Refusal in Citizenscience: A Decolonial, Ethical Approach to Data Circulation (or Not)
Ethnographic refusal is an methodological approach originating in anthropology about not disclosing data. At first, settler anthropologists saw refusing to disclose all information as an ethical problem as the right to know was paramount. Over time, Indigenous scholars have rearticulated refusal as a decolonial and deeply ethical method; settler researchers and audiences should not be able to access all information about Indigenous and other groups, and that the refusal to recount some information so it remains locally controlled and related is sometimes the more ethical stance. In this paper, we explore how our citizenscience laboratory (Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research, or CLEAR) has brought ethnographic refusal and people’s right to refuse into the natural sciences through a case of studying plastic pollution in sustenance food webs in Newfoundland, Canada. Refusal and other decolonizing methods are under-explored in citizenscience literature and practices, and offer new avenues through which to think about methodologies and ethics for environmental justice premised on the idea that free and open circulation of contamination data is not inherently good.
Okay, so after three months of reading and learning and thinking and writing (!), I passed my PhD comprehensive exam and am officially a PhD Candidate (with distinction!). To this end, I am *very* much looking forward to the next few months and years of thinking through, learning about/from my dissertation, which will be about forest fire issues in Northern Saskatchewan. Much to come in that regard.
Other than that, Dr. Myra J. Hird and I have a new book chapter out, entitled ‘The Arctic Wastes’ in the edited collection Anthropocene Feminism. The collection includes contributions from some notable feminist and queer theorists (Elizabeth Povinelli, Rosi Braidotti, Stacy Alaimo, among many others), thinking about intersections in the Anthropocene. Myra and I’s chapter is a call against, among other things, universalism in the Anthropocene. Chapter abstract below:
In the Eastern Canadian Arctic city of Iqaluit, a three-story pile of waste rests atop a peninsula that extends well
into Nunavut’s Frobisher Bay. The dump – which burned steadily throughout the summer of 2014- is one of several waste sites in Nunavut’s only official city. It joins an unknown number of waste sites that the US and Canadian military, oil, gas, and minerals industries have left abandoned on and in the landscape. In this chapter, we examine waste within the wider context of colonialism as well as contemporary neoliberal governance practices to argue that waste itself is part of a colonial context within which Inuit and other Aboriginal peoples in northern Canada continue to live. Waste is a provocative material concept with which to think about neo-coloniality, and in the context of the Anthropocene takes on a distinct hue. Whether in the form of mining, nuclear, industrial, hazardous, sewage or municipal, and whether it is dumped, landfilled, incinerated or buried deep underground, waste constitutes perhaps the most abundant and enduring trace of the human for epochs to come. In this chapter, we take up the challenge posed by Dipesh Chakrabarty to conceptualize the neo-colonial subject within the context of the Anthropocene, wherein humanity is re-characterized as a geophysical force. While the Anthropocene speaks of a globalized human race to whom past and present generations project responsibility and reparation, we emphasize that the effects of this waste landscape – neo-colonialism’s dividend – is differentially experienced by Inuit people living in Canada’s North. Unlike Chakrabarty, we argue that the dangerous irony of the Anthropocene is less that the possibility of sovereignty has collapsed and more that the various technologies predicted to “solve” our global environmental problems are framed through an under- standing of sovereignty that always separates waste from resource, dirt from clean, and uncivilized from civilized—a configuration that, as the Anthropocene has already begun to show us, is inevitably doomed to failure.
Okay, so it’s been awhile since posting any updates here– though I contend that it’s because I’ve been busy writing: for courses, for the Anthropocene Campus, and even for some publications! Anyway, over the next few weeks, I’m going to update this site with some of the writing that I’ve published over the past six months or so. This includes several posts on Discard Studies, some chapters submitted to edited collections, and more.
Plastic ingestion rate of 2.4% for Atlantic cod (n = 205)
First recorded baseline for fish in Newfoundland, Canada
This plastic ingestion prevalence rate is among the lowest recorded to date.
