Abstract:Abstract. This paper takes up the increasingly popular topic of drones -including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS), remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), and a vast panoply of commercial drones and copters -to argue that our analysis should lie not so much on drones as objects, but as assemblages of the vertical. Drones, I argue, constitute a socio-technical assemblage of the sky and vertical space, which means that our focus should be not (only) on their technological developme… Show more
“…First, we return to the z‐axis, where if “thinking about power and circulation in terms of volume opens up new ways to think of the geographies of security” (Elden, p. , p. 49), then a methodological perspective on drone technology requires experiential reframing of this consideration because “without knowing what lies above us, we have very little scope for bringing it under democratic control” (Cwerner et al, , p. x, cited in Adey, , p. 35). As Crampton (, p. 3) rightly suggests, in the contested Nephosphere, the stakeholders in the surveillance–market–governance assemblage countermand singular narratives. In other words:We make the drone a singular existence to hide its complications.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is akin to the concept of international waters on the ocean. But as with international waters, this public space is becoming increasingly and deliberately enclosed, in what might constitute a modern ‘enclosure of the commons.’ (Crampton, , p. 140)…”
Section: Aerial Commonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In his potent critique of the overlaps between military and corporate drone technologies, Ian Shaw (following Crampton, ) has argued that “the upper atmosphere was an inaccessible frontier” (Shaw, , p. 12) but that “corporations of various sizes are seeking to colonize the skies with a robotic armada” of drones orbiting “the towering skyscrapers of a capsularized elite, materializing a cloud city of secessionary volumes” (Shaw, , p. 12). Shaw suggests that this new constellation of atmospheric activity amounts to an effective enclosure of vertical common space that echoes 17th and 18th‐century land enclosures in England.…”
Section: Aerial Commonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So, while “human geography suddenly seems afloat with airs and winds, fogs and aerial fluids, with volumes, verticals and objects in the air” (Adey, , p. 55), physical geography is entering “a new proximal sensing era” with widespread use of drones (Anderson, , p. 192). This fused future of drone methodologies therefore calls for thinking “not so much on drones as objects, but as [socio‐technical] assemblages of the vertical” (Crampton, , p. 2). Drones therefore harbour profound geographic potential deserving of serious critical engagement, and it is in that spirit that we seek to broaden discussion on drone technologies as geographic method.…”
The world of late seems oversaturated with stories about drones. These suddenly pervasive machines straddle a divide in geography, being simultaneously an important tool for proximal sensing in physical geography and technology with military origins that human geographers have critically engaged. This paper, a collaboration between a physical and a human geographer, is an exploration of the epistemological nexus that a critical drone methodology offers the discipline, and which we suggest provides a new opportunity for collaborative human/physical geography. Drawing on our own research with drones and that of others, we demonstrate how recent scholarship on vertical geographies and longstanding remote-sensing frameworks are challenged by drone methodologies where social, environmental and technological concerns are entangled with the politics of access to proximal airspace and, in doing so, define a new conceptual atmospheric zone within the Earth's atmospheric boundary layerthe "Nephosphere"where drone experimentation occurs. We argue that engagement with non-military uses of drones is crucial for the discipline, now that we are entering an uncertain aerial future that will be replete with flying robots, and suggest drones are reconfiguring geographic imaginations. In short, we call on geographers to participate actively in the shaping of new drone methodologies where the values and perils of the technology can be critically debated from the starting point of the experiential, rather than the speculative. K E Y W O R D S aerial, drone, methodology, proximal sensing, remote sensing, vertical, visual
“…First, we return to the z‐axis, where if “thinking about power and circulation in terms of volume opens up new ways to think of the geographies of security” (Elden, p. , p. 49), then a methodological perspective on drone technology requires experiential reframing of this consideration because “without knowing what lies above us, we have very little scope for bringing it under democratic control” (Cwerner et al, , p. x, cited in Adey, , p. 35). As Crampton (, p. 3) rightly suggests, in the contested Nephosphere, the stakeholders in the surveillance–market–governance assemblage countermand singular narratives. In other words:We make the drone a singular existence to hide its complications.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is akin to the concept of international waters on the ocean. But as with international waters, this public space is becoming increasingly and deliberately enclosed, in what might constitute a modern ‘enclosure of the commons.’ (Crampton, , p. 140)…”
