„The project explores whether media representations normalize technical disruptions in rail and road traffic in favour of the road and thus to the detriment of the climate. It develops a praxeologically inspired proposal to document contemporary mobility crises in their multiple realities.“

Executive summary

Disruption and normalization share a remarkably stable relationship (Wynne 1988; Potthast 2021a). At the same time, the patterns of a normalizing management of technical malfunctions, e.g. with regard to its temporal structure, are quite diverse. In order to embed the rather microanalytical findings of the first and second term into a macrohistorical context of discussion, the third term of the subproject ties in with research on “large technical systems” (LTS). Reference is frequently made to this research in order to draw attention to the irreducibly socio-technical character of infrastructural services provided. However, a fundamental historiographical ambition inherent to this research approach is neglected: The development of infrastructures can be attributed in an essential way to a dynamic interplay of “size” and “systemicity.” By examining the role played by patterns of normalization in this context, this comparative study seeks to help shed light on the question of why a shift of traffic from road to rail has so stubbornly failed to materialize. For comparative purposes, therefore, the project’s focus on public transport is expanded to include private motorized transport. Can a comparative evaluation provide new insights into why a modal split that is less harmful to the climate has so persistently failed to occur? How do patterns of normalization contribute to this inertia?

Historically and territorially limited to Germany between 1990 and 2023, the subproject will pursue the thesis that, in the development of rail transport, a dominant way of managing disruptions has prevailed, and this has led primarily to a systemic upward transformation. In contrast, a variable way of managing disruptions can be identified in the development of road transport that is, for the most part, advantageous to its large scale (momentum), but does not translate into a systemic increase in self-reflection. To substantiate this thesis, the subproject reconstructs how the daily press reports on mobility crises during the period mentioned above. A mobility crisis is defined as a situation in which two or more of the following mobility practices clash together: changes of residence (chosen, forced), long-distance travel (work-related, tourism), everyday work-related mobility (commuting), everyday leisure and supply mobility. The decisive factor for this analysis is how patterns of normalization take effect in relation to the relevant threads.

This subproject works out a comparative case study of the development of LTS and offers a proposal for a praxeological reorientation of LTS research by way of considering the multiplicity of disruptions and the patterns of their normalization. In the scope of the SFB, it develops a historically contoured contribution to the question of the scalability of cooperation and, through the praxeological perspective on LTS research, provides new stimuli for controversy analysis. The recategorization of mobility crises has to assert itself against an established routine (cost-benefit analysis) and prove itself practically in the course of a progressively validated report format (for disruptions and their normalization).

Potthast, J. 2021. “Innovation und Katastrophe”. In Handbuch Innovationsforschung, edited by B.Blättel-Mink, I. Schulz-Schaeffer und A. Windeler, 363-380. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.