Sturgeon 

Heidi

Amy Howe

Neil. Smith

Megan Spary

Madeleine Votaw

Fortun

Alexandra Nikolaeva

Raffles

Wynne

Adam

Hinchliffe - Lily

• Subramaniam argues that the language and rhetoric used to describe foreign plants and animals as exotic, alien, and invasive reflects a cultural anxiety about globalization and nationalism.

• Criticizes the environmentalist bias against alien species and the assumption that everything should be in its “rightful” place in the world, also questions the identity of the “natives” who claim to belong to the land they colonized.

• The battle against invasive and alien plants is a symptom of a movement that imposes misplaced anxieties about various (economic, social, political, cultural) changes onto foreigners

Questions:

1. What is the relationship between nature and culture (and how would you define those terms)?

2. Is the focus on alien species disproportionate to the actual effect of alien species?

3. Does the current political mood truly have such influence over terms and labels in natural sciences?

It is clear throughout the text that scientific statements differ on how to think about native non-humans, thus perhaps calling into question the universality of biology and perhaps the western centrism present in it.

1) Is the idea of classifications a biologist or anthropologist issue? i.e. Is it scientifically constructed or socially constructed?

2) Based on the reading, how might you define native / invasive species?

In this paper, Sturgeon (2010) explores the intersections between environmental, reproductive, and social justice issues – using penguins as a segue. Beginning with the surprising interpretation of the documentary ‘March of the Penguins’ as an example of monogamy and traditional Christian family values with the penguins’ behaviour perceived by some as an aspirational model for human family values, Sturgeon examines the contradictions apparent. Penguins at the time were also increasingly being viewed as symbols of gay marriage – presenting this interesting paradox, seemingly unknown to many.

Sturgeon also examines the utilisation of penguins, alongside polar bears, as visual imagery to raise environmental consciousness, particularly in the context of global warming. These images have become ingrained in popular culture, transforming penguins into cultural symbols that evoke emotions and personify planetary phenomena. For Sturgeon, though, this raises the question of what happens to the human populations hardest-hit by the effects of climate change and this idea of environmental justice, with these impacts not distributed evenly. We see this iconisation of these animals as having serious implications then, with such imagery localising climate change to remote places like the Antarctic, seemingly overlooking the Indigenous communities, for example, bearing the brunt.

Introducing the term ‘environmental reproductive justice’ to help connect environmental, reproductive and social justice issues, Sturgeon explores the implications of heteronormativity in shaping family values and societal structures. Interestingly, this narrative challenges the portrayal of suburban American families as “natural”, highlighting the exploitative nature of the consumerist reliance on the Global South.

Considering reproductive rights in tandem with environmental justice: what might this look like? Sturgeon takes issue with Gore’s (2006) documentary series An Inconvenient Truth, making the argument that it reproduces ideas that overpopulation is the issue, with the “reproduction of the planet…most threatened by the reproduction of people, especially people of colour” (Sturgeon, 2010:124). Why is it that we often see industrialising countries attributed to causing an imbalance in the Earth system? Here, there appears to be no recognition that higher reproduction rates does not necessarily equate to high consumption lifestyles – again, founded on Western notions of family, neglecting the diversity of family structures globally. Why do we see the persistence of this false narrative within environmentalism that somehow the suburban nuclear family is ‘best’?

Discussion questions:

1. How effective is visual imagery in raising global environmental consciousness?

2. How can we reframe discussions around environmental challenges to address the wide-ranging environmental impacts without perpetuating harmful stereotypes about communities or particular regions?

3. And, how can we make these discussions about ‘responsibility’ more nuanced, focusing on individual lifestyles rather than making assumptions and sweeping generalisations?

Genetic susceptibility

Locus of responsibility

etiology

biomarkers

toxicogenomics

biopower

↳ Laporations and social elilas

-Politics of reproduction

-Heberonomativity

-Right-wing Christians: Heterosexual, patriarchal families natural and divinely created.

-“conservative film critic and radio host Michael Medved was quoted as say- ing: “[The March of the Penguins] passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing....” -p.109

--Roy and Silo-Central Park Z00

-Symbol of sabotaging Christian conservation:

-Human investment in animal relationships

-Use of biology to explain relations VERY problematic

· Al Gore for environment campaign use of penguins/polar bears

-Blame for human population booming put or poor non-white people (p. 16]

-Human nature able to choose and and change its environment instead of biological issues.

