Urban Runoff and the City of Relations - Politics of Urban Runoff: Nature, Technology, and the Sustainable City - page 26

emphasis on relations is an ecological perspective, but it is one that is
markedly different from the ecology of the natural sciences. Humans are
situated within a complex array of heterogeneous relations in which na-
ture and society are outcomes rather than causes; they are wrapped up in
the co-construction of material and nonmaterial imbroglios. Here, nature
does not merely serve as a backdrop for human activities or determine
human existence but is instead an active participant in the making of hu-
man societies. 44 From this perspective, sociologist Bruno Latour argues
that the importance of ecology is not its scientifi c certainty or its empirical
data gathering practices but rather in its ability to relate elements of the
world, stating that, “It is on these associations and not nature that ecol-
ogy must focus.” 45
Relations are central to most if not all ecological discourses as well
as theories of globalization, complexity, and chaos, among many others.
Relational theory has become a particularly vibrant discourse in human
and cultural geography and has resonance in landscape theory. 46 Over
a century ago, John Muir wrote, “When we try to pick out anything by
itself, we fi nd it hitched to everything else in the universe.” 47 It is this
hitching process that is a central element of ecological or relational think-
ing. 48 Latour describes this process of relating as a new form of political
activity, one that is not based on general theories grounded in social or
natural imperatives but on the relationships between entities (the politics
of relational thinking will be discussed in detail in chapter 7). 49 The rela-
tional interpretation of urban nature has the potential to make ecology a
subversive subject, echoing Paul Sears's famous 1964 proclamation that
if ecology were “taken seriously as an instrument for the long-run wel-
fare of mankind, [then it would] endanger the assumptions and practices
accepted by modern societies, whatever their doctrinal commitments.” 50
Indeed, one can only imagine how the urban landscape would be different
had the “modern Prometheus” instead been the “modern relationalist.”
The relational perspective described previously is similar to Olmsted's
landscape approach and is being revived as a guiding principle for contem-
porary landscape architecture and ecological planning in mediating natu-
ral and social fl ows. A relational perspective emphasizes processes over
objects and subjects while rejecting the science/art dualism that pervades
conventional urban ecological practice and theory. Landscape theorist
Forster Ndubisi summarizes this position: “The underlying wisdom here is
that we need to understand the character of the landscape not only in terms
of its natural processes, but also in terms of the reciprocal relationship
between people and the landscape. The important word is relationships .” 51