The artifact highlights rooted understanding contamination and decontamination in the region. Moreover, the it suggests the differences in the understanding of toxicities among the locals and the governmet agencies.
This visualization and the caption elicits the complex terrain of toxicity in Fukushima. The ethnographer probes into the ways in which scientists understand and measure toxicity, as well as the way in which the definitions become specific to the place and terrain. It would be interesting to know more about what the significance of wild vs farmed plants is in understanding toxicity.
The image is created by the ethnographer. It shows a lush green forest, which seems counterintuitive to the kind of toxicity and contamination in the place. It also shows two humans in the forest, standing at two different locations, and seemingly separated spatially--a forest and a clearing. It would be interesting to highlight the toxicity at play through the image some more. Is there a way to show the liminality of farm vs wild, and contamination vs decontaminated spaces across the space and in terms of depth?
The caption highlights interesting aspects about toxicity and its measurement. Some arguments which could be ethnographically fleshed out--the idea of knowledge about the terrain shaping the knowledge about toxicity is a compelling one--could this be an argument about multispecies encounters where human knowledge about toxicity emerges in relation to nonhuman materialities like the height of the root, etc.?
This image is quite powerful and accompanied by the caption it presents a complex ethnographic case. Are we perhaps in front of different definitions of toxicity? The scientific assessment of river toxicity seems to be opposed to people's assessment of it, is sacred waste considered to be toxic by people of the Godavari, or is it toxic to keep the sacred waste near their homes?
It draws attention to the role of the activist in toxic pollution and the nature of activism itself, particularly through the experience of Diane Wilson.I think the image is situated well in the overall photoessay. The last paragraph about the potential visit isn't necessary, though.A comment could be made on the experience of women in toxic activism, too, perhaps noting the toxic masculinity inherent in the petro-culture of many large scale polluters.
See previous comment about toxic masculinity and petro-cultures."It indicates a dynamic of activism in a toxic environment (in the double sense) -- e.g. not being taken seriously, being talked down to. It also points to the different stakeholders involved in the fight againstt Formosa, such as shrimpers depending on their livelihood." - this could be elaborated. I don't really get the 'double sense'. Apologies if I'm not reading it correctly.
Found image, book cover.Aesthetic - it connects the broader project to a discursive realm of activists, characters, and stories around toxicity in relation to Formosa.
No
The visualisation highlights that there are people/activists working to fight toxic pollution. I think the caption could reflect this better. It could also highlight (as previously mentioned) the fact that there is a gender power relation going on here between the female activist and the hyper-masculine polluting culture she is fighting against. For me, this is the message really conveyed by the visualisation.
