Securing the subterranean volumes: Geometrics, land subsidence and the materialities of things

Abstract

In 2011, thousands of Taiwanese farmers gathered in Yunlin County to protest against a government environmental management programme which attempted to address the land subsidence that has threatened Taiwan’s High-Speed Rail infrastructure. New environmental monitoring technologies have been developed to deal with the land subsidence but these have, simultaneously, provoked contestation. The dispute indicates that the horizontalism inherent in traditional studies of geopolitics fails to account for the politics of verticality. Indeed, recent work on volumetric politics opens up new horizons for thinking about the exercise of power through three dimensions; the geopolitics of the underground have remained untheorised. Moreover, the existing literature on volume also fails to account for the chaotic state of the material world. From the perspective of assemblage thinking, I outline three characteristics which shape the ‘geopolitics of land subsidence’. From this standpoint, this paper argues for a geographical approach to subterranean politics which puts more emphasis on volume, emergence and matter. With reference to ethnographical fieldwork conducted in scientific laboratories and in Yunlin County, I demonstrate how subterranean materials continuously frustrate the state’s volumetric practices. By problematising the geopolitics of land subsidence, this paper also advances the understanding of political geology, which is seeking to ‘decolonise’ and ‘pluralise geological thought’.

“Do you Know What's Underneath your Feet?”: Underground Landscapes & Place‐Based Risk Perceptions of Proposed Shale Gas Sites in Rural British Communities☆

“…To do so requires a shift in ontology (Devine‐Wright 2022) which emphasizes plural and diverse forms of knowledge and views proposed energy sites (above and below ground) as places. This includes a recognition of the politics of the subterranean and verticality, where underground are places of contestation and meaning (Wang 2021). Moving forward, future research should explore: (1) how planning and decision‐making processes can better value and account for senses of place and place‐based knowledge, (2) authenticity and perceptions of developer strategies of place‐making which ground projects in their localities (Devine‐Wright 2009, 2011b), (3) how more pluralistic approaches to knowledge‐making in energy infrastructure projects might lead to more just, inclusive and democratic practices and decision‐making.…”

Hydrosocial geographies: Cycles, spaces and spheres of concern

“…Ballestero (2019) argues for a social approach to aquifers not as static tanks but as sponges, where water constantly transgresses boundaries in hydro-lithic choreographies. Wang (2021) applies subterranean, volumetric politics to groundwater in Yunlin, Taiwan, to argue for further attention to how state hydrogeological models configure Earth's unruly materialities and emergent relations. Below-surface hydrosocial relations contrast with those above it.…”

Going deep: Excavation, collaboration and imagination at the Kola Superdeep Borehole

“…These technologies, whilst impressive, force a certain unobjectionable objectiveness to the ways in which the subterranean is experienced and mobilised as scientific knowledge. The fact that it is difficult to argue against the neatly layered maps and charts that render volume and depth as closely as possible to seeing it for ourselves mean that any resistance against the political underpinnings of geological sensing is swept aside, or actively repressed (Wang, 2021). However, these technologies fail to take into account the rather more fluid and difficult-to-sense agencies of subterranean matter (Powis, 2021) – when attempting to map, sense or draw what a subterranean area is in order to secure it as territorial and scientific truth, acknowledging that it might be different the next day stands largely at odds with these practices.…”