Search

The Weldon Spring Interpretive Center was a discursive jamboree for those of us curious about how anthropocenics are narrated. This particular display at the center stood out to me becuase of its resemblance to other interpretive center or science museum displays representing the "life cycle" of an organism or of cycles of ecosystem conditions (e.g. forest succession). One of the first displays visitors see upon entering the center, the display's format and captions read to me as a clear attempt to control the discourse about nuclear contamination and remediation in the area. The image--or its creator--wants to do the work of suggesting that the clean up process has brought the place "back to how it was," cycling back to a good beginning. The text used in this display is exclusively neutral or positive. The arrows moving from each circle to the next purports to display how "this area has served many purposes over the years." It states "these exhibits are designed to educate you on the history, science, and efforts of many to bring the Weldon Spring site full circle." In this cycle, Weldon Spring is not a hazardouse waste site or contaminated site but rather "a site for remedial action." Thus we are to see the space as a "home to many people," then "a TNT and DNT plant," then "a uranium feed and matierals plant," then "a site for remedial action," "an extensive cleanup effort," "a successful solution," and, finally, "a place to enjoy and learn." In this emphasis on a "return" to good conditions, the displacement of residents, health issues plant workers and others' faced, and the uncertainties or messiness of what adequate clean up is are omitted. In this image, and in much of the interpretive center, the discourse around nuclear materials, its effects and cleanup, is neatened, simplified, into a narrative that de-emphasizes the actual health impacts of these processes and of the political wherewithall that was required to make that remediation happen.

The notion of cycling back to something is a particularly intriguing move

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.

I would like to utilize the Open Seminar conference calls as an analytical space in which sharing data across spaces can help us see our own fieldsites in better relief. Additionally, I am looking forward to learning from participants with other expertise and/or who are trained to look for/attend to facets of quotidian anthropocenes that may currently fall within my own blindspots.

I would also like to think creatively with other participants to what kinds of action and output we can have moving forward in terms of characterizing the anthropocene and engaging with actors in different spaces, including New Orleans.

Additionally (see my comments on suggestions for future field campuses), perhaps the Open Seminar can be a space to think explicitly about pedagogy--for ourselves, i.e. via collaborative design of shared analytic approaches at future field schools, as well as for thinking about how to educate others, within academic institutions (e.g. undergrads) and beyond.