Cardoso 2019

Notes on Cardoso (2019) Sound-Politics in Sao Paulo - 2 Of_Ears_and_Norms.pdf.
Cardoso's book
The core argument of this

sues. Wave after wave, a growing group of acoustics and public health specialists brought debates on noise control into a technical arena. Experts associated

highlighted by underarch at page 1

experts have generated an “average normal ear,” which I call Ear 1.0. To a large extent, the configuration of sound-politics depends on the strength of the links between noise, Ear 1.0, and public health initiatives.

highlighted by underarch at page 2

portable information. The sound pressure level meter (SLM), or Ear 2.0, is crucial here because it can convert Ear 1.0 into what Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar call an “inscription device,” that is, an “item of apparatus or particular configuration of such items which can transform a material substance into a figure or diagram which is directly usable” (Latour and Woolgar 1986, 51). An inscription device

highlighted by underarch at page 2

mastering sound, “the many different places that made up the modern soundscape began to sound alike” (Thompson 2002, 3). This is the period of consolidation for

highlighted by underarch at page 3

groups. The first comes from medicine and includes mostly physiologists and otologists. The small size, internal specialization, fragility, and difficulty of access combine to make the human ear a remarkably difficult object to study. Békésy and

connection to book on modern aurality

highlighted by underarch at page 3

(Békésy and Rosenblith 1948, 736). Hermann Helmholtz postulated that “individual nerve fibers acted as vibrating strings, each resonating at a different frequency” (Rossing 2007, 13).2

highlighted by underarch at page 3

acoustics (Thompson 2002). By instituting the field of acoustics, this group established yet another chain of reference connecting sound (now an object with specific properties) and hearing.

highlighted by underarch at page 4

groups, these explorers helped to turn sonic events into stable object-signals that could be transmitted, stored, reproduced, and amplified. As Sterne notes, this pro-

object-signals—is this a revolution in storage of sound or vibration? does it matter?

highlighted by underarch at page 4

(1) the emergence of audile technique as a way of abstracting some reproduced sounds (such as voices or music) as worthy of attention or “interior,” and others (such as static or surface noise) as “exterior” and therefore to be treated as if they did not exist; (2) the organization of sound-reproduction

voice into interiority!! does that idea only come about with New Acoustics?

highlighted by underarch at page 5

tation of these techniques and networks as purely natural, instrumental, or transparent conduits for sound. (Sterne 2003, 25)

hiding of embedded ontologies

highlighted by underarch at page 5

In 1928, the TU became the decibel (dB), with 0 dB (10-12 W of sound power) becoming the reference value. As the ratio between the weakest perceptible sound

highlighted by underarch at page 6

???

look up

highlighted by underarch at page 6

Edward E. Free conducted measurements across New York City by adjusting the pure tone of a Western Electric 3-A audiometer to equal the loudness of the measured noise (Thompson 2002, 148). In 1929, New York City’s Noise Abatement

highlighted by underarch at page 7

???

highlighted by underarch at page 7

and inductances that emulated human ear responses at different frequencies. The

highlighted by underarch at page 8

The working premise of a current SLM remains pretty much the same. Sound pressure is captured by an omnidirectional condenser microphone and amplified.

still use condensers! huh

highlighted by underarch at page 8

Package all this in a sturdy plastic case, and you have Ear 2.0, an actor in soundpolitics that has quickly become the most authoritative representative of Ear 1.0 and, by extensions, of our ears. For the most part, the SLM is embedded in scien-

highlighted by underarch at page 9

controversies (how can we define the min-

highlighted by underarch at page 9

resolutions: a tool able to correlate the acoustic world

highlighted by underarch at page 9

???

highlighted by underarch at page 9

(in lieu of Pascal). However, as a unit that expresses the ratio between relative and reference values, the decibel can only operate under an agreement on what this reference value should be—in our case, the minimum hearing threshold. As this

highlighted by underarch at page 10

The second mode of existence to which the SLM belongs is that of technology, which entails the folding of actors to dislocate action. “With the folding of techno-

highlighted by underarch at page 10

version of Ear 1.0, has produced a dislocation of action. We now delegate to the device the act of hearing for us. As it replaces our ears as the authoritative hearing actor, our ears become the effect of this technology. In other words, by depending

highlighted by underarch at page 10

hammer) and write the results down in a report? If only! Using an SLM is not like using a radar gun, which requires one to simply point at an object to es timate its speed by calculating frequency changes in the emitted radar signal or laser pulse. Capturing a sound can be quite challenging because, as a mechanical wave traveling from point A to point B, sound can undergo a range of diffractions and refractions depending on atmospheric conditions such as wind and temperature. Once the specialists have Ear 2.0 as a reliable translator

highlighted by underarch at page 11

international standard? Many Brazilian specialists argue that a national standard is relevant because it takes into consideration local circumstances. Local standards

highlighted by underarch at page 12

ment. Technical standards are not pure conveyers of technical conventions. They are necessarily related to economic concerns as well. For instance, as I mentioned

highlighted by underarch at page 12

started to publish international standards rather than recommendations. ISO has now expanded from mechanical standardization to a range of issues, including or-

highlighted by underarch at page 12

seat at the table, someone hands over the attendance sheet. Beside columns for name and institution, the sheet asks participants to indicate their “class.” This is not uncommon in standardization organizations, which operate thanks to volunteer work and aim to represent society more broadly by including experts, private organizations, state representatives, and laypersons. The sheet shows three classes of participants: “Neutrals,” “Producers,” and “Consumers.” The

highlighted by underarch at page 14

that other agencies should follow. Through CONAMA’s Resolution No. 1, the two NBRs have been embedded within numerous state and municipal noise laws. As the transcriptions of the meetings below make clear, the revisions would look different if CONAMA had not created this powerful link.

