Advertisement

Of Red Threads and Green Dragons: Austrian Sociotechnical Imaginaries About STI Cooperation with China

  • Ruth MüllerEmail author
  • Nina Witjes
Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

In this chapter, we address intersections of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and International Relations Theories (IR) by looking at how Austrian science, technology & innovation (STI) policy makers and related stakeholders envision and enact a close relationship between China and Austria in the field of green technologies. Analytically, we draw on the concept of ‘sociotechnical imaginaries’ as proposed by Jasanoff and Kim, which attempts to grasp how visions of social order and technological development become entangled in the processes of science and technology policy and politics. China is currently arising as one of the key global players in STI. It is intensely courted by numerous countries seeking collaboration and market access. China’s most recent Five-Year-Plan has introduced a focus on environmental sustainability to complement economic growth. Based on interviews, participant observation and document analysis, we show how Austrian STI actors connect their national positioning activities to this recent focus on sustainability. We trace how they attempt to find common ground for relating to the rising and ever so dynamic People’s Republic by drawing on a nationally accepted narrative about Austrian technopolitical history and culture that casts the country as pioneer of environmental awareness and green technologies. We understand and analyze this process as part of a broader Austrian sociotechnical imaginary in the making that constitutes a situated response to an increasingly globalized STI system, while building on and reaffirming central elements of Austria’s local technopolitical culture and history.

Keywords

Socio-technical imaginaries Techno-political culture Austria China Green technologies Discourse Analysis 

References

  1. Anderson, B. R. O’G. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benner, M., Liu, L., & Serger, S. S. (2012). Head in the clouds and feet on the ground: Research priority setting in China. Science and Public Policy, 39(29), 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. BMWF (Austrian Ministry of Science and Research). (2012). Alpbach - Karlheinz Töchterle am Tiroltag: Ökologisches Bewusstsein ist Chance für die Europaregion Tirol. Press release. August 19 2012. Accessed February 12, 2014, from http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20120819_OTS0026/alpbach-karlheinz-toechterle-am-tiroltag-oekologisches-bewusstsein-ist-chance-fuer-die-europaregion-tirol
  5. BMWFJ (Austrian Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth). (2010). Mitterlehner: O¨sterreich punktet in China mit ÖkoInnovationen. Press release. July 5 2010. n.p. Accessed February 2014, from http://m.bmwfj.gv.at/Presse/Archiv/Archiv%202010/Seiten/MitterlehnerÖsterreichpunktetinChinamitÖko-Innovationen.aspx
  6. Bruijn, J. A., Adriaans, P.W., Hooymans, C. M., Klasen, E. C., Morley, P. et al. (2012). China’s extended hand. How Chinese and Dutch knowledge can strengthen each other. Dutch Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT). Accessed February 2014, from http://www.awt.nl/upload/documents/publicaties/engels/a78uk.pdf
  7. Debrix, F. (2003). Language, agency, and politics in a constructed world. New York: Armonk.Google Scholar
  8. Dingwert, K., & Pattberg, P. (2006). Global governance as a perspective on world politics. Global Governance, 12(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  9. Felt, U. (2013). Keeping technologies out: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the formation of a national technopolitical identity. Pre-Print; Published by the Department of Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna, February 2013. Accessed February 2014, from http://sciencestudies.univie.ac.at/publications
  10. Felt, U., & Müller, R. (2011). Tentative (Id)entities. On technopolitical cultures and the experiencing of genetic testing. BioSocieties, 6(3), 342–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Felt, U., Fochler, M., & Winkler, P. (2010). Coming to terms with biomedical technologies in different technopolitical cultures. A comparative analysis of focus groups on organ transplantation and genetic testing in Austria, France, and the Netherlands. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35(4), 525–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graber, F. (2013). Die Kyoto-Ziele waren überehrgeizig. In: Wirtschaftsblatt: 26.04.2013. Vienna: Online edition. Accessed February 2014, from http://wirtschaftsblatt.at/home/nachrichten/oesterreich/wien/1394369/Die-KyotoZiele-waren-uberehrgeizig
  13. Grunwald, R. (2009). China. In D. Simon, A. Knoe, & S. Hornbostel (Eds.), Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik (pp. 518–533). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  14. Hajer, M. A. (1995). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Great Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–67). Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hajer, M. A. (2003). Argumentative Diskursanalyse. Auf der Suche nach Koalitionen, Praktiken und Bedeutung. In R. Keller, A. Hirseland, W. Schneider, & W. Viehöver (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse (pp. 271–297). Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hecht, G., & Allan, M. (Eds.). (2001). Technologies of power. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heilbroner, R. (1967). Do machines make history? Technology and Culture, 8(3), 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrera, G. L. (2003). Technology and international systems. Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 32(3), 559–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keohane, R. O. (Ed.). (1986). Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lebensministerium (Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management). (2012). Ausgewählte highlights der exportinitiative umwelttechnologien, Wien 21. Feb. 2012. n.p. Accessed April 2013, from http://www.lebensministerium.at/umwelt/green-jobs/exportinitiative/exportinitiative-umwelttechnologien/Highlights.html
  27. Martello, M. L., & Jasanoff, S. (2004). Introduction: Globalization and environmental governance. In S. Jasanoff & M. L. Martello (Eds.), Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Messner, D., & Nuscheler, F. (2003). Das Konzept global governance: Stand und perspektiven. INEF Report, 67, 1–56.Google Scholar
  29. Muh, Victor (dir.) (2011). The Red Thread. 30 min. short film, commissioned by the Austrian government to commemorate the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations with China.Google Scholar
  30. Nowotny, H. (1979). Kernenergie. Gefahr oder Notwendigkeit. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  31. Onuf, N. (2012). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Reissue edition, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Pan, C. (2004). The “China Threat” in American self-imagination: The discursive construction of other as power politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 29(3), 305–331.Google Scholar
  33. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenau, J. N., & Czempiel, E. O. (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social construction challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwaag Serger, S., & Breidne, M. (2007). China’s fifteen-year plan for science and technology: An assessment. Asia Policy, 4, 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seifert, F. (2003). Gentechnik-Öffentlichkeit-Demokratie. Der österreichische Gentechnik-Konflikt im internationalen Kontext. Wien: Profil Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Späth, P., & Rohrracher, H. (2010). ‘Energy regions’: The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research Policy, 39(4), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Torgersen, H. (2002). Austria and the transatlantic agricultural biotechnology divide. Science Communications, 24(2), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ulbert, C. (2005). Sozialkonstruktivismus. In S. Schieder & M. Spindler (Eds.), Theorien der internationalen beziehungen (pp. 409–440). Opladen & Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  41. Ulbert, C., & Weller, C. (2005). Konstruktivistische analysen der internationalen politik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: Waveland.Google Scholar
  43. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisig, M. & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Woods, N. (2008). Whose aid? Whose influence? China, emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance. International Affairs, 84(6), 1205–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu, L., & Yafang, L. (2006). Österreichs Botschafter in China über die bilateralen Beziehungen. Interview with the Austrian Ambassador about bilateral relations. Accessed February 2014, from http://german.china.org.cn/german/235726.htm

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Policy GroupLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Science and Technology Policy Research GroupAustrian Institute for International AffairsViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations