Sustainable Sanitation in a Local Community: evaluating technology

Anselmo Matusse Introduction Sustainable development is, using Bourdieus concept, a struggle field; thus when talking about sustainable development there are no easy answers. he comple!ity of this process re"uires that the approaches we use go beyond the disciplinary, geographical, economic and social frontiers. he global mindset now is that sustainable development must integrate three pillars, namely# economic, social and environment; but the ways these pillars are empirically combined vary from conte!t to conte!t $ local or global, which, in turn, can lead to a collapse or resilience %see &onstan'a et al ())*+. ,hen we talk about sustainable development we try to connect the past, present and the future, a pro-ect thoroughly discussed by &onstan'a et al $ so we can say sustainability is about continuity and.or change. /t is within this conte!t that we can evaluate technology; what are the assumptions, processes and interests behind it 0 be these intentional or unintentional $ for continuity or change. he ob-ective of the essay is to raise the problematic of perspectiveness1in the field of science and technology, discussed by authors such as 1araway %2344+, 1arding %2334+, Sismondo %())5+, ,inners %234)+ and 6ogers et al %())4+; this is possible using a social constructivist approach; in this case science %and technology+ is, according to homas 7uhn, what scientists and engineers do %my italics+, but this doesnt mean that the material ob-ects or technologies dont have a structuring force. aking the case of group presentations, / evaluate technology, using the course literature. / chose the access to clean sanitation to show that from a western point of view %allegedly global+ toilets %physical buildings+ are an essential need for peoples survival but from a local point of view the story might have different 8villains and heroes9. Approaching Science and Technology

According to Bourdieu (1977) people placed in different positions (dispositions) view the world differently (habitus)

According to Sismondo %()2)+ before

homas 7uhn, science and technology were seen as

formal activities. he truth was produced using formal and logical methods, theories to collect individual data little or no agency was attributed to scientists. 7uhns structure of Scientific Revolutions changed this view; on this book he brought notions such as scientific revolution, scientific community and paradigms; from a formalist point of view science starts to be seen as a social activity. According to 7uhn cited by Sismondo %()2)+ science is what scientists do. :roblems, theories and methods are defined by the community and this is a result of processes of indoctrination. he previous accounts looked at the organi'ation of science but not the content. Bloor apud Sismondo %()2)+ came with the strong programme approach on which scientific facts are not approached as natural facts. /n this approach facts are seen as social constructs and that scientific accounts must employ the same resources to e!plain either the false or the true claims $ this he called methodological symmetry, which means that facts should not be taken for granted. his leads to think of S S as a social activity something that produces facts that are not natural but agreed upon. /n this case social constructivist accounts focus on the 8institutions, structures that come to e!istence because of the peoples actions9 %Sismondo ()2)# ;4+. <or e!ample, feminist approaches argue that =ender as a social construct limits the participation of ,omen in Science and echnology Studies %eg# 1arding 2334+. So if we do not take into account the situated knowledges or feminist ob-ectivity as 1araway %2344+ puts it, we run a risk of being radically relativist or ob-ectivist. his author argues that we have to take into account the sub-ugated groups without romantici'ing them. Some authors see technology as the driver of history or inherently political %eg# ,inner 234)+; ,inner on his te!t Do artifacts have politics , argues that technologies can be used in ways that enhance power, authority, and prestige of some over others %,inner 234)# 2(;+. echnologies shape the history and can require and.or be compatible with certain kind of political arrangements, ie# democratic %solar power+ or authoritarian %nuclear power+. Some technologies are fle!ible and others are not and these ,inner %234)+ calls 8inherently political9 technologies. ,e can identify here a soft determinism %be compatible with+ and a hard determinism %re"uire+; this view is limited as it overlooks the agency. /f not seen as mere passive consumers of technology, agents %can+ also influence technology. <or e!ample,
2

revor :inch and ,ieber

Bi-ker %234*+ argue that technology has more than one use; according to these authors, claims of different competing groups shape what an artifact does and how well it performs $ interpretative fle!ibility. his is what ,inners calls social determinism $ 8technical things do not matter at all9 %234)# 2((+. Both technological and social determinism are limited as they tend to be mutually e!cluding. Proposal for sustainable sanitation in a local community: evaluating technology An implementation of a clean sanitation system specifically in developing countries presupposes that the current sanitary conditions are not sustainable; so many actions undertaken by scientists, policy0makers and other institutions or agents are meant to change the community, mostly is seen as a homogenous, passive group waiting to be changed. echnologies in these situations are seen as neutral, ob-ective and as the key to historical and social change; this is what Sismondo calls technological determinism. /t is important to note that technologies can be used as a political instrument to reproduce e!isting une"ual relations and social e!clusions %,inner 234)+. 1araway %2344+, 1arding %2334+ and ,ilk and >onsson %()2(+ invite us to take into account communities perspectives. his means an integration of knowledges in the process of sustainable development, in this way people are seen as agents and capable of influencing or shaping how a certain technology performs. his poses epistemological and ontological challenges that we need to critically address. /f local knowledges are not taken into account, technologies invented to resolve a problem may lack legitimacy thus fall into meaninglessness or even worsen the situation; lets not forget revor :inch and ,ieber Bi-kers concept of 8interpretative fle!ibility9. aking the e!ample of the use of human e!crement as a fertili'er we can see that in most countries this procedure is socially accepted but in other countries, human e!crement and food cannot be mi!ed. /n Mo'ambi"ue for e!ample, some farmers started using human e!crement to produce fertili'ers, but people didnt know this until this was reported on ?, this led people to stop buying produce from the farmers, which in turn led many produce to rot in the barns and farmers saw their profits decrease.