highlighted by underarch at page 15

noise complaints through inspections, fines, and litigation. Whereas Group 1 is concerned with scientific precision, Group 2 is particularly attentive to the legal ramifications of the revised norms and the impact they will have on their modus operandi. To what extent, they ask, is it worth creating legal instability in the

highlighted by underarch at page 15

racy, and Group 2 with the standards’ legal and budgetary ramifications, Group 3 sees these revisions as an opportunity to expand their business and consolidate an “acoustic mentality” in the country.19 Together with Group 1, they believe the

expand their business—huh!

highlighted by underarch at page 15

ware, and soundproofing materials. Like Group 3, they are directly affected by the revisions and expect them to increase sales. One of the main providers of SLMs

highlighted by underarch at page 16

Steel Company (Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional, a major steel producer). These actors are particularly interested in keeping the meetings in São Paulo, where they can monitor the revisions more easily.

highlighted by underarch at page 16

atives of the construction sector. As we saw in the previous chapter, construction companies not only generate noise when assembling buildings but rely on questionable construction conventions when it comes to soundproofing. More recently,

highlighted by underarch at page 17

But you can make things stagnate that way. What about sugar

highlighted by underarch at page 18

25 and ethanol production here in the state of São Paulo?If you apply this version of 10151 to measure noise limits, you are going to close all refineries!

highlighted by underarch at page 18

promoting sustainability. A factory can be in the middle of nowhere now. But urban planners might predict the emergence of a community next to industrial noise. We need to have this very clear. If we focus on the receiver only, we won’t provide parameters for construction projects and urban planning. We will be just saying, “Let’s wait to see what happens.”

highlighted by underarch at page 19

two complementary NBRs at the same time. Not only that, but the commission was expanding the documents considerably to include much more detailed measurement procedures and analytic criteria than the pre-existing versions. They were aware that such a move could risk allowing nonexperts, such as attorneys and lawmakers, to “misuse” the standard. The acoustician was pushing for a more

highlighted by underarch at page 19

sess the impact of infrastructure. If during [sound] measurement, the train is a problem, I can’t make the train company accountable. That’s the construction company’s fault.

highlighted by underarch at page 21

words, as the predominant and continuous source of noise in urban areas, traffic noise often became the reference value for measuring other noises.

highlighted by underarch at page 22

That is a political decision! If you change the time, you are going to penalize the lower classes, people who have to wake up early to take buses and drive across the city.

highlighted by underarch at page 23

It’s only controversial for you! If it were controversial to anyone else, it would have been voted on, and it would be in the minutes. All I’m asking

highlighted by underarch at page 23

restrictive. “The construction company lobby is very powerful,” explained a senior acoustician who had followed the unsuccessful attempts of previous revision commissions to change the NBR 10152 values. A particularly contentious issue re-

highlighted by underarch at page 25

But who has a one-meter arm?

highlighted by underarch at page 25

Everybody!

highlighted by underarch at page 25

was designed for European buildings that have soundproofing. By changing the procedure, you are removing the policing power from the state agencies. That is extremely important for us because we will not be able to satisfy any complainant by measuring noise outside his room.

highlighted by underarch at page 26

technical standard. Acousticians adopted that approach, too. . . . We can add “comfort” somewhere in the body of the standard, but it shouldn’t be the focus. The focus is that there is a parameter, and we are going to measure it and have criteria to face up to it. That is the concept of “technique.”

highlighted by underarch at page 27

Scholar: I’m against “acoustic comfort.” It’s too subjective.

highlighted by underarch at page 27

Although the senior acoustician believed that ruído should be maintained in the title because it relates to the English word “noise” and is easier to understand, others insisted that it was too subjective. Many seemed eager to make the standards the mark of a new era of professional acoustics in Brazil, where those

highlighted by underarch at page 27

dealing with noise measurement “would have to study.” They argued that the only way to improve the acoustics of Brazilian cities was to consolidate a workforce capable of generating accurate and stable facts. From now on, technicians should

highlighted by underarch at page 28

to receive enough favorable votes. By 2017, only NBR 10152 had successfully made through the national consultation.

highlighted by underarch at page 28

politics. Meeting after meeting, the Acoustics Commission moved back and forth between the technically accurate and the politically and legally relevant. In trying to mobilize the revisions in a certain way, each group strategically highlighted specific attachments between the document and the world “out there.”

highlighted by underarch at page 29

“All, specialists included, think they have clearly defined the parameters of the proposed solutions, reckon they have established sound knowledge and knowhow, and are convinced they have clearly identified the groups concerned and their expectations. And then disconcerting events occur” (Callon et al. 2009, 28). The

highlighted by underarch at page 29

decision of whether to include traffic and construction noise is an example of overflow, in which the barriers containing a technical framework fall apart. Both con-

highlighted by underarch at page 29

???

highlighted by underarch at page 29

black boxes that can transport information between our human ears and the SLM screen seamlessly. However, as this chapter showed, under closer examination,

highlighted by underarch at page 30