Analyze

Local organizers harmed by global corporations can find solidarity and resources among other impacted localities. Formosa Plastics Group (FPG), a transnational petrochemical conglomerate from Taiwan, has caused environmental disasters and subsequent opposition movements in Vietnam, the U.S., and in their home country. Crossing physical and cultural borders, activists from these communities are using their shared knowledge and power to demand retribution. The International Monitor Formosa Alliance, or IMFA, represents the coordination of global anti-FPG activists to address localized issues. On October 31st, for example, activists converged in front of a FPG facility in Point Comfort, Texas to lead a Global Hunger Strike against the company's actions in Vietnam. Bringing together various networks and knowledges, the strike calls for justice years after the Ha Tinh Steel Plant in Vietnam released toxic pollutants, causing mass fish death in 2016. Diane Wilson, strike leader and Goldman Environmental Prize winner, has coordinated with Nancy Bui, leader of Justice for Formosa’s Victims, and other global activists to demand compensation for Vietnamese victims and release of imprisoned protestors. Their collaboration can serve as a model for other communities opposing global industry. 

Image source: Zoe Friese. 

Pictured: Activists (left to right) Nancy Bui, DIane Wilson and Sharon Lavigne with enviromental lawyer (far right) Marco Simons speaking at a confressional briefing about the 2016 Ha Tihn Steel Plant incident hosted by the IMFA.

Friese, Zoe. 2023. "The International Monitor Formosa Alliance: Addressing Local Issues with Global Alliances." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11. 

The Taiwan Times (2015) reported that the Hualien Environmental Protection Bureau was tasked to sample wastewater, follwing complaints from residents that the color had changed to a "brownish-yellow." The article also mentions that the company has been in conversation with the bureau about installing emissions monitoring systems to address air pollution.

I think the field campus was a great success and showed how it differs from or compliments traditional formats (conferences, workshops, lectures...). The schedule was deliberately intense, but I am glad we could keep up a good pace throughout the three days. However, I agree that shared time to reflect on what we saw and heard each would have been helpful. A lot of this happened in the cars and at the two accommodations, but more collective time would be great for a future campus. On our way back, we discussed several ways to structure such discussions, for example by picking up one of the twelve analytic questions or making an inventory of (types of) people we encountered in the field. I am also interested in what people with experience in doing ethnography thought about showing up at sites in a group vs. being the lone fieldworker, and how that shifted the way you asked questions or interacted with the sites.

In that regard, I found it particularly helpful to meet participants in advance during the Zoom calls and learn about their skills/interests.  The group interview with Tony West was also a great way to prepare not only for the first day but to get a sense of St. Louis as a place. We should definitely think about similar modes to prepare for New Orleans. Also, since I was involved with setting up the final exhibition a GCADD, I am looking forward to discussing more what the exhibit at 4S could look like and what those of you with a background in the arts think about it.

I am working on a digital collection for the quotidian anthropocene theme "civic infrastructure". I am especially interested in free software, open data, digital maps, and other related forms of participation that are either a direct response to the anthropocene or help to render it visible in different ways.

http://disaster-sts-network.org/users/tim-schutz

I will develop a digital presentation of Philadelphia quotidian anthropence and on the theme of climate change adaptation. I will be using this analytic, "Profiling a Climate Policy", which I've created to assess urban adaptation plans. I'll provide more details by next Wednesday April 3rd.

http://disaster-sts-network.org/users/alison-kenner

http://disaster-sts-network.org/user

For me personally, I think the campus was a valuable exercise in learning to think on my feet. Also, if one of the goals of the field campus was to “generate more data than the investigator is aware of at the time of collection,” as Marilyn Strathern has said of ethnography, I’d call it an assured success. The schedule, subject matter, and activities were notably intense, and certainly didn’t leave much room (or energy) for rigorous analysis in situ. So it seems to me that the ultimate value of the field campus is still in the process of production, as we all continue to process, discuss, and relate the significance of our experiences and interactions to our own research sites and areas of expertise over the course of the following months.

Perhaps this was simply a matter of being fresh energized, but I think Day 1 was the most productive and enjoyable. I also think this had to do with the way it was structured; e.g. beginning with Tony's primer, folllowed by the tours, and finally the panel discussion, the day just built up nicely. It also gave us an approachable sampling of the ways a coherent set of anthropocenic sites and practices had been differentially uncovered, recovered, or (more or less figuratively) covered up by diverse stakeholders. And we were given time to critically (if also (mostly) cordially) engage each set of stakeholders as a group, bringing in our own unique insights, questions, and interests.

I really enjoyed the first day’s higher degree of shared attention and designated time for Q&A and discussion. That’s not to say I think every event should be a group tour. Self-guided exploration is useful too, and I realize that part of the idea of splitting up was to facilitate smaller collaborations on diverse group projects. Still, perhaps setting aside a few sessions for group-wide Q&A with stakeholders each day would create that small bit of noise and contingency that helps generate creativity.

I will continue to build a digital collection on the quotidian anthropocene in Austin, Texas and will be contributing to a set of digital resources for exploring energy transition across sites.