Used citizen science to collect GI tracts from fish destined for human consumption
There are a number of other aspects of this study that are not discussed in the paper that make the study both important and novel. As CLEAR is a feminist marine science lab, we aim to include values of equity and justice into every aspect of our research: as such, we used only scientific protocols that citizens (or non-institution affiliated or heavily funded scientists) could use (See this article by Max Liboiron for why this is important); our authorship order was consensus and equity based, acknowledging difference in social position of authors and multiple types of labour (field work, data collection, and emotional labour– not just writing!); and, lastly, we held a public meeting to ensure the community of fishers that might be impacted by our study agreed to us publishing the results. Our paper is also one of the first few plastic pollution studies where a species was select based on placed-based cultural importance and local consumption practices.
A full pre-print version of the paper is available, here.
Liboiron, Max., Liboiron, France., Wells, Emily., Richárd, Natalie., Zahara, Alexander., Mather, Charles., Bradshaw, Hillary., and Judyannet Murichi. (2016) Low plastic ingestion rate in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from Newfoundland destined for human consumption collected through citizen science methods. Marine Pollution Bulletin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.10.043
This session invites papers exploring ethical considerations of transboundary waste movement.
Over the last decade, geographers of waste have demonstrated how discards move across various ecological, legal, and cultural boundaries: recycling and ‘Zero Waste’ initiatives move waste across national and provincial borders (MacBride 2011); plastics circulate transnationally through ocean gyres (Liboiron 2015); and emissions from incinerators climb their way through arctic food webs (Downie and Fenge 2003). Among other things, geographical studies have noted how the movement of waste matters, both politically and materially – waste and the consequences of waste are differentially understood and experienced (Gray-Cosgrove et al. 2015). Moreover, the varied stakeholders involved in managing wastes (e.g. industry, government, public and activist groups) often operate within competing ethical parameters, where the difference between right and wrong might involve balancing municipal budgets, tending to industry profit margins, or protecting environment and human health.
In this session, we welcome empirical case studies that critically analyze spatial patterns and local experiences of waste, as well as more conceptual papers that theorize and challenge contemporary understandings of ethics in waste movement. Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following topics:
Differences between and competition within formal and informal sectors of waste trade
Material geographies of waste (e.g. e-waste, food waste, marine plastics, corpses, feces, volatile contaminants, etc.)
Borders and waste, including: physical, ecological, political, or imagined borders
Waste management systems and the ‘right to pollute’
Transboundary legislation and waste
Ethics and methodologies in examining transboundary waste movement (participatory action research, activist methods, ethnography, decolonization, etc.)
Non-human geographies and waste
The role of geographers in addressing environmental and social justice
Downie, D. L. & Fenge, T. (2003). Northern Lights Against POPs: Combatting Toxic Threats in the Arctic. McGill-Queens University Press.
Gray-Cosgrove, C., Liboiron, M. & Lepawsky, J. (2015). The challenges of temporarilty to depollution and remediation. S.A.P.I.E.N.S [Online]. 8: https://sapiens.revues.org/1740
Liboiron, M. (2015). Redefining pollution and action: The matter of plastics. Journal of Material Culture Online first: doi:10.1177/1359183515622966
MacBride S (2011) Recycling Reconsidered: The Present Failure and Future Promise ofEnvironmental Action in the United States. MIT Press.
When we dispose* of plastics, they never really disappear. Plastics live on in bodies of water, are passed around through ecosystems (big and small), and even weasel their way inside the bodies of animals, human and nonhuman alike. In the best case scenario, plastics are entombed inside capped landfills that they will undoubtedly outlast. No one really knows how long plastics remain in the environment, but they are manufactured to endure.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take an undergraduate course at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo, entitled Marine Debris in the Pacific Ocean. The course examined the contemporary scientific literature regarding the ‘afterlives’ of ocean plastics. Once plastics end up in the ocean, they photodegrade, meaning that they are broken down indefinitely (by sun, waves, and wind) into smaller and smaller plastic pieces, which are eventually known as microplastics. During this process, plastics are sometimes ingested by fish, plankton, and other animals. They become entangled in wildlife, serve as rafts for invasive species, and even absorb hormone disrupting chemicals. Depending on where they end up, some plastics will combine with coral and lava, forming a new type of rock that scientists have coined ‘plastiglomerate‘.
In order to examine these processes, my class worked on several scientific research projects on Hawai’i Island’s Kamilo beach. Here, plastics were variously sorted, counted, photographed, collected, placed in garbage bags, and discarded.
