The texts considered here can be read as a collective argument about how modern knowledge is never merely produced by isolated minds, but assembled through infrastructures: encyclopaedias, atlases, metadata schemas, buildings, curricula, platforms, markets, emotions, biological materials and institutional routines. Diderot’s Enlightenment project already frames knowledge as a public, reorganising force: the Encyclopédie sought not simply to collect facts, but to “change the common way of thinking”, dissolving the boundary between craft, science, philosophy and politics. This ambition reappears in contemporary form in the DataCite Metadata Schema, which turns research outputs into discoverable, citable and reusable entities through mandatory properties such as Identifier, Creator, Title, Publisher, PublicationYear and ResourceType. Wikipedia extends the same democratic aspiration into participatory digital practice, presenting knowledge as a commons maintained through verifiability, neutrality, citation and collective correction. Yet Daston and Galison complicate any innocent faith in knowledge systems by showing that even “objectivity” is historical: scientific seeing is shaped by epistemic virtues, instruments, atlases and disciplined selves. Their account of Arthur Worthington’s transition from idealised symmetrical splash drawings to mechanically recorded irregular photographs reveals that truth, objectivity and judgement are not timeless absolutes but practices of seeing, selecting and authorising. Knowledge, therefore, is never pure information; it is always mediated by standards, tools, genres, images and ethical disciplines. Wolfe and Shank on Diderot, the Wikimedia Foundation, DataCite, and Daston and Galison together suggest that modern knowledge depends on infrastructures that make things visible, transmissible and credible, while also determining what remains excluded, marginal or illegible.
A second thread connecting these works concerns ordering, especially the tension between openness and closure. John Law’s “Ordering and Obduracy” argues that organisations are not stable nouns but ongoing processes of organising, sustained by heterogeneous arrangements of people, documents, machines, architectures and routines. Yet these processes harden into durable asymmetries through material delegation, strategic multiplicity and what Law calls the “logic of the return”, whereby centres gather representations from peripheries and send back commands. Kahl’s taxonomy of distributed cognition develops a parallel diagnosis at the level of collective epistemic systems: prediction markets, open-source communities, platforms, deliberative bodies and institutions are not interchangeable examples of crowd wisdom, because each distributes a different epistemic resource and stabilises closure in a different place. Prediction markets close through price, open-source projects through maintainer decisions, platforms through algorithmic ranking and institutions through authoritative judgement. Tsao, Kochhar-Lindgren and Lam offer a more hopeful institutional case in their study of the University of Hong Kong’s Common Core curriculum, where transdisciplinarity survives not by abolishing structure but by becoming an assemblage of policies, funding, desires, courses, teachers, students and administrative rhythms. Their use of Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts of assemblage, territorialisation and refrain echoes Law’s insistence that institutions endure through non-coherence, not purity. Across these texts, organisation is never a neutral container for knowledge; it is an active machinery of selection, repetition, stabilisation and exclusion. The key question is therefore not whether systems are decentralised, collaborative or transdisciplinary, but how they govern closure, contestation, durability and voice.
A third axis concerns the material and environmental expansion of knowledge into bodies, affects and built worlds. Ahmed’s “Affective Economies” demonstrates that emotions do not reside privately inside individuals; they circulate between signs and bodies, producing social boundaries through “sticky” associations. Hate, fear and love organise national belonging by making some bodies appear lovable, others threatening, and violence defensive. This affective infrastructure connects unexpectedly with Banham’s architectural critique. In The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment, Banham argues that architectural history has privileged visible form while ignoring the environmental services—heating, ventilation, lighting, sanitation and comfort—that actually make buildings habitable. Like Ahmed, he shows that what seems atmospheric, secondary or invisible is in fact constitutive. Architecture is not only façade, plan and monument; it is also air, heat, ducts, maintenance, energy and bodily comfort. Goidea’s Transcalar Design pushes this environmental argument into the present ecological crisis by treating architecture as a transcalar relation between biological matter, computational design, additive fabrication and planetary sustainability. Her experiments with fungal biocomposites, self-organising wall systems and swarm-like fabrication suggest that matter is no longer passive substance awaiting form, but an active participant in design. Superstudio’s radical architectural projects sharpen this critique politically: by refusing conventional building and staging negative utopias such as the Continuous Monument and Supersurface, they expose architecture’s complicity with consumption, technological fantasy and totalising urbanisation. Together, Ahmed, Banham, Goidea and Superstudio show that bodies and environments are not backdrops to knowledge or design; they are the very surfaces through which power, comfort, fear, sustainability and imagination become material.
The global synthesis, then, is that modern intellectual, architectural and digital life must be understood as a struggle over infrastructural responsibility. Diderot’s encyclopaedic ambition, Wikipedia’s civic editing protocols and DataCite’s metadata grammar imagine knowledge as shareable, public and connected; Daston and Galison remind us that even the ideals governing that knowledge are historically made; Law and Kahl reveal that collective systems endure through material ordering and governance-mediated closure; Tsao, Kochhar-Lindgren and Lam show that institutions can become adaptive assemblages rather than rigid silos; Ahmed demonstrates that affects circulate as political economies that bind and divide bodies; Banham restores environmental services to the centre of architectural history; Goidea proposes transcalar ecological design as a response to planetary complexity; and Superstudio teaches that architecture can operate as critique when building itself becomes ideologically suspect. Read together, these works reject purity: pure objectivity, pure decentralisation, pure architecture, pure emotion, pure disciplinary knowledge and pure institutional order all dissolve under scrutiny. What remains is a more demanding model of scholarship and practice: to design, cite, edit, build, govern and feel responsibly within systems whose effects exceed any single author, discipline or object. The decisive lesson is not simply that knowledge is constructed, but that construction carries obligations. Every infrastructure—whether an atlas, a DOI schema, a curriculum, a platform, an archive, a ventilation system, a fungal column or an affective national fantasy—orders the world by making some relations durable and others fragile. The ethical task is therefore to render those orderings visible, contestable and transformable.
Bibliography
Ahmed, S. (2004) ‘Affective Economies’, Social Text, 22(2), pp. 117–139.
Banham, R. (1984) The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cristiano Toraldo di Francia (n.d.) ‘Superstudio 1966–1973’.
DataCite Metadata Working Group (2026) DataCite Metadata Schema Documentation for the Publication and Citation of Research Data and Other Research Outputs. Version 4.7. DataCite e.V.
Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007) Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Goidea, A. (2023) Transcalar Design: Biological Principles in Architecture through Computational Design and Additive Fabrication. Doctoral dissertation. Lund University.
Kahl, P. (2026) ‘Distributed Cognition as Epistemic Infrastructure: A Taxonomy of Collective Epistemic Systems’. Submitted for peer review. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18449610.
Law, J. (2001) ‘Ordering and Obduracy’. Lancaster: Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University.
Tsao, J., Kochhar-Lindgren, G. and Lam, A.M.H. (2025) ‘Institutionalising a transdisciplinary curriculum: assemblages, territories, and refrains’, Higher Education, 89, pp. 849–864.
Wikimedia Foundation (n.d.) Editing Wikipedia: A Guide to Improving Content on the Online Encyclopedia.
Wolfe, C.T. and Shank, J.B. (2019) ‘Denis Diderot’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