↳ Free will vs. Determinism Debate

epidemiology

environmental justice

genomics

race

Hilgartner is exploring in this paper what one might expect from official investigations in the aftermath of disaster, using Hurricane Katrina as a case study. They explain that although this is difficult to predict, the field of science and technology studies have produced substantial literature, and they now have seven points of major themes within this. They refer to the belief that there is ‘no natural disasters, only sociotechnical ones’ p153, that to have political legitimacy you need to have manageable sociotechnical systems, which leads onto disasters creating collective experiences that challenge the vision of these orderly systems. Furthermore, they discuss how state governments need to be creating a discourse of protection, how public inquires play an important role in frame responsibilities and reassurances, and how these inquires influence future efforts.

In referring to Hurricane Katrina, Hilgartner discusses how this disaster conforms to many elements of these ideals. There was immediate political damage, and the state governments were unable to provide protection. Furthermore, there were multiple enquiries initiated, and at the time of writing, Hilgartner predicts that there will be a prolonged period of this, including a series of investigations allocating responsibility. However, they also argue that this won’t increase attention to structural inequalities and ‘'The cascades of overflows in the aftermath of Katrina will disperse responsibility over many actors.' p156.

Discussion questions:

Do you agree that there is no such thing as a natural disaster?

Do political actors face substantial consequences as a result of public inquiries and investigations?

How impactful are public enquiries in uncovering cause and blame?

Smith’s paper discusses the social, political and environmental fallout in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and whether a disaster of this proportion can ever be attributed to solely ‘natural’ causes.

The natural event of the hurricane occurring was a disaster in itself in that it caused mass destruction in New Orleans, killing thousands and causing billions of dollars of infrastructural damage. But this disaster is defined by the severe social inequalities which were revealed as a result of the disaster. Smith argues that the area had an innate vulnerability to catastrophic hurricanes due to its topography, but that social inequities meant that this area was mostly inhabited by poorer residents, more unable to evacuate in the event of a disaster and less financially capable to recover after such an event. The social vulnerabilities go further than class, revealing a racial element too as the majority of refugees after Katrina were African American and so, just due to their race and social standing, had an increased vulnerability to the risks of this disaster. In all, Smith argues that a natural disaster does not exist, as the disastrous element of such an event is caused by the impact that the geography has on the social and political.

Discussion question: How can cities be built to reduce social and racial vulnerabilities to natural hazards?

Petryna’s article on the politics of Chernobyl-exposed populations mainly focuses on the emergence of a new form of knowledge and discourse about illness and its connection to the political, economic, and legal dimensions. As a result of the catastrophe in Ukraine (as well as Belarus, but it is not the topic of the article), there was an emergence of a new category of population – sufferers (‘poterpili’) – which was defined by being somehow affected by the radiation. This new category was an ‘at-risk’ population which required continuous medical attention and state support. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has condemned the Soviet management of the accident and has been using it to reclaim both domestic and international legitimacy by implementing european-level safety regulations and controls. However, work protection in the 2000s was still deficient, radiation safety decided on the local level, and the amount of people claiming the disabled or affected status was increasing. As a result, the collapse of ‘knowledge’ has occurred, that is, the previous information about the catastrophe and its impacts was seen as wrong; naturally, after some time, a new construction has emerged – ‘biological citizenship’. Biological citizenship is a demand for social welfare based on medical and legal criteria that can recognise an injury and compensate for it, since citizens have to depend on technologies and legal procedures to gain political recognition and be eligible for social welfare inclusion. The illness, as a result, amounts to a form of ‘market compensation’ and is used as a means to earn a status that would bring economic and political welfare. Thus, suffering is appropriated to its legal, economic, and political dimensions. 

Questions:

• What is the correlation between illness, political recognition, and the pursuit of social welfare?

• What part does corruption play in this emergence of biological citizenship?

• Is there a connection between health and social welfare in non-Chernobyl related cases?

• Do you think it is morally correct to use suffering and/or illness as a means to gain social and economic benefit from the state after the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe? How does Petryna view this from a moral standpoint?