he same thing we can say about toilets. According to the ,orld oilet @rgani'ation %()2A+ (.B billion( people dont have access to proper clean sanitation; globally speaking this is a problem but when we focus on local communities we can reali'e that lack of access doesnt necessarily mean unavailability. @ne of the intriguing findings that ,ilk and >onsson %()2(+ bring on their article is that in ?idisha district there are clean public toilets available but people dont use them. hen, what can we say about the figures the , @ presentsC ,hat can we say about gaining knowledge in conte!ts like ?idishaC ,hat can we say about the technologyC ,hat do communities have to teach scientists and engineersC /s it compulsory that communities have a toilet in a western point of viewC /f no, what options are thereC ,hat about :DD:@@AC /n both cases we reali'e that perspectiveness is important when implementing or evaluating a technology; scientists, engineers, policy makers, agents and other institutions have interests and these, most of times, are conflicting, so it is crucial to integrate local knowledge; but this doesnt mean we have to overlook global aspects, because as Meadows et al %23*(#24+ argue there are many examples of a person striving with all his might to solve some immediate, local problem, only to find his efforts defeated by events occurring in a larger context. Conclusion / discussed the process of clean sanitary systems implementation and the challenges this process may entail. / argued that technologies must not be seen as neutral or ob-ective or driving forces of change in communities; technologies do not come from and operate in a vacuum; people may influence or shape how technologies perform either by re-ecting or accepting it. /f communities are not regarded as a tabula rasa then there is a necessity of integrating their worldviews when addressing sustainable development. / also argued that it is necessary to take into account 8perspectiveness when talking about technology and sustainable development. References Bourdieu, :ierrre. 23**. !utline of " #heory of $ractice. Eondon. &ambridge Fniversity :ress

http#..worldtoilet.org.wto.

:eepoo is a personal, single0use, self0sanitising, fully biodegradable toilet that prevents faeces from contaminating the immediate area as well as the surrounding ecosystem. After use, :eepoo turns into valuable fertiliser that can improve livelihoods and increase food security %http#..www.peepoople.com.peepoo.start0thinking0peepoo.+.

&ostan'a, 6obert, =raumlich, Eisa and Steffen, ,. E., ())*. Sustainability !r %ollapse& ' "n (ntegrated )istory and *uture of $eople on +arth. &ambridge, Mass.# M/ :ress in cooperation with Gahlem Fniversity :ress. 1araway, Gonna. 2344. Situated 7nowledges# :rivilege of :artial :erspective. http#..www.-stor.org.stable.A2*4)BB 1arding, Sandra. 2334. ,omen, Science, and Society. Science (42 %;A4A+#2;330 2B)). http#..www.-stor.org.stable.(43BA;A >onsson, A. &. and >. ,ilk. ()2A. @pening up the ,ater :overty /nde! 0 co0e!ploring capacity for community water management. Society and ,atural Resources. 6ef# D:& =: 2(.(4* 6:. Mac7en'ie, Gonald, and >udy ,a-cman. 2333. /ntroductory Dssay. /n he Social Shaping of echnology# 1ow the refrigerator got its hum, edited by G. Mac7en'ie and >. ,a-cman. Buckingham# @pen F:. www.nyu.edu.pro-ects.nissenbaum.papers.socialshaping.pdf+ Meadows, Gonella et al. 23*(. #he -imits to .rowth. Iew Jork. Fniverse Books 6ogers, :.:., >alal, 7.<. and Boyd, >.A., ())4. "n (ntroduction to Sustainable Development. Eondon; Sterling, ?A# Darthscan. Sismondo, Sergio. ()2). An /ntroduction to Science and echnology Studies. (n edition.@!ford# Blackwell :ublishing. Smith, Merrit 6oe. K echnological Geterminism in American &ulture.K /n Does #echnology Drive )istory& #he Dilemma of #echnological Determinism, edited by Merrit 6oe Smith and Eeo Mar!. &ambrdige, Mass..Eondon# he M/ :ress, 2335. he Science Huestion in <eminism and the Studies 25 %A+# ;*;0;33. <eminist