Section: Aerial Commonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In his potent critique of the overlaps between military and corporate drone technologies, Ian Shaw (following Crampton, ) has argued that “the upper atmosphere was an inaccessible frontier” (Shaw, , p. 12) but that “corporations of various sizes are seeking to colonize the skies with a robotic armada” of drones orbiting “the towering skyscrapers of a capsularized elite, materializing a cloud city of secessionary volumes” (Shaw, , p. 12). Shaw suggests that this new constellation of atmospheric activity amounts to an effective enclosure of vertical common space that echoes 17th and 18th‐century land enclosures in England.…”
Section: Aerial Commonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So, while “human geography suddenly seems afloat with airs and winds, fogs and aerial fluids, with volumes, verticals and objects in the air” (Adey, , p. 55), physical geography is entering “a new proximal sensing era” with widespread use of drones (Anderson, , p. 192). This fused future of drone methodologies therefore calls for thinking “not so much on drones as objects, but as [socio‐technical] assemblages of the vertical” (Crampton, , p. 2). Drones therefore harbour profound geographic potential deserving of serious critical engagement, and it is in that spirit that we seek to broaden discussion on drone technologies as geographic method.…”
The world of late seems oversaturated with stories about drones. These suddenly pervasive machines straddle a divide in geography, being simultaneously an important tool for proximal sensing in physical geography and technology with military origins that human geographers have critically engaged. This paper, a collaboration between a physical and a human geographer, is an exploration of the epistemological nexus that a critical drone methodology offers the discipline, and which we suggest provides a new opportunity for collaborative human/physical geography. Drawing on our own research with drones and that of others, we demonstrate how recent scholarship on vertical geographies and longstanding remote-sensing frameworks are challenged by drone methodologies where social, environmental and technological concerns are entangled with the politics of access to proximal airspace and, in doing so, define a new conceptual atmospheric zone within the Earth's atmospheric boundary layerthe "Nephosphere"where drone experimentation occurs. We argue that engagement with non-military uses of drones is crucial for the discipline, now that we are entering an uncertain aerial future that will be replete with flying robots, and suggest drones are reconfiguring geographic imaginations. In short, we call on geographers to participate actively in the shaping of new drone methodologies where the values and perils of the technology can be critically debated from the starting point of the experiential, rather than the speculative. K E Y W O R D S aerial, drone, methodology, proximal sensing, remote sensing, vertical, visual
“…Over the past several years, geography has seen the rapid growth of interest in questions around digital technologies, including robots (Del Casino 2016), big data (Kitchin 2014), algorithms (Amoore 2018;Crampton 2016), social networks (Shelton et al 2015), and the new spatial forms to which they give rise-the smart city (Kitchin 2015), the smart border (Amoore 2006), and "code/space" (Kitchin and Dodge 2011). Geographers have been well positioned to offer insightful and necessary critiques of the ways these technologies reshape dominant epistemologies, relationships of power, and spatial practices, while highlighting the agentive capacities of technological objects and systems (Ash et al 2018).…”
Scholars have offered important critiques of the socio‐spatial processes of contemporary technological development, including the rise of “smart city” urban development models. While these critiques have been essential for understanding contemporary forms of techno‐capitalism and their reach into new areas, this paper calls for a consideration of alternative modes of digital development in urban life beyond the logics of securitisation and capital accumulation. In particular, I examine the critical discourses and experimental practices of a grassroots movement focused on claiming “technological sovereignty” (TS) in Barcelona. The TS movement is a broad, de‐centralised network of cooperatives, associations, and community initiatives experimenting with alternative practices of locally rooted, open‐source digital development. These groups explore democratic and cooperative practices of work, property, production, and consumption in relation to digital technology, based around an ethics of care and a commitment to working through and within local communities. In examining the values, beliefs, and practices of the TS movement, I bring ongoing discussions around digitalisation and the “smart city” into critical conversation with the extensive literature on prefigurative urban politics and postcapitalist economies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
