Theoretical framework

Concepts

Off-roading was chosen as a case to study the relation between technology, people, and their surroundings, because a large aspect of the relationship becomes apparent in the way off-roaders actively build their vehicles. Through the concepts of Actor-Network-Theory, Affordance, and Infrastructure, I engaged with off-roaders, and the practice of building vehicles. The idea that vehicles are ‘built not bought’ drives the idea that vehicles should be specifically designed and built by their owners, to suite their specific needs. This shapes the interconnected relationship between off-roaders, their vehicles, and their surroundings.

It is because of this interconnectedness that I reject an essentialist approach of ‘technology’ and ‘humans’ as entities that can be separated. By accepting that there is no ontological divide between us and technology (Haraway 1985, 59) we can look at the implications and effects our relation with technology has in the larger network of relations we engage in. Because our lives and other relationships are increasingly interwoven with technology, for example our relationships with our family and friends through mobile phones, or the way we engage with the world through social media and mass news, it is important to research the relationship we have with technology, and how it is shaped by other factors, entities and relationships, with which it is interwoven.

But researching the relationship we have with technology is not easy. Bryman (2012: 445) argues that going native is to lose your ‘objective’ position as a researcher by internalizing the social norms and customs of your research population, which results in a loss of academic integrity and accountability. And in our technological world, it is hard to argue that we haven’t internalised technology. Vannini & Taggart (2019) show us that even those who choose to live ‘off grid’ and ‘in tune to nature’, heavily rely on technology like solar panels for survival.

If we cannot approach our ontological connection with technology (Haraway 1985, 60) as an ‘outsider’ we have to adopt an (epistemological) approach that visualizes the relationship we have with technology. If we ever want to understand our most interwoven technological relationships, perhaps to address issues like information bubbles that cause adversity, or build better dating platforms to achieve intimacy, we have to gain a more fundamental and rudimentary understanding first.

Off-roading is an excellent case to engage these relationships. Under the umbrella of Actor Network Theory, and in relation to technology, and infrastructure, Kaptelinin’s & Nardi’s (1997) ideas of effecter- and handling-affordance will be explored. The way actors construct both types of affordance, and interact with technology and its affordance, should give us insight in how effecter and handling affordance relate to and interact with each other. Furthermore, I will try to employ the concept of infrastructure in combination with actor network theory (Law, 1992). The relationship of an off-roader with their vehicle (which is both an actor and technology) is heavily impacted by the infrastructure in which they place themselves (the places they travel to, and the idea’s they have about that place), and in that way infrastructure (which could possibly be seen as a network by itself Argounova-Low, 2012) also acts as an actor in the actor network theory. The question that then needs to be answered is to which extend infrastructure has agency over the larger relationship, and if this agency role should be limited to a number of heterogeneous materials that shape knowledge, or if infrastructure should be viewed as a construction of a number of heterogeneous materials itself (Law 1992, 391).

Actor Network Theory

Off-roading is engaged through the understanding of John Law (1992, 381) who states that “the social is nothing other than patterned networks of heterogeneous materials”. In which ‘the social’ in this research, is the practice of off-roading. ‘The social’ usually refers to something that acts as a unified entity (latour 2005, 43). And it is exactly this unification of materials in a unified entity that argues against the ontological divide of these entities. Like Law (1992, 381), Latour (2005, 43) also adopts the idea that ‘the social’ might be composed of different entities. I argued that the entities of off-roading largely consist of the people, vehicles, and places. Latour (2005, 71) states that “anything that makes difference in the course of another agent possesses agency in itself”. I argue that, looking at the relation between people, vehicles and places; these three components all carry a certain agency, as each component is changed in the presence of the others. The question then becomes is how agency is enacted by these entities. Ter Keurs (2014, 46) argues that these physical entities are not static in their enactment of agency, but are constantly shifting and adapting to changes in their relational environment.

Akrich (1997, 2016) agrees with this fluidity of entities, but also states that the choices made by the ‘creator’ of technical objects largely inform what the role/influence of this technical object becomes; As long as the use of the technical object isn’t radically different from the intention of the ‘creator’. Based this, and on Law’s (1992) understanding of networks, and technology in the form of objects (Law 2002, 91), I argue that the creator of the vehicle thus has a very specific influence in shaping the larger network of off-roading that they experience. Law (2002, 91) states that objects are an effect of a network of relations, the way an interlocutor views their vehicle, and interacts with it (which is engaged in terms of affordance), is influenced not only by the way the vehicle is built, but also by the affordance it gives, and infrastructure they aim to travers with it. It is perhaps because of this, that the ‘built not bought’ slogan is so popular in off-roading. Based on Akrich (1997) and Law (2002) I could argue that if you do not build your vehicle yourselves, you are not the owner and chief architect of the engagement you have while off-roading. Which is in turn important because engaging with the infrastructure of off-roading (Bishop uses ‘the outback’ to this end), is about self-determination through the use of technological objects (Bishop 1996, 268).

