Analyze

In my experience working with archaeologists, I have observed numerous instances where these experts show exceptional dedication to address epistemic injustices that have persisted within the field since its inception. Archaeology has its origins in colonialism and has developed based on what archaeologists considered "impartial" investigations of marginalized communities. In practice, this meant that archaeologists, who were often seen as authorities on the past, crafted narratives based on their own interpretations, emphasizing objects they deemed relevant to their chosen stories. This way of doing archaeology created epistemic injustices that have perpetuated misconceptions and inaccurate narratives about the lives of communities, both in contemporary times and throughout history. Recognizing this problematic historical legacy, archaeologists have recently made significant efforts to integrate the voices and practices of marginalized communities into their work, often through participatory approaches in scientific research. While these endeavors have yielded positive outcomes, challenges persist because the way communities perceive and understand the world (ontologies and epistemologies) is significantly distinct from the way archaeologists, using their scientific methods and theories, perceive and understand the world. Even with the most robust collaborative efforts in place, this distinction persists and may result in the continuation of various epistemic injustices. One notable example is the practice of elevating scientific evidence, affording it greater importance, credibility, and authority, sometimes at the expense of lived experiences and oral histories. Procedural injustices also persist, partly due to the legal framework governing archaeological practices, which primarily aligns with scientific perspectives rather than community perspectives, benefiting the scientific community. For instance, current regulations in certain states in the US permit landowners to have unrestricted control over the archaeological materials excavated on their properties, irrespective of their historical or cultural connection to the original communities to whom these materials belong. Archaeologists have displayed determined efforts to address historical injustices, but there is still a substantial amount of work ahead. As they navigate challenges, some ask themselves a crucial question: Can the practice of archaeology as we know it withstand the profound transformation necessary to emerge as a truly equitable and inclusive discipline? 

Image Description: "My hand and some of the materials I encountered in the field."

Domingues, Amanda. 2023. "Archaelogy and "impartial" investigations of marginalized communities." 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.

Given the vastness of Formosa Plastics' influence, there are many ways to tell its story to the world. As environmental justice activists and researchers, how do we describe a company and its negative impact when there is so much to say? Limited by time, word count, and the audience's attention span, we must decide what goes unsaid. As a result, we could write countless answers to the same question, "What is Formosa Plastics?"

In this published academic case study, I introduce Formosa Plastics through a local lens--specifically, through the eyes of a grandmother-turned-activist in the small town of Welcome, Louisiana. Her family's history with social justice activism, as well as the area's connection to centuries of slavery, make the environmental racism of Formosa Plastics' Sunshine Project especially salient. Although Formosa Plastics is a global force, telling its story on the microscale is an equally important perspective. After all, in Sharon Lavigne's eyes, her small town is her world. How many of these little worlds have Formosa Plastics destroyed as they wreak havoc across international borders?

The authors are Paul E. Farmer, Bruce Nizeye, Sara Stulac, and Salmaan Keshavjee. All of the authors are involved with the nonprofit organization Partners in Health in some capacity, with experience working with rural or poverty stricken areas. Paul E Farmer, the primary author of the article is a medical doctor also working for the United Nations who has published many other articles on similar topics.

The main argument is that susceptibility to certain diseases is not only determined by biology but also social conditions, leading to a disproportionate disease rate among the poor, and minority groups without access to medical services. The author shows that addressing these social conditions leads to a decrease in disease when combining treatment and prevention plans.

The argument is supported through a combination of historical information including rates of AIDS in the early 1990’s and a study done in Baltimore in an effort to reduce AIDS rates in African Americans, who were more likely to be in poverty, by addressing monetary barriers to heath care. Two more recent cases are also used to support the main argument, implementing a method created by the Partners in Health to prevent transmission and provide AIDS care in rural Haiti and rural Rwanda. Throughout the article references were made to the current medical professional’s dilemma, where they are in a position to see the social inequalities contributing to disease rates but not trained to report or change common social contributing factors. This makes the article more relatable to the reader that may have experience in the medical field which elps to support the argument.

“Pioneers of modern public health during the nineteenth century, such as Rudolph Virchow, understood that epidemic disease and dismal life expectancies were tightly linked to social conditions [55,56].” (Farmer 5)

“…large­-scale social forces—racism, gender inequality, poverty, political violence and war, and sometimes the very policies that address them—often determine who falls ill and who has access to care.” (Farmer 1)

“In an attempt to address these ethnic disparities in care, researchers and clinicians in Baltimore reported how racism and poverty— forms of structural violence, though they did not use these specific terms—were embodied [33,34] as excess mortality among African Americans without insurance.” (Farmer 2)

Data collected from a study done in Baltimore in the 1990’s, including statistics and observations is used to support the main argument. The methods used in Haiti and Rwanda as well as the results from implementing those methods are also used as examples for the claim that social conditions greatly impact disease susceptibility.

Emergency response is addressed in terms of both long term response and future emergency prevention. The method used by the PIH in both Haiti and Rwanda were implemented in response to high rates of disease in those places, showing that an emergency can occur gradually and the response may require creating a permanent system. Prevention is also discussed as a portion of emergency response, that it is important not only to deal with emergencies as they occur but also to identify the causes and change the system to prevent the same emergency in the future.

The article has primarily been referenced in later works by Paul E. Farmer who has written several other papers and articles on both the medical state of Haiti and Rwanda as well as structural violence in many capacities. The article was initially published in 2006 and has since been published in journals, books, as well as open online collections for use by the sts community.

The bibliography shows references to several papers by many of the same authors, showing it was produced as a continuation of previous ideas but showing new information learned through the PIH’s activities in Haiti and Rwanda. The bibliography also shows many references from the early to mid 1990’s showing similar thoughts to initial research done in Baltimore and other places with high rates of AIDS.