LamprouMemo4

** I would say that the phenomenon drawn is an emergent assemblage of science culture technology economics. The book explores the enunciatory communities that the Bhopal disaster created. In a city situated in the globalizing economy. Starting in 1980s and the IMF. Globalization era. The role of IMF and the governments of India and US. As well as the departments of justice, Unions (UCIL, UCC) I think the text is developed in all levels. Is a combination of how the macro (political-economic) affected the macro-micro a whole society and its cultures or even more accurate new societies where created and whole new cultures. And all this brought us to the level of language I think at least: what do we mean by advocacy, disaster? The people affected by the disaster and the NGO that went to help them. During a deregulating period and a globalization era. I think the text is tracing changing relations from affected groups because of environmental disasters. Activists, people affected by the disaster, employers in the industry, politicians and judicial employees. As for the social structures we can talk I think about a class structure. Double-binds the enunciatory communities are a result of that. Because of science and technology there was a disaster. The plant the globalization even the laws that permitted these connections between countries are happening because of technoscience. The fact that we have developed and developing world where disasters are happened because the developed world is expanding their scientific doings where there is cheep labor and get away without paying the price of a disaster. The fact that the Indian government actually take the settlement with the US court decision that people affected had to stop procedure of achieving justice and of activists trying to construct who can be considered affected says a lot about how power operates Yes, as I understand the spread of the chemical cloud in West Virginia? To extend prior theoretical claims. I think the author brought together micro and macro methods together. Conducted an ethnography in a city but globally situated. The Bhopal Disaster has no boundary of space, time, or concept. Stakeholder; enunciatory communities That the enunciatory communities created by the double binds that environmental crisis produce. NGO identify who the victims were. What assumptions appear to have shaped the inquiry? **Does the author assume that individuals are rational actors, for example, or assume that the unconscious is a force to be dealt with? Does the author assume that the “goal” of society is (functional) stability?** I think that the author thinks that the members of those enunciatory communities are free to think but they don’t consent. I would answer the second. Interviews, documents, reports, legal documents, press releases, posters, governmental documents, art, advertisements. Asking about the communities? What connects them. And what this has to say about disaster and the results of that disaster. What distinguishes stakeholders from enunciatory communities How was the data analyzed? If this is not explicit, what can be inferred? According to what group enunciatory community they belonged? What additional data would strengthen the text? A brief history, the research and theoretical questions, the argument, I think so. Theory if I understand well what theory is located everywhere in the text and in the notes and I think it is to a degree explained. What is the structure of the discourse in the text? What binaries recur in the text, or are conspicuously avoided? As it concerns the enunciatory communities and their doings not from chapter to chapter. How is the temporal context provided or evoked in the text? How does the text specify the cultures and social structures in play in the text? How are informant perspectives dealt with and integrated? How does the text draw out the implications of science and technology? At what level of detail are scientific and technological practices described? How does the text provide in-depth detail – hopefully without losing readers? Describes the different enunciatory communities and asks the research questions in each chapter for a different community. Yes Pictures, photos, posters, advertisements, maps, art Theoretical analysis, explanatory on research, explanatory on questions, more data How is the criticism of the text performed? If through overt argumentation, who is the “opposition”? How does the text situate itself? In other words, how is reflexivity addressed, or not? Undergraduate students, graduate students, researchers and academics in anthropology, sociology and sts. For example the intro can be assign to a undergrad audience it is straightforward. Environmentalists, policy makers, political scientists Situated knowledge? That the disaster is a global issue cannot be placed in one area at a certain time. In the contemporary neoliberal reality very general Global action, this can happen everywhere.
 * I apologize but this what I could do. Maybe not the best memo.
 * Memo: Questioning a Text **
 * What is the text about—empirically? **
 * What phenomenon is drawn out in the text? A social process; a cultural and political economic shift; a cultural “infrastructure;” an emergent assemblage of science culture technology- economics? **
 * Where is this phenomenon located – in a neighborhood, in a country, in “Western **
 * Culture,” in a globalizing economy? **
 * What historical trajectory is the phenomenon situated within? ** **What, in the chronology provided or implied, is emphasized -- the role of political or economic forces, the role of certain individuals or social groups? What does the chronology leave out or discount?**
 * What scale(s) are focused on -- nano (i.e. the level of language), micro, meso, macro? **
 * What empirical material is developed at each scale? **
 * Who are the players in the text and what are their relations? Does the text trace how these relations have changed across time – because of new technologies, for example? **
 * What is the temporal frame in which players play? In the wake of a particular policy, disaster or other significant “event?” In the general climate of the Reagan era, or of “after-the-Wall” globalization? **
 * What cultures and social structures are in play in the text? **
 * What kinds of practices are described in the text? Are players shown to be embedded in structural contradictions or double-binds? **
 * How are science and technology implicated in the phenomenon described? **
 * What structural conditions– technological, legal and legislative, political, cultural – are highlighted, and how are they shown to have shaped the phenomenon described in this text? **
 * How – at different scales, in different ways – is power shown to operate? Is there evidence of power operating through language, “discipline,” social hierarchies, bureaucratic function, economics, etc? **
 * Does the text provide comparative or systems level perspectives? In other words, is the particular phenomenon described in this text situated in relation to similar phenomenon in other settings? Is this particular phenomena situated within global structures and processes? **
 * What is the text about – conceptually? **
 * Is the goal to verify, challenge or extend prior theoretical claims? **
 * What is the main conceptual argument or theoretical claim of the text? Is it performed, rendered explicit or both? **
 * What ancillary concepts are developed to articulate the conceptual argument? **
 * How is empirical material used to support or build the conceptual argument? **
 * How robust is the main conceptual argument of the text? On what grounds could it be challenged? **
 * How could the empirical material provided support conceptual arguments ****// other than those //**** built in the text? **
 * Modes of inquiry? **
 * What theoretical edifice provides the (perhaps haunting – i.e. non-explicit) backdrop to the text? **
 * Does the author assume that what is most interesting occurs with regularity, or is she interested in the incidental and deviant? **
 * What kinds of data (ethnographic, experimental, statistical, etc.) are used in the text, and how were they obtained? **
 * If interviews were conducted, what kinds of questions were asked? What does the author seem to have learned from the interviews? **
 * How are people, objects or ideas aggregated into groups or categories? **
 * Structure and performance? **
 * What is in the introduction? Does the introduction turn around unanswered questions --in other words, are we told how this text embodies a ****// research //**** project? **
 * Where is theory in the text? Is the theoretical backdrop to the text explained, or assumed to be understood? **
 * How is the historical trajectory delineated? Is there explicit chronological development? **
 * What is the layout of the text? How does it move, from first page to last? Does it ask for other ways of reading? Does the layout perform an argument? **
 * What kinds of visuals are used, and to what effect? **
 * What kind of material and analysis are in the footnotes? **
 * Circulation? **
 * Who is the text written for? How are arguments and evidence in the text shaped to address particular audiences? **
 * What all audiences can you imagine for the text, given its empirical and conceptual scope? **
 * What new knowledge does this text put into circulation? What does this text have to say that otherwise is ****// not obvious //**** ? **
 * How generalizable is the main argument? How does this text lay the groundwork for further research? **
 * What kind of “action” is suggested by the main argument of the text? **