FodnessMemo04

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?

> Primarily the social process by which activists have made, and attempted to make, progress in fighting for the victims of the Bhopal disaster against the government of India and Union Carbide. It also chronicles activist activity and corporate and government activity in other areas of the world, and cultural shifts between pro-environmentalism and anti-environmentalism in the public and corporate sectors.

Where is this phenomenon located – in a neighborhood, in a country, in "Western Culture," in a globalizing economy?

> It spans countries. It is primarily located in the city of Bhopal in India, but has components that are located in various cities in the United States that contain chemical plants that experienced similar (although less severe) disasters. India is significant because it is 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?

> The historical trajectory of third world countries in the process of globalization and economic liberalization, and the problems involving human labor, human rights, and environmentalism that come as part of that package. The role of activist groups, government, legal bodies, and corporations are emphasized. Primarily, the conflict is between political and social forces fighting for the rights of the victims, and political and economic forces fighting for a smaller settlement on the part of Union Carbide and continued economic development in India.

What scale(s) are focused on -- nano (i.e. the level of language), micro, meso, macro? What empirical material is developed at each scale?

> The book touches on all of the levels. Nano is referenced through language differences of the people working on the disaster, and how those are mitigated. Micro is a focus on Bhopal itself, and the impacts of the disaster on the city. Meso is the impacts on the country of India, and the broader impacts on the chemical industry and towns that are globaly distributed that have to deal with plants in their towns. Macro is the impacts on global and international trade agreements and economic philosophies, and the impacts of globalization on world communities and the global environment.

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?

> The main players in the text are the management and employees of Union Carbide, the victims of the gas and the employees of the local Union Carbide Bhopal plant, the government of India, the activist communities that are working on the disaster, and various other communities that have been affected by similar disasters in globally disparate locations. The text traces some of the history of activist organizations, and how they have changed with the differing political winds.

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?

> Primarily in the wake of the Bhopal disaster, but historical analysis spans a much longer time period. The general climate is of economic globalization and liberalization.

What cultures and social structures are in play in the text?

> The corporate culture of companies like Union Carbide, the culture of the government of developing nations, primarily India, the culture of the citizens of Bhopal and of other towns affected by chemical companies in their backyards, the culture of activist groups, the social structures of the Bhopal area in India, including banks, transportation, and hospitals, and the social structures of activist groups and communities being helped by activist groups.

What kinds of practices are described in the text? Are players shown to be embedded in structural contradictions or double-binds?

> The practices in the text are primarily the practices of Union Carbide and chemical companies, and the practices of the government of India. These practices are contrasted with the practices of activist groups and concerned citizens, as well as victims. Players are shown to be embedded in double-binds - particularly the workers (either be employed and sacrifice their health, or be healthy but poor and hungry) and the government of India (either sacrifice the health of their citizens in order to encourage foreign businesses setting up shop, or protect their citizens' health and drive off foreign investment and development).

How are science and technology implicated in the phenomenon described?

> Science and technology are used to be able to make the chemicals in the first place. Science and technology exist to be able to make the plants safe, but the practices of the company and its employees cause the plants to be unsafe. Chemicals could be developed in ways so that they are not toxic, but those alternatives are not explored by Union Carbide and other chemical companies.

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?

> Technological - the chemicals in use are very dangerous, and alternatives are not being explored; legal and legislative - who has jurisdiction over the victims? problems with international laws and the lack of a solid legal structure; political - the government of India is attempting to grow business in India, and is constrained by the double-bind.

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?

> Power operates in a variety of different ways in this text. Power operates through language in attempts to convince the public that Union Carbide is working for the betterment of everyone (things like "better living through chemistry," corporate language surrounding being environmentally and socially responsible), and through activist groups using the power of words to sway opinion in the opposite direction (such as "Bhopal on the Bayou," etc). Power operates through discipline because Union Carbide and other chemical companies threaten to pull their businesses out of areas that question their environmental and safety practices, so oftentimes people won't complain. Power operates through bureaucratic function, since the government of Bhopal didn't take an adequate stand for the rights and health of its citizens, and did not give them the right to opt out of being represented in court by the government.

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?

> The text compares Bhopal to other chemical disasters throughout the world and throughout history. It compares activist activity as well, and responses by various governments (although primarily the US and India). These phenomena are situated within globalization and economic liberalization, and competing (double-bind) interests.

What is the text about – conceptually?

Is the goal to verify, challenge or extend prior theoretical claims?

> To verify that activist groups are effective in Bhopal, to extend that activist groups have been effective overall, and to challenge ideas about the government protecting its citizens.

What is the main conceptual argument or theoretical claim of the text? Is it performed, rendered explicit or both?

> The main conceptual argument of the text is that advocacy groups are the vehicle by which citizens are capable of fighting for their rights against larger, organized interests that do not represent them, such as corporations and governments. It is rendered explicit when explained by the author, and performed through interviews and examples.

What ancillary concepts are developed to articulate the conceptual argument?

> The double-bind is the primary ancillary concept used to articulate the struggles of activist groups.

How is empirical material used to support or build the conceptual argument?

> Empirical material was used from previous and future disasters, as well as a brief history of the environmental movement surrounding chemicals and toxics.

How robust is the main conceptual argument of the text? On what grounds could it be challenged?

> It is very robust, and is backed up by quite a bit of evidence. It could be challenged by demonstrating the amount of effort that activist groups go through to get the small gains that they achieve, and it could be argued that activist groups will only ever be capable of getting small victories. It could be argued that a larger revolution in political and economic organization is required in order to prevent the gross abuses of power that government and corporations are currently capable of.

How could the empirical material provided support conceptual arguments other than those built in the text?

