3.4 Analysis
165
than the actors, because they ‘…and environments both constitute and provide the
contours for the interactions of [the] transnational [and local] actors’ (Grant 2018).
From what I have said thus far, we should also consider the ‘technological dimension’ of green and ecological infrastructures’. From a consciousness perspective,
which exemplifies the relationship between the ideational and material, Doherty
et al. (2006) asked whether technology determines human practice (technical determinism), or whether people construct technology through human agency (social
constructivism)? This question relates to the topic in hand, since green and ecological infrastructures share, to a certain extent, the same space as technologies in open
spaces and the uMngeni River. From the perception of social constructivism, our
understanding of technology is social, by its very nature, in that people devise and
use technology, instead of technology reflecting its capabilities (Doherty et al. 2006)
in the absence of human activity. The foundation for this argument is that the application of identical technologies, in a similar context, can have a dissimilar influence
on organisations (Doherty et al. 2006) and society at large.
Within the realm of technology and human agency, situated cognition or ‘that
knowledge and the conditions of its use, [that] are inextricably linked’ (Tam 2000:
55) play an important constitutive role. Knowledge is ‘situated’, which means that
it is ‘in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed
and used’ (Brown et al. 1989: 32). What social constructivism emphasises is the
role that ‘others’ play in our knowledge construction efforts. Learning is, therefore,
a social process. ‘Explicit here is the belief that individuals bring implicit theories
and perspectives derived from the cultural milieu…, and that inter-psychological
aspects of knowledge creation themselves assist in the formulation of this very
cultural context’ (Adams 2006: 249). This learning operates within eThekwini’s
green and infrastructure policy landscape when municipal officials interact with the
epistemic community and NGOs, such as SANBI, DUCT and WESSA, to create an
epistemological and ontological consensus, or meaning, of the infrastructure type.
Part of the knowledge that is generated in the formulation of the cultural context
is the notion of risk and a risk society. In the next section, I will now turn to this
theory to explain the role of risk in generating knowledge about eThekwini’s green
and ecological infrastructure policy landscape.
3.4.2.6 Risk Society
The concept of a risk society began with the premise that pre-industrial societies
were at the behest of natural hazards, such as famines, floods and earthquakes. With
the advent of an industrial society, the power of natural disasters was diminished
by institutional interventions (Mythen and Walklate 2006), which is similar to what
the hydrosocial contract theory has to say about the hydraulic mission. Industrial
modernity has been so successful that it has developed into a new, or reflexive,
modernity of a risk society (Tuathail 1999). The new modernity and its associated
technologies have the characteristics of a risk society (Beck 1992, 2009; Ritzer 2000),
namely, a society that is troubled by comprehensive and globalised techno-scientific
165
than the actors, because they ‘…and environments both constitute and provide the
contours for the interactions of [the] transnational [and local] actors’ (Grant 2018).
From what I have said thus far, we should also consider the ‘technological dimension’ of green and ecological infrastructures’. From a consciousness perspective,
which exemplifies the relationship between the ideational and material, Doherty
et al. (2006) asked whether technology determines human practice (technical determinism), or whether people construct technology through human agency (social
constructivism)? This question relates to the topic in hand, since green and ecological infrastructures share, to a certain extent, the same space as technologies in open
spaces and the uMngeni River. From the perception of social constructivism, our
understanding of technology is social, by its very nature, in that people devise and
use technology, instead of technology reflecting its capabilities (Doherty et al. 2006)
in the absence of human activity. The foundation for this argument is that the application of identical technologies, in a similar context, can have a dissimilar influence
on organisations (Doherty et al. 2006) and society at large.
Within the realm of technology and human agency, situated cognition or ‘that
knowledge and the conditions of its use, [that] are inextricably linked’ (Tam 2000:
55) play an important constitutive role. Knowledge is ‘situated’, which means that
it is ‘in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed
and used’ (Brown et al. 1989: 32). What social constructivism emphasises is the
role that ‘others’ play in our knowledge construction efforts. Learning is, therefore,
a social process. ‘Explicit here is the belief that individuals bring implicit theories
and perspectives derived from the cultural milieu…, and that inter-psychological
aspects of knowledge creation themselves assist in the formulation of this very
cultural context’ (Adams 2006: 249). This learning operates within eThekwini’s
green and infrastructure policy landscape when municipal officials interact with the
epistemic community and NGOs, such as SANBI, DUCT and WESSA, to create an
epistemological and ontological consensus, or meaning, of the infrastructure type.
Part of the knowledge that is generated in the formulation of the cultural context
is the notion of risk and a risk society. In the next section, I will now turn to this
theory to explain the role of risk in generating knowledge about eThekwini’s green
and ecological infrastructure policy landscape.
3.4.2.6 Risk Society
The concept of a risk society began with the premise that pre-industrial societies
were at the behest of natural hazards, such as famines, floods and earthquakes. With
the advent of an industrial society, the power of natural disasters was diminished
by institutional interventions (Mythen and Walklate 2006), which is similar to what
the hydrosocial contract theory has to say about the hydraulic mission. Industrial
modernity has been so successful that it has developed into a new, or reflexive,
modernity of a risk society (Tuathail 1999). The new modernity and its associated
technologies have the characteristics of a risk society (Beck 1992, 2009; Ritzer 2000),
namely, a society that is troubled by comprehensive and globalised techno-scientific