Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diffusion of Power

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Sociology ((BRIEFSSOCY))

  • 380 Accesses

Abstract

This Chapter outlines the various characteristics of Helen Longino’s diffusion of power virtue using concrete examples. It is maintained that the arguments that structure, assumptions, and theories that underpin sulphate SRM climate engineering is especially incongruous with the value of the diffusion of power. In addition to the power inequities related to participation in the of practice science, it is also noted that this virtue is intimately tied to the question of consequences, effects, and outcomes. As such, it is argued that what required is an analysis that includes the effects this technology will have on people, the natural world, systems of governance, and future generations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barouch, L. (2016). Heart disease: Differences in men and women. John Hopkins Medicine, Heart & Vascular Institute. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/clinical_services/centers_excellence/womens_cardiovascular_health_center/patient_information/health_topics/heart_disease_gender_differences.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.

  • Barr, et al. (1992) A model for AIDS drug development. Presentation at Eighth International Conference on AIDS, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bookchin, M. (1987). Social ecology versus deep ecology: A challenge for the ecology movement (pp. 4–5). Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, D. (2011). Earth grab: Geopiracy, the new biomassters and capturing climate genes. Nairobi/New York: Fahamu/Pambazuka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, W. A., et al. (2013). Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now. Climatic Change, 121(3), 567–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case Note. (2012). The Ecuadorian exemplar: The first ever vindication of constitutional rights of nature. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 21(1), 63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, S. F., et al. (2011). Earth Stewardship: Science for action to sustain the human-earth system. Ecosphere, 2(8), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. (2008). Political Database of the Americas (PDBA). http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html. Accessed 14 Feb 2017.

  • Corner, A., et al. (2013). Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 938–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correa, G. (1992). The invisible epidemic: The story of women and AIDS. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, N., et al. (2013). Regulating geoengineering research through domestic environmental protection frameworks: Reflections on the recent Canadian ocean fertilization case. Carbon & Climate Law Review, 7, 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind: The Anthropocene. Nature, 415, 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B. J., & Bonter, D. N. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgar, H., & Rothman, D. J. (1990). New rules for new drugs: The challenge of AIIDS to the regulatory process. Milibank Quarterly, 68, 111–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Factor, S. (2015). The experimental economy of geoengineering. Journal of Cultural Economy, 8(3), 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, D., Voss, P., Kuczenski, T., et al. (2003). Reaffirming social landscape analysis in landscape ecology: A conceptual framework. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haklay, M. (2012). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information – Overview and typology of participation. In D. Z. Sui, S. Elwood, & M. F. Goodchild (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: Volunteered geographic information (VGI) in theory and practice (pp. 105–122). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1986a). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1986b). The instability of the analytical categories of feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(4), 645–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinterberger, A. (2013). Curating the postcolonial critique. Social Studies of Science, 43(4), 619–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, J. B., et al. (2014). Liability for solar geoengineering: Historical precedents, contemporary innovations, and governance possibilities. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 22, 225–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • King, R. J. (1991). Caring about nature: Feminist ethics and the environment. Hypatia, 6(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L. (Ed.). (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. New York: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravitz, B., et al. (2011). The geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). Atmospheric Science Letters, 12, 162–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, W., & Weyer, J. (1994). Society as a laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy, 21(3), 173–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalander, R. (2014). Rights of nature and the indigenous peoples in Bolivia and Ecuador: A straitjacket for progressive development politics? Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies, 3(2), 148–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauritzen, P. (1989). A feminist ethic and the new romanticism – mothering as a model of moral relations. Hypatia, 4(3), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1988). Science, objectivity, and feminist values. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1993). Subjects, power, and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 101–120). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1995). Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 39–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (2002). Reply to Philip Kitcher. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 573–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2008). Values, heuristics, and the politics of knowledge. In M. Carrier, D. Howard, & J. Kourany (Eds.), The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice, science and values revisited (pp. 68–86). Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, T., & Norris, S. (2016). On the enduring importance of deep ecology. Environmental Ethics, 38(1), 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, L. (1993). Space, place and gender relations: Part II. Identity, difference, feminist geometries and geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 3, 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, L. (2016). Space, gender, knowledge: Feminist readings. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, C. (1994). Ecology: Key Concepts in critical theory. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. (2013). Ocean fertilization experiment loses in B.C. court; charges now likely. The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/ocean-fertilization-experiment-loses-in-bc-court-charges-now-likely/article16672031/ 3 February 2014. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.

  • National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Retrieved February 2, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Our Children’s Trust. (2017). Landmark U.S. Federal climate lawsuit. https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/. Accessed 14 Feb 2017.

  • Parkhill, K., et al. (2013). Deliberation and responsible innovation: A geoengineering case study. In Owen et al. (Eds.), Responsible Innovation (pp. 219–240). London: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N., et al. (2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change, 3, 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poumadère, M., et al. (2011). Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: Nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(5), 712–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J. (2011). The regulation of climate engineering. Law, Innovation and Technology, 3(1), 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J. (2014). Climate engineering field research: The Favorable Setting of international environmental law. Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment, 5(2), 417–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricke, K. L., et al. (2011). Effectiveness of stratospheric solar-radiation management as a function of climate sensitivity. Nature Climate Change: Letters. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1328. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock, A., et al. (2010). A test for geoengineering? Science, 327(5965), 530–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root, T. L., Price, J. T., Hall, K. R., et al. (2003). Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature, 421, 57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, C. (2014). Women working in the environment: Resourceful natures. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol. (2013). Science for environment policy in- depth report: Environmental citizen science. European Commission DG Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.

  • Shelton, D. (2015). Nature as a legal person. Vertigo, 22. https://vertigo.revues.org/16188#ftn59. Accessed 11 Feb 2017.

  • Sikka, T. (2013). An analysis of the connection between climate change, technological solutions and potential disaster management: The contribution of geoengineering research. In W. Filho (Ed.), Climate change and disaster risk management (pp. 535–551). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., et al. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio, Sciences Module, 36(8), 614–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, E. (2011). Whose environment? The end of nature, climate change and the process of post-politicization. Ambiente & Sociedade, 14, 2. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2011000200006. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN Women and Mary Robinson Foundation. (2013). The full view: Advancing the goal of gender balance in multilateral and intergovernmental processes. UN Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, K. (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore, S. (1997). Dissecting the autonomous self: Hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 15(1), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M., et al. (2011). The Anthropocene: A new epoch of geological time? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A., 2011(369), 835–1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., et al. (2016). Impact of initial hospital diagnosis on mortality for acute myocardial infarction: A national cohort study. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872616661693. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1995). Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a feminist philosophy. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 345–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(1), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusoff, K. (2013). The geoengine: Geoengineering and the geopolitics of planetary modification. Environment and Planning A, 45(12), 2799–2808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zalasiewicz, J., et al. (2011). Stratigraphy of the Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A., 369, 1036–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. E. (1994). Contesting Earth’s future: RadicaI ecology and postmodernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Media and Cultural Studies, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Tina Sikka

Authors
  1. Tina Sikka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sikka, T. (2019). Diffusion of Power. In: Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice. SpringerBriefs in Sociology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01147-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01147-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01146-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01147-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation