Analyze

In 2019, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed a law identifying particle pollution (also called particulate matter, PM) as a “social disaster” (Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety 2019). It was a response to nationwide attention to particle pollution from 2017, when apocalypse-like particle pollution occurred. It is not uncommon to characterize pollution as a disaster. Pollution is often described in damage-based narratives like disasters because environmental pollution becomes visible when a certain kind of damage occurs (Nixon 2011). PM is a mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets (EPA 2023). An established method for assessing the health risks associated with PM is the utilization of government or World Health Organization (WHO) air quality indices. These indices reflect the potential harm to human health based on PM concentrations. However, due to the limitations of the available monitoring data and the assumption of a certain normality according to the air quality index, its utility is diminished for bodies that fall outside this assumed range of normality. The existing practices and knowledge in pollution control had individualized pollution by presuming certain states of normalcy and excluding others. To challenge this, the anti-PM advocates in South Korea have defined, datafied, perceived, and adjusted the toxicity of particulate matter in various ways. They refer to the air quality index given by the WHO or the government, but they also set their own standards to match their needs and ways of life. They actively measure the air quality of their nearest environment and share, compare, and archive their own data online. The fact that the severity of air pollution is differently tolerated by individuals challenges the concept of the toxicity index that presupposes a certain normalcy. Describing pollution as a disaster contributes to environmental injustice by obscuring the underlying context and complexities of pollution. With the values of care, solidarity, and connectivity, capturing different perspectives of living with pollution and listening to stories from different bodies can generate alternative knowledge challenging environmental injustice. Drawing upon the stories of different bodies and lives with pollution, we can imagine other ways of thinking about the environment and pollution that do not externalize risks nor individualize responsibility. 

Kim, Seohyung. 2023. "Beyond the Index: Stories of Otherized Bodies Crafting Resistant Narratives against Environmental Injustice in South Korea." 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.

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.

The immersion into various spaces within St. Louis was incredibly insightful for rapid learning about the area's past, present, and imagined futures. What I think might have strengthened the field campus as a learning/thinking space would be to have slightly more structure in terms of explicitly creating shared analytical space--for instance, being more consistent with interrogating the space with the 12 scale questions (perhaps different groups could be assigned to paying special attention to a subset of those and then we could come together as a large group or as shuffled groups, i.e. a member from each subset) to discuss. Along those lines as well, I think creating specific times for reflecting and debriefing, either after a site visit or two or at the end of each day, would be an effective way to help translate massive amounts of observational data (so many of us listening/observing in each place!) into meaningful shared insights.

For future field schools I also think it would be important to think about accessibility, not just in terms of content (which is also an important question, since it seems we want to engage with folks across disciplines and beyond academia) but also in terms of format, so as to anticipate and/or be prepared to adjust to the needs of potential participants.