Last week, Dr. Max Liboiron of Memorial University photographed two pieces of plastics that I collected from Kamilo: the first, a piece of ‘shark bitten plastic’ (or sharkastic); the second, a fragment of plastiglomerate. Her pictures highlight the very social and material consequences of plastics that become part of ocean ecosystems. Like most plastics in the ocean, these pieces are scratched, fouled, chewed on, and weathered– a display of anthropogenic ocean ecology, to be inherited by future generations.
*This is not to say that ‘disposal’ is to blame for plastics ending up in the ocean. Rather, the role of government and industry in allowing the creation and continued use and proliferation of these products in the first instance, is a more useful target for activists and others concerned with the effects of ocean plastics.
The year 2015 was a big one– though one with very few updates to the blog (thanks for the reminder WordPress Annual Report!). On that note, I’m committed to making more blog updates in 2016, including more original content and writing, along with the usual research updates. That said, I figured I would do a brief recap of some of the conferences and events I didn’t discuss in 2015! Here are the big ones:
1. American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting (April 2015). Paper Contribution: Technostories: (de)Growth in the Aftermath of the Iqaluit ‘Dumpcano’. Chicago, IL.
This talk was part of the ‘Discards, Diverse Economies, and Degrowth‘ session at the AAG, which was organized by Dr. Max Liboiron and Dr. Josh Lepawsky of Memorial University. After our session, papers were work-shopped and submitted as a forum to Society and Space open site. My contribution examines the ‘next steps’ for waste management after a costly dump fire in Iqaluit, the capital city of Nunavut Territory. While some community members focused on technological improvements to waste management infrastructure, others pointed towards changing community understandings of waste and environment– as caused by the Nunavut’s recent colonization–as the source of increased waste issues. Though I did not submit my paper to the Society and Space forum, a modified version appears in the conclusion of my Master’s thesis.
2. Northern Research Symposium. (April 2015) Poster contribution: Taima: Risk and Uncertainty in the Iqaluit Dumpcano. Kingston, ON.
This poster was an updated (and poster-fied) version of a talk I gave at Arctic Change in Ottawa, ON in 2014. I discuss this poster and the Iqaluit dump fire (which coincided with my fieldwork in Iqaluit in the summer of 2014) in an interview with the Queen’s Gazette, which can be read here.
3. Contested Expertise, Toxic Environments (September 2015). Paper contribution: Taima: Risk Governance in the Iqaluit Dumpcano. Claremont, CA.
The interdisciplinary paper workshop and conference was held at the Claremont Colleges in California, and brought together researchers from a variety of disciplines, including history of science, science and technology studies, anthropology and more. The two day conference involved work-shopping each others papers, which covered topics such as nuclear fallout at Hiroshima, insecticides, garbage dumps, abandoned superfund sites, and radiation. The conference also included a screening of a new film on nuclear waste storage entitled Containment, and a Skype discussion with director and academic, Dr. Peter Galison. My paper, which examines risk management in an Arctic dump fire, is to be included in an edited collection with the group.
4. Next Steps
I am currently awaiting my supervisory committee to review a report that I’ve written for the City of Iqaluit based on my Master’s research. The report includes a two-page summary of my thesis, a bibliography of waste management reports and journal articles previously conducted on waste in Iqaluit, and a list of citizen suggestions for improving waste management in the community. My hope is that the report will be a practical output of my master’s research and helpful for those charged with managing waste in the Iqaluit community. Once the report has been approved, I look forward to submitting it to Iqaluit City Council (likely early 2016). I’ll also post a link to the report on my website and give a copy of it to the Nunavut Research Institute to ensure the report is publicly available.
In the meantime, I look forward to moving to St. John’s, Newfoundland and beginning my PhD research at Memorial University next week!
If anyone is interested in copies of the talks, feel free to e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org
I’m very excited to be attending this year’s Anthropocene Campus held in Berlin, Germany, April 14-22nd, 2016.
The Anthropocene Campus is an ongoing trans-disciplinary collaboration initiated by Haus der Kulturen der Welt and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, and is made up of a series of public lectures, seminars, art exhibitions and more. The purpose of campus is to develop an interdisciplinary curriculum for studies of the/an Anthropocene– one that is ethical, inclusive, and (hopefully) recognizes the existence of multiple Anthropocenes and not just those posited through Western philosophy and academia. Other selected participants include artists, members of community and activist groups, and PhD students from natural and social sciences, humanities, architecture, business, and fine arts.
