| Abstrakt: |
In this article, we explore how land subsidence is scientifically known in the coastal city of Semarang, Indonesia. We do so to ask questions about how the authority of this scientific knowledge is or not effective to help slow down land subsidence? We examine the scientific methods used to measure where, and at what rate, subsidence occurs, and we inventory the theories mobilized to interpret and explain them. Our analysis shows how land subsidence resists being fully or unambiguously known; its science remains somewhat speculative. We explore how, in Semarang, but also more broadly, this makes it difficult for subsidence scientists to act as effective 'spokespersons' for subsidence; their predictions lack certainty and confidence. As we follow the subsidence debates in Semarang we document how subsidence scientists need the authority of science to speak convincingly to powerful elite coalitions of government agencies and private companies, who have vested interests in ignoring or denying their role in causing or accelerating subsidence. We identify this as one reason why subsidence scientists deploy great efforts to present themselves, and their science, as separate from politics and society, as detached and therefore objective. Beyond contributing to emergent discussions in science and technology studies about how science shapes underground politics, our analysis opens up and sheds new light on the question of how scientific facts become entangled with politics in societal controversies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
