches of another future. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1985). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  59. Proctor, J. D. (2013). Saving nature in the Anthropocene. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 3, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Protevi, J. (2009). Political affect: Connecting the social and the somatic. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  61. Read, R., Taithe, B. & Mac Ginty, R. (2016). Data hubris? Humanitarian information systems and the mirage of technology. Third World Quarterly (published online 29 February).Google Scholar
  62. Robbins, M. (2016). Has a rampaging AI algorithm really killed thousands in Pakistan? Guardian, 17 February.
  63. Rukmana, D. (2014). The megacity of Jakarta: Problems, challenges and planning efforts. Indonesia’s Urban Studies, 29 March.
  64. Sharp, H. (2011). Spinoza and the politics of renaturalization. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Stockholm Resilience Centre. (2014). The hidden cost of coerced resilience. Stockholm Resilience Centre, 29 November.
  66. Sukardjo, S. (2013). Jakarta under constant threat of flooding and rising sea levels. Jakarta Post, 23 January.
  67. Swyngedouw, E. (2011). Whose environment? The end of nature, climate change and the process of post-politicization. Ambiente & Sociedade 14 (2). Scholar
  68. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Tierney, K. (2014). The social roots of risk: Producing disasters, promoting resilience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Turpin, E. (2015). Aerosolar infrastructure: Polities above & beyond territory. In T. Saraceno (ed.), Becoming aerosolar (pp. 196–200). Vienna: Österreichische Galerie Belvedere.Google Scholar
  71. Turpin, E., Bobette, A. & Miller, M. (2013). Navigating postnatural landscapes: Jakarta as the city of the Anthropocene. Paper presented at the European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools Annual Conference, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  72. UN. (no date). United Nations, ‘Cities: Vital Statistics’, UN resources for speakers on global issues.
  73. United Nations Global Pulse. (2018). Pulse lab Jakarta.
  74. Venturini, T. & Latour, B. (2010). The social fabric: Digital traces and quali-quantitative methods. In E Chardronnet (ed.), Proceedings of future en seine 2009: The digital future of the city (pp. 87–101). Paris: Cap Digital.Google Scholar
  75. Voss, J.-P. & Bornemann, B. (2011). The politics of reflexive governance: Challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecology and Society 16 (2), art. 9.Google Scholar
  76. Wilkinson, A. (2015). Kenneth Goldsmith’s poetry elevates copying to an art, but did he go too far? New Yorker, 5 October.
  77. Working Group on the ‘Anthropocene’. (2016). What is the ‘Anthropocene’? – Current definition and status. Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy.
  78. World Bank. (2011). Climate change, disaster risk, and the urban poor: Cities building resilience for a changing world. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WestminsterLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations