Search

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.

In her article, Scharenberg (2023) provides methodological reflections on politically engaged or militant social science research. In one section, she discusses the challenge that social movements act as knowledge producers in their own right, often working independent from or outside of academic institutions (2023, 15). This raises questions about what social scientiss add to the mix. I've had similar questions working with and alongside activists in the global anti-plastics movement. Building on Casa-Cortes, Osterweil, and Powell (2013), Scharenberg points out that one response for scholars is to act as "editors" or "curators" of collective knowledge. This argument resonates with the way that I and other collaborators have thought about the engaged ethnographic archive projects:

Activist ethnographers thus become editors of collective knowledges rather than the sole producers of scientific theory. Like a literary editor, the ethnographer works from a position, which does not create knowledges from scratch, but collects the perspectives of others and assembles them with reference to the given context. In this view, objectivity might be achieved, to borrow an expression from Haraway, by assembling “partial views and halting voices” into what she calls a “collective subject position” (1988: 590). Alternatively, we might think of the editor-ethnographer as Berger’s “clerk of the records” (Scheper-Hughes, 1995: 419) who compiles the history of a group of people. Scheper-Hughes understands this position as a kind of witness. (Scharenberg 2023, 16). 

During my thesis project, Tim has served as a collaborator and mentor while he studied data use among activists opposing Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). In addition to connecting me with activists and interview candidates, he also introduced me to a small network of American and Taiwanese students in Taiwan and the United States studying FPG. This community can share resources and knowledge to further our individual studies. Could this academic network serve as a parallel to the transnational activist alliances I am studying? Are the strengths and barriers of research alliances reminiscent of the strengths and barriers of activist alliances?