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.

The gift of the money caused discord in the community - rather than buying the good tea for a better price, so that it feels earned, it is a bigger power dynamic to gift the money

The publication of standards, inspections, certification, decertification, branding - connection to policy for organic certification

I don’t think they particularly see themselves as helpful to the tea growers - they are  more about codifying/enacting a “final vocabulary” around their view of environmental sustainability

In the context of a supply chain where the Global North [sic] corp/buyer is at the top, they are defining and enacting “the ethical” and environmental “responsibility” in their standards and their inspections and their certifications and labels and branding, without any real awareness of how these things are already happening, for different reasons, in the context of somewhere like Tanzania where the tea is actually being grown.

Standards development organizations, which include heavy influence from corporations in the Global North [sic], are “codify[ing] values of sustainability that are to govern practices” p825

Not much on the context of CSR or the history of these SDOs and why they exist.

Byron Good, Ph.D., is a professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard Medical School. His primary area of research is mental illness and how social perceptions evolves around these issues, in terms of both treatment and social acceptance. Dr. Good has several works on these issues, including several that explore the perspective of bio-medicine in non-western medical knowledge, the cultural meaning of mental illness, and patient narrative during illness. His publications including several papers, books, and edited volumes; he is regarded as a major contributor to the field of psychological anthropology. 

The article primarily asserts that how a patient narrates or describes their medical history is deeply rooted in their native culture. As such, physicians must be aware of how an individual's medical experiences can be altered based on this. In turn, physicians must recognize the importance of story-telling and anecdotes when receiving information directly from patients. Narratives project the patient's experience and events through their perspective, granting professionals a glimpse into their thought processes and action patterns.

The author, Byron J. Good, is a Harvard professor in the department of global health and social medicine. He is the director of the International Mental Health Training Program, and has significant experience with field research that has led to many publications.