The Topological Multiplicities of Power: The Limits of Governing theOlympics

Abstract

This article proposes that economic geography would benefit from a closer consideration of the topological multiplicities of power, that is, the multiple contending configurations of networks that make power a precarious accomplishment through creating constant overflows. It develops this argument by tracing how the circulation of knowledge in the preparation for the Olympic Games establishes sociomaterial networks that are meant to allow the International Olympic Committee to coordinate the organization of the event. On the basis of Bruno Latour's concept of the oligopticon, the article develops a sociomaterial notion of power to govern at a distance that emerges through the triple movement of collecting and mobilizing information, casting it into stable intermediaries, and recirculating knowledge. At the same time, a parallel narrative considers how this power and its spatial reach remain always partial and are transformed by overflows as elements move in and out of networks and how forces outside the network bear on it, creating "absent presences." Giving adequate attention to these topological multiplicities of sociomaterial networks offers an important counterweight to the dominant notion of stable social networks in economic geography and is particularly useful when analyzing the governance of projects and various other forms of ephemeral, distributed organizing. ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY90 (3):321-339. © 2014 Clark University. www.economicgeography.org oligopticon: a precarious center of power that attempts to enroll others in network associations and govern at a distance.On the empirical plane, the article presents a case that can be considered as emblematic for illustrating the topological multiplicities of power. It draws on the Olympic Games as an example of a large-scale project (cf. Grabher 2002) to examine how the International Olympic Committee (IOC)-as an oligopticon-attempts to govern at a distance by forging connections and enrolling a multitude of elements from different locations to stage the most complex mega-event on earth. In this process of emergence, network arrangements are often precarious, since relationships are forged anew for each edition of the Games. Networks frequently change shape, and elements wander from one network to another. By tracing how relations are established, but, crucially, where they are transformed and liquefied and how they reflect what is not in the network, the article explores the topological multiplicities of power and how they make the IOC's capacity to govern often rather selective.The focus on the topological multiplicities of power in large-scale projects further develops two major strands of economic geography research. One strand is on networks, knowledge networks in particular, in which stress has been placed on a functionalist reading of networks as stable, cohesive entities, marked by strong ties between social actors that enable economic action (cf. Grabher 2006, 181;Grabher and Ibert 2006). Networks are made up of ties that bind, whether the ties are of t...

Boston’s Olympic bid and the evolving urban politics of event-led development

“…Concurrently, experts from past Olympic host cities formed their own consulting firms to advise prospective host cities (Cashman & Harris, 2012;González, 2011). The degree to which planning coalitions actually implement the recommendations of these experts is variable (Müller, 2014), but these networks of expertise help to delimit the range of planning practices available to cities (KassensNoor, 2013;Liao & Pitts, 2006).…”

“…While the policy mobilities between Olympic cities are well documented (Cook & Ward, 2011;González, 2011;Müller, 2014), the role of mega-events in American urban politics is less clear. American firms played leading roles in the early stages of codifying Olympic planning knowledge following the Atlanta 1996 Games (Lauermann, 2014a(Lauermann, , pp.…”

Projects, people, professions: Trajectories of learning through a mega-event (the London 2012 case)

“…Toohey, 2001, 2013;Frawley and Toohey, 2009), economic geography (e.g. Müller, 2014;Müller and Stewart, 2014) and planning studies (e.g. Kassens-Noor, 2012).…”

“…These literatures address two main issues: first, the difficult transfer of knowledge between successive local organization committees through an overarching organizational body, the IOC (cf. Müller, 2014); second, the ways how long-term networks of power shape the organizational setup of the Games (cf. Frawley and Toohey, 2009).…”

“…Halbwirth and Toohey, 2001;Frawley and Toohey, 2009;Parent and MacIntosh, 2013;Müller, 2014). In the case of London, the herculean task of preparing and staging the Olympics 2012, and, on top, of implementing its legacy plans, has basically been a sequence of three entangled large-scale projects.…”