One problem with this more limited approach is that it relies on the epistemology of identification (Haraway 1985, 20) of the different heterogeneous materials of off-roading. This means that the approach assumes that we need to understand and identify the split between the ‘creator’ and the technical object, and the off-roader and the infrastructure they traverse. Haraway (1985, 60) argues that a technologically involved society challenges this duality and argues for an ontological approach that signifies the unity of society and technology. In this ontological ‘cyborg’ (Haraway, 54) signifies a unified capability (which will later be approached through affordance) in which it is not necessarily clear which part of the cyborg enforces agency to what effect. We should be aware of the agency of technology, people, and infrastructure, but not pretend that these can be examined separately of each-other.

Affordance

The technical, affordance and human technical hybridity

I thus argue that the heterogeneous materials, that make up the ‘cyborg’ of off-roading, consist roughly of notions of infrastructure, building and interacting with technology, and shared agency, and that these should be understood as inseparable parts of off-roading. I argue that the relationship between the off-roader, infrastructure and technology cannot truly be separated, but that the interaction that forms the relationship between these concepts, can be described. For the concept of technology, I’ve chosen to express the relationship in terms of affordance, which is defined as ‘the opportunities that are created by the capabilities of the technical object, and the agent’s capability to use this object’ (Kaptelinin & Nardi 2012). Akrich (1997, 206) argues that “technical objects participate in building heterogeneous networks that bring together actants of all types and sizes”. One of the roles these technical objects inhabit in these networks is affordance.

Different actors might perceive different affordances from the same object, and the same actor might perceive different affordances from the same object on different occasions (Gibson 1979). Gibson (1979) argues that the perception of what the object offers in terms of affordance, is largely informed by what the actor needs from this object. A flight of stairs might afford an adult to reach another level of a building, but that same flight of stairs might not afford much to the crawling infant, or the same adult with a broken leg. Kaptelinin & Nardi (1997) expand on this term and state that affordance can be split in effecter affordance, which is what is provided by the object, and handling affordance, which is the affordance given by a tool when used by a person. The combination of these two types of affordances constitutes into instrumental affordance, or the affordance a certain object gives in a network. From this it can be derived that technical objects do enact agency in forming affordance, but that whoever uses the object shapes the object, and therefor also shapes its role in the network.

By looking how the mutation of a material (or a scope of materials), like road surface and weather, influences the way off-roading is done; we can gain an understanding of the way the different materials interact. Off-roading vehicles are ‘built not bought’, meaning that the effecter affordance is shaped into creating a desirable instrumental affordance. Usually though, off-roading vehicles aren’t ‘static’ but rather can be adapted to the needs required for certain trips/expeditions. These needs are usually influenced by the infrastructures available on these trips. Infrastructure is a large agent of affordance when viewed from the idea of off-roading, meaning that infrastructure has a great influence on what is required of the off-roader and how affordance is perceived and created. For example, the length of a track or expedition, and the access to resources like fuel and water, determines the preparation required, but the lack of infrastructure is also what drives off-roading. Once infrastructure gets at a certain ‘level’ (ie paved roads) we are no longer talking of off-roading. Yet, the absence of infrastructure also limits off-roading (Bishop 1996). The increasing availability of technology, and thus the increased ‘level’ of infrastructure drives back the availability of places where off-roading can be done, as off-roading isn’t about a certain location, but about a certain experience that the off-roading wants to derive from the location (Bishop 1996).

Star (1999, 387) states that one of the issues when studying infrastructures is ‘distinguishing different levels of reference in one’s subject matter’. This means that it is difficult to figure out how exactly infrastructure influences the network of off-roading through means of affordance, because I cannot know exactly, how an interlocutor thinks about certain infrastructure. There are many ways to approach infrastructure, and presume its relationship with my interlocutors. It is therefore imperative to figure out what the key proponents of infrastructure are when discussing trails and tracks. This research is further complicated by the fact that the infrastructure (tracks) is largely chosen by the off-roader, rather than imposed on them by force. Meaning that the network of person, vehicle and tracks is further influenced by personal agency, which are in turn again influenced by the affordance of both the vehicle and the environment they chose to be in.

Infrastructure

The infrastructures of off-roading and their agency.

Infrastructure is somewhat of an ‘unruly beast’ (Bennett 2010). Star (1999, 380) states that infrastructure is inherently a relational concept. Infrastructure only becomes infrastructure when it is engaged with in a certain process. Its effect on actors is shaped by the understanding those actors have of the infrastructure they want to navigate through this process. This means that infrastructure is defined by the signifiers (Star 1999, 387) which actors use to relate to infrastructure. Understanding what those signifiers are, is a methodologically challenging aspect of understanding infrastructure ethnographically (Star 1999, 387). Larkin (2013, 329) argues that infrastructure behaves to the effect of “objects that create the grounds on which other objects operate”. Jensen & Morita (2015, 85) argue then that infrastructure is interesting in the ontological approach, because in the network (of off-roading), it is the place where different entities/agents come together to define the network. It is thus important to look at infrastructure as the ontological basis of what off-roading is, which is difficult because infrastructure is understood differently depending on who engages with it. Kohl (2007) for example, argues that the tourists trying to navigate the Sahara, change the relation between infrastructure and the locals from something benign, to an opportunity for any local that has the means to provide transport across it.

