political+implications_pedlt3


 * //Disclaimer://** I’m not sure I have an argument—as opposed to a set of related questions—at this point in my project. The following are a few thoughts that need to be researched and developed further.

This argument would seem to bolster arguments within some sustainability discourses that argue that the long term implications of current practices need to be brought into public deliberation and other aspects of governance and politics. It will, however, suggest that these efforts need to be very careful about how such concerns are formulated. Speaking on behalf of future generations is a powerful and authorizing rhetorical device that can be used for regressive politics, as arguments surrounding national debts in favor of austerity (or, indeed, the anti-choice movement) demonstrate. It will also suggest that speaking of only one aspect of future generations—for example, arguing for forms of austerity to lower future debt that, at the same time, increases the ecological risk that will be inherited—is a serious problem that could be ameliorated by a more explicit and reflexive approach to the topic.
 * 1. Intergenerational ethics/justice should be a more explicit and critically examined aspect of governance and politics.**

This argument opposes most arguments that begin with phrases like “we have to look to the future” or “we should focus on solving problems, not ideology.” While opposing the former seems to contradict argument #1, it is used more to urge adversarial subjects to forget the past than to encourage some sense of intergenerational justice. Solving problems by ‘moving on’ can often be very problematic, especially when it means limiting the terms (and legitimated subject positions) of the debate, dealing with harmed communities on terms other than their own, and continuing similar practices and institutions. One should also not confuse open and participatory administration—as important as that often is—with a democratic politics (what some call ‘the political’), and this means support for adversarial movements that can expand the definition of the problem should be encouraged. This is a very delicate line I want to walk, as it involves both critiquing and extolling calls for participatory administration and dissensual politics.
 * 2. While participatory governance is a positive development, particularly in this case, there are always problems inherent in stakeholder identification and consensus (a solution-focused approach to an agreed upon problem). The value of adversarial politics—which can broaden, challenge, or otherwise alter the consensus definition of the problem and its “stakes”—should not be underestimated, and is probably sorely needed in this and similar cases.**

This will, I hope, encourage efforts by downwinders and other to get compensation for the exposures that the Hanford facility (and beyond) forced upon them. It will also challenge triumphalist U.S. discourses of the cold war.
 * 3. Despite a great deal of (often very good) work, many of the legacies of cold war “sacrifices” have not been dealt with or sufficiently acknowledged.**