Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper takes to energy transitions as infrastructural changes within large socio-technical systems. It argues with reference to consistency theory and anthropological and philosophical positions, that ambivalence and ambiguity allow us to better understand infrastructural polarizations.

Paper long abstract

Nature vs climate, quickly scaling up vs slower systemic changes, socializing the costs while privatizing the profits, lithium vs coal mining – these are but some aspects of ambiguity that are inherent in energy transitions. What should be a straight forward process to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is rather one of pondering and compromise, of advancement and backlash, of new sacrifices and new opportunities. Disentangling the economic, environmental and political layers of energy transitions – drawing on ethnographic research that compares India, Germany and Australia – this paper argues that this ambiguity can lead to ambivalence. With reference to consistency theory, and anthropological and philosophical positions on ambivalence and ambiguity (Alimardanian and Heffernan 2024; Jovanovic 2016), I propose that polarized infrastructure has roots in ambivalence. While ambiguity is not only an obstacle to clarity, but has productive potential, ambivalence is hard to bear when consistency is what humans strive for. They are but two important, interrelated aspects of contemporary conflict that allow us to better understand infrastructural polarizations.