At a local authority domestic waste and recycling department in the North West of England, a local authority surveyor assesses the streets of the district for cleanliness. The surveying practice is also a way of assessing the work of the local authority for efficiency. This drive to improve services is a mode of care as governance and is actively entangling local streets with government practices that are generative of social relations that then shape future care practices. But these care practices are at odds with broader policy aims to strengthen relations between local residents and their environments. This article outlines the role that street survey practices play in articulating the social contours of place, how these contours are shaped by histories that are carried in policy technologies of calculation and mapping. The author argues that policy practices are performative of realities that shape possibilities for engagement as citizens and add to some common worlds and not others.
AndersonW. (1995). Excremental colonialism: Public health and the poetics of pollution. Critical Inquiry, 21, 640–669.
2.
AsdalK.MoserI. (2012). Experiments in context and contexting. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37, 291–306.
3.
BalenM. E.LeytonC. (2015). Policy translation: An invitation to revisit the work of Latour, Star and Marres. Global Discourse, 6, 1–15.
4.
BowkerG. C.StarS. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
CallonM. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32, 196–233.
6.
CallonM. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. The Sociological Review, 46, 1–57.
7.
CPRE. (n.d.). Campaign to Protect Rural England. Retrieved from www.cpre.org.uk/
LendvaiN.StubbsP. (2007). Policies as translation: Situating transnational social policies. In HodgsonS.IrvingZ. (Eds.), Policy reconsidered: Meanings, politics and practices (pp. 173–189). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
31.
LendvaiN.StubbsP. (2009). Assemblages, translation, and intermediaries in South East Europe: Rethinking transnationalism and social policy. European Societies, 11, 673–695.
32.
MartinA.MyersN.ViseuA. (2015). The politics of care in technoscience. Social Studies of Science, 45, 625–641.
33.
MitchellT. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
MolA. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Review, 47: 74–89.
35.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
36.
MolA. (2008). The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. London, UK: Routledge.
37.
MolA.MoserI.PolsA. J. (2010). Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. London, UK: Transaction Publishers.
38.
MoserI. (2008). Making Alzheimer’s disease matter. Enacting, interfering and doing politics of nature. Geoforum, 39, 98–110.
39.
MunroR. (2005). Partial organization: Marilyn Strathern and the elicitation of relations. The Sociological Review, 53, 245–266.
40.
MurphyM. (2015). Unsettling care: Troubling transnational itineraries of care in feminist health practices. Social Studies of Science, 45, 717–737.
41.
OsborneT.RoseN. (1999). Governing cities: Notes on the spatialisation of virtue. Environment Planning D, 17, 737–760.
42.
PorterT. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
PowerM. K. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 379–394.
44.
Puig de la BellacasaM. (2010). Ethical doings in naturecultures. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 13, 151–169.
45.
Puig de la BellacasaM. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41, 85–106.
46.
Puig de la BellacasaM. (2012). ‘Nothing comes without its world’: Thinking with care. The Sociological Review, 60, 197–216.
47.
ScottJ. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
SingletonV. (2005). The promise of public health: Vulnerable policy and lazy citizens. Environment and Planning D, 23, 771–786.
49.
SingletonV. (2012). When contexts meet: Feminism and accountability in UK cattle farming. Science, Technology and Human Vales, 37, 404–433.
50.
StengersI. (2011). Comparison as a matter of concern. Common Knowledge, 17, 48–63.
51.
StrathernM. (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy. London, UK: Routledge.
52.
ThompsonM. (1979). Rubbish theory: The creation and destruction of value. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
53.
VerranH. (2002). A postcolonial moment in science studies: Alternative firing regimes of environmental scientists and Aboriginal landowners. Social Studies of Science, 32, 729–762.
54.
WatertonC. (2003). Performing the classification of nature. The Sociological Review, 51, 111–129.
55.
WilsonJ. Q.KellingG. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249, 29–38.
56.
WynneB. (1994). Maythe sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In LashS.BronislawS.WynneB. (Eds.), Risk environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London, UK: Sage.