The full schedule of the 2016 Campus is available here.
As a participant, I will be attending the following seminars:
FERAL TECHNOLOGIES: MAKING AND UNMAKING MULTISPECIES DUMPS
What are we to make of proliferating crises: environmental degradation, forced migration, species exterminations, unforgiveable debt? These are unfolding simultaneously within a golden age of technoscientifically enhanced discoveries: maze-busting slime molds, coevolving immune systems, more-than-human webs of symbiotic, invasive, artificial intelligence. Every day, we bounce between creativity and catastrophe, grappling with love and rage. The paradoxes are not hard to enumerate. The real challenge lies in describing their entanglement. And yet, the Anthropocene trips up hard-earned categories and practices, pressing for radical approaches to understanding novel social dynamics. Rather than elaborating a straightforward analytical tool for defining a human-centered geological epoch, the Anthropocene presents a multidimensional puzzle structured around complexities and ruptures. When nature and culture—ways of being and ways of belonging— can no longer be studied as exclusively human, nonhuman or machine, how might we approach this puzzle? Who inhabits and orders the Technosphere? This seminar conceptualizes the Technosphere as an unintended muddle of multispecies relationships that emerge from contaminated landscapes, postwar rubble, and garbage heaps—in short, dumps. Such a muddle may be considered through feral technologies—novel and weedy capacities for materially significant change.Critical studies of change call for serious attention to companion species and the making and unmaking of multiple technologies of coordination. This seminar proposes an interdisciplinary exercise in critical description: a mix of fieldwork on ruderal ecologies, digital art, and multispecies ethnography. It is grounded in Teufelsberg (Devil’s Mountain), one of Berlin’s highest peaks and made from rubble cleared from the city after the war.
In the course of its productive and consumptive functions, the technosphere transforms energy, materials, and information. It metabolizes not only fossil and nuclear fuels, but also solar energy, through processes including photosynthesis(agriculture), wind, and hydro. The technosphere also metabolizes information, ingesting some kinds of data as inputs and producing other data as outputs, often in complex cycles of feedback and control. The technosphere uses energy in part to transform information, while information guides the metabolism of energy. The technosphere’s waste products—the metabolites created by its transformation of energy, materials, and information— are in turn transforming both the biosphere and the geosphere. Microplastics, artificial chemicals, and human- made radioactive materials can be detected in the cells of organisms all over the world, including in the deep oceans. Greenhouse gases and particulate aerosols are transforming the atmosphere and the climate. “Data exhaust”—the data generated by individual activity, from web searches to Facebook to online shopping—is being recycled far more effectively than material waste, used to detect patterns, trends, and individual preferences and transforming the relationship between business and consumers, as well as civil society, worldwide. This seminar will develop creative approaches to understanding and visualizing these interplays of energy, materials and information in the technosphere, conceived as metabolic processes.
WHOSE? READING“THE TECHNOSPHERE” AND “THE ANTHROPOCENE” FROM AFRICA
Does the concept of “the”/“an” anthropocene promote or inhibit the possibilities of a polycentric globalepistemology? Does it de-center or re-center the Western ratio? With what implications? When should the beginning of the anthropocene be demarcated? Why there and according to whom? Anthropocene… in whose language? Is it possible to have more than one anthropocene, along the lines of “modernity in two languages”(“yours” and “ours”) that Partha Chatterjee suggested in 1997? The anxiety is that “the anthropocene” and even “the technosphere” may become, wittingly or unwittingly, a convenient vocabulary to restore Euro-and Western-centricity, taking us back to an imperial or colonial mode of representation of seeing from Berlin,London, and Washington and extending hegemonic worldview without regard to situatedness. Pluralizing (technospheres, anthropocenes–even anthroposcenes) is one step towards a democracy of operative language allowing different markers of time, thought, tools, realities, scales, causalities, effects, and categories to coexist and participate in shaping global vocabularies. This seminar will therefore consider what a (not “the”) technosphere, anatmosphere, and a biosphere might mean from Africa, not just as outcomes of incoming ideas or artifacts in the present, but endogenous modes of thought and practice over a much longer durée. This seminar brings together some of the world’s most renowned scholars of Africa, each addressing the concept of anthropocene (and technosphere) from her/his own special: archaeology, history, history, STS, and graphic design.