Introduction Narratives and Temporalities of Infrastructure in Canada

Infrastructures lie at the core of numerous social transformations, sociopolitical and economic developments, and creative processes of innovation. They have become significant indicators of an ongoing transition towards preferable futures, symbols of economic growth, technological advancement, and modernization. As Harvey and Knox (2012, 523) argue, infrastructures embody “promises of emancipatory modernity”—such as speed, connectivity, and economic prosperity; they “enchant” the hopes and dreams associated with development. Infrastructures contribute to imaginaries of improved futures, which remain elusive, flawed, and difficult to define (Abram and Weszkalnys 2013). Operating “on the level of fantasy and desire” (Larkin 2013, 333), infrastructures “draw together political and economic forces in complicated ways and often with unexpected effects,” implicating “broader dynamics of social change” (Harvey, Jensen, and Morita 2017, 2). Although infrastructures are inherently future-oriented—serving as vehicles of domination and transformation—they are designed and assembled in ways that sustain contemporary settler states and societies. This process is shaped by power relations, sociopolitical change, and the material organization of everyday life in space and time (Spice 2018). Pasternak and colleagues (2023) demonstrate how infrastructure functions as a tool of settler colonialism. Infrastructures—such as roads, pipelines, and energy grids—not only facilitate economic development but also serve as mechanisms for asserting jurisdiction and reinforcing colonial control over Indigenous lands. The construction of new infrastructures often proceeds without Indigenous consent, enabling resource extraction while undermining Indigenous governance systems and disrupting relationships with the land. In doing so, infrastructures help sustain particular visions of “settler futures” predicated on modernization, economic growth, territorial control, and ongoing colonial dominance. Conversely, infrastructures also profoundly shape—and sometimes disrupt—alternative visions for the future articulated by Indigenous communities. Sturm’s (2017) analysis in the context of Native North America highlights how infrastructure projects often legitimize settler colonial practices such as land dispossession and cultural erasure by promising ostensibly improved futures. She challenges conventional Western notions of sovereignty, emphasizing instead Indigenous perspectives that prioritize relational governance, community resilience, cultural continuity, and self-determination. Sturm frames settler colonialism as a persistent structure continuously reshaping relationships among Indigenous communities, settlers, and the state while highlighting Indigenous strategies of resistance and reclamation. Her work calls for a re-evaluation of anthropological approaches, urging scholars to move beyond passive observation towards active support initiatives centring Indigenous sovereignty and decolonial futures. The current anthropological understanding of infrastructure has been informed by and built upon insights and methodologies from other social sciences that study infrastructural phenomena. Consequently, technical or engineering perspectives have been superseded by an emphasis on human engagement and the specific ways humans interact with various infrastructures, thereby moving beyond mere materiality. These anthropological approaches highlight the systemic and political dimensions of infrastructure (Larkin 2013), the sociotechnical relationships individuals form through infrastructure creation and maintenance (Star 1999), the interconnections between archives and infrastructure projects (Rippa 2021), and phenomena such as migrants’ mobility conceived as infrastructure (Xiang and Lindquist 2014). Anthropologists also explore how interactions between bodies and materials generate novel sensory experiences and capacities, ultimately conceptualizing people themselves as infrastructure (Simone 2004). Anthropological scholarship has repeatedly demonstrated the significance of non-physical elements, such as infrastructure standards (Carse and Lewis 2017) or the “promise of infrastructure” (Anand, Gupta, and Appel 2018). Additionally, anthropological and ethnographic research has shown that the planning, creation, and maintenance of infrastructures produce distinct spatial and ecological consequences across local, regional, and global scales (for example, Harvey and Knox 2015; Ojani 2023; Schweitzer, Povoroznyuk, and Schiesser 2017). These analyses illustrate how the promise of infrastructure remains indeterminate, deeply intertwined with the mediations it facilitates. Infrastructural mediation—understood as actions shaping anthropogenic relationships within extractive environments—is grounded in ecological contexts and the “durational dimensions that …