Infrastructure is often understood in terms of (potential) connectivity and globalisation (Dalakoglou & Harvey 2012, 459-460). Infrastructure is also understood as a ‘common’ good (ibid), which implies that connectivity, and the participation, in globalism, is also owned by the public. This signifies that infrastructure can be valued by its connectivity, as this connectivity is an essential part of the human condition (Dalakoglou & Harvey 2012, 460). Infrastructure gains significance in off-roading, as ‘true’ off-road vehicular travel (travel outside any tracks or road) causes environmental damage (Lesslie & Taylor 1985, 314). This environmental damage is incompatible with the minimum impact practice of the ‘leave-no-trace’ principle (Vagias & Powell 2010, 22) that many off-roaders adopt, and thus incompatible with off-roading. Off-roading, which encompasses ‘leave-no-trace’, thus requires infrastructure like tracks, to minimize environmental damage. Although off-roading infrastructure still engages in connectivity it seems that in off-roading, infrastructure is valued more by its connection with the environment as ‘rugged terrain’ (Bishop 1996), rather than its qualities of connecting two places. This is understandable, because the level of connectivity (the amount affordance it provides) of infrastructure is inverse in the human/vehicle relationship. The more connectivity is afforded by infrastructure, the lesser the modification required of the vehicle to achieve a desirable level of connectivity. This decrease in required modification, changes the human/vehicle relationship, till the point where the advancement of the infrastructure’s affordance of connectivity, diminishes the interaction between off-roader and vehicle, to the extend where the activity of engaging with the provided infrastructure, denies off-roading altogether.

Argounova-Low (2012, 74) argues that the technical characteristics of infrastructure, such as the technical signifiers that help determine a level of connectivity, are important. But she (ibid) also argues that social significance and (relative) importance is much more descriptive and accommodating to the social relationship between infrastructure and people. Through this understanding, it can be argued that the state of the road and its physical connectivity (for example paved vs non-paved) does not solely constitute its definitive relationship to off-roading, but that other signifiers might also influence the relationship off-roaders have with infrastructure. Bishop (1996, 263) argues that a certain level of ‘roadlessness’, is exactly what inspires the off-roader. Alice springs, a former outback town that has now been thoroughly connected by bitumen (asphalt) has, through that connection, somehow lost its connection with the outback, and the infrastructural affordance sought by off-roaders (Bishop 1996, 264).

Perhaps the relationship between off-roading, infrastructure, and the appeal of roadlessness, can be understood through Lesslie’s & Taylor’s (1985, 318) wilderness quality indicators. They (ibid) define four indicators, namely remoteness from settlement, remoteness from access, aesthetic primitiveness, and biophysical primitiveness. This connection with wilderness and remoteness is supported through videos of off-roaders, which show off-roaders engaging with infrastructure with a certain self-imposed objective (Andrew st-Pierre white, 6 days out of perth. Loneliness fix.

If we entertain Lesslie’s & Taylor’s (1985, 318) wilderness quality indicators we could theorize that the social significance of infrastructure in off-roading is largely related to the following ideas. Firstly, the infrastructure travelled must, to a certain extend be (physically) removed from human occupation. Secondly the infrastructure travelled must be difficult to access. Thirdly the infrastructure travelled should not have excessive evidence of being disturbed by human activity. And fourth, the wilderness should not be disturbed by invasive presence that is the result of human interaction (for example cattle or mining). It is however interesting to mention that even though these indicators might be similar for many individuals seeking Bishop’s (1996) wilderness, it should be understood that the level of wilderness isn’t necessarily measured by ‘objective’ measures. What might be remote for a hiker traveling on foot, might not at all be remote for the off-roader in their vehicle (Biship 1996, 264). I argue that the level of technical ability shapes the level of wilderness that can be accessed, but also shapes the level of wilderness that is ascribed to certain infrastructure in the first place. The understanding of infrastructure is then also influenced by the affordance of the off-roader.

In this approach the social relevance of infrastructure in the form of wilderness quality indicators, and the technical characteristics of connectivity seem juxtaposed or disconnected. I would argue that, through the relational understanding of social entities (Akrich 1997, Haraway 1985, Latour 2012, and Law 1992), these signifiers of infrastructure (Star, 1999) are interconnected. Infrastructure should be understood through the technical characteristics and social relevance given to these through off-roading. It is thus on this social relevance, through the relational nature given to it in off-roading, this research focusses.