> The empirical material could be used to support a thesis that radical changes are required in order to prevent corporations and governments from being able to get away with environmental destruction and harm to human beings, and that activist work before and after the fact is not effective enough to achieve these ends.

Modes of inquiry?

What theoretical edifice provides the (perhaps haunting – i.e. non-explicit) backdrop to the text?

> That globalization and economic liberalization have caused conditions in the third world that are dangerous to employees and citizens of towns with dangerous factories, and that those safety concerns are present in the US as well.

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? Does the author assume that what is most interesting occurs with regularity, or is she interested in the incidental and deviant?

> Interested in the historical incidence of disaster or near-miss at chemical plants, and how the people who work at the plants and live in the community are generally supportive until something goes wrong. The communities themselves assume that "it won't happen here" even when they are aware of disasters at other locations. There is an assumption that individuals are irrational actors, due to the fact that they rarely act rationally based on available evidence.

What kinds of data (ethnographic, experimental, statistical, etc.) are used in the text, and how were they obtained?

> Ethnographic data through interviews and observation, statistical data through research, advertisements, publications, flyers, propaganda, historical record.

If interviews were conducted, what kinds of questions were asked? What does the author seem to have learned from the interviews?

> Questions about why people acted the way they did, how they felt about it, what their motivations were, what they thought about the overall activist movement, etc. The author learned about the ways in which people rationalize and explain events.

How was the data analyzed? If this is not explicit, what can be inferred?

> It is inferred that the data is analyzed to set up the argument of the book - the common thread of activism as vehicle for social change.

How are people, objects or ideas aggregated into groups or categories?

> People are categorized as victims, or residents of Bhopal, or employees of chemical companies, or activists, or women, or scholars, or government functionaries, or managers at chemical companies.

What additional data would strengthen the text?

> More data on victories and defeats of activist groups in various struggles. Most of the data concentrated on damages caused by chemical leaks and spills, and health data, but less on specific victories by activist groups.

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?

> The introduction gives an overview of what is covered in the book, and shows how the work is a research project by articulating the thesis of activists as vehicles for social change.

Where is theory in the text? Is the theoretical backdrop to the text explained, or assumed to be understood?

> The theoretical background is explained throughout the text. The theory is about how individuals and communities are conceived and structured around economic forces, and the ways in which economic forces and corporate pressures can spark certain types of behavior in individuals in close proximity to plants.

What is the structure of the discourse in the text? What binaries recur in the text, or are conspicuously avoided?

> The discourse is structured around the Bhopal disaster and previous and future chemical plant disasters or near misses. The binaries are corporate-individual, government-corporate, government-citizen, and US-India, primarily.

How is the historical trajectory delineated? Is there explicit chronological development?

> The historical trajectory jumps all over the place. There is not explicit chronological development.

How is the temporal context provided or evoked in the text?

> Temporal context is given through dates and explanation of social factors occurring at the same time.

How does the text specify the cultures and social structures in play in the text?

> Explanations of the cultures of the people of Bhopal and the residents of other towns affected by chemical spills, as well as corporate cultures. The social structures of India are also explored to provide context.

How are informant perspectives dealt with and integrated?

> Explained as intended for the purpose of advocacy, so presented in more or less a raw form intentionally.

How does the text draw out the implications of science and technology? At what level of detail are scientific and technological practices described?

> Implications of using chemicals with unknown properties with unknown behavior when released result in disaster. Described at a moderate level of detail - you don't need to be a scientist to get it, but it provides enough detail to really understand what is going on.

How does the text provide in-depth detail – hopefully without losing readers?

> The text provides in-depth detail about advocacy efforts, about processes for safety that weren't followed, about the proper design of chemical plants that wasn't followed - it was compelling and interesting, so it didn't lose readers.

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?

> The layout performs more artistically than argumentatively. It appears to jump from one area to another, and gets its message across through the aggregate, instead of step-by-step. Very European.

What kinds of visuals are used, and to what effect?

> The visuals are very effective. Many of them are advertisements or propaganda, which lends insight into the spin that the corporations and activist groups are using.

What kind of material and analysis are in the footnotes?

> Much of the social/theoretical argument is contained in the endnotes, as is contextual explanation and further reading.

How is the criticism of the text performed? If through overt argumentation, who is the "opposition"?

> Not through overt argumentation, but through examples and storytelling. The "opposition" is corporations that don't have the public's welfare in mind, and governments that care more about economic development than the safety of their citizens.

How does the text situate itself? In other words, how is reflexivity addressed, or not?

> Situated as a chronicle of activist activity in a broader body of literature about environmental activism and environmental criticism.

Circulation?

Who is the text written for? How are arguments and evidence in the text shaped to address particular audiences?

> Primarily a scholarly audience, but it could be read by environmental activists and environmentalists as well. There are social/theoretical arguments throughout the text, which makes it situated better for a scholarly audience that is more attuned to and receptive to these arguments.

What all audiences can you imagine for the text, given its empirical and conceptual scope?

> It could be read by undergraduates, but only in advanced courses; or graduate students; or professors for research; or environmentalists.

What new knowledge does this text put into circulation? What does this text have to say that otherwise is not obvious?

> It was written at a time when economic globalization was widely regarded as a good thing, and helped to shed light on double-binds of industry and government.

How generalizable is the main argument? How does this text lay the groundwork for further research?

> Relatively generalizable - i.e., it can be explained easily to a lay audience, and applied to other situations. It lays the groundwork for further research into activist activity and into the double-binds of industry and government, as well as individuals living in towns occupied by large businesses that pollute.

What kind of "action" is suggested by the main argument of the text?

> To support activist groups and to resolve the double-binds of government and individuals with respect to industry and pollution.