I was the provocateur for Wednesday this week, with the two pieces for part two of this week being the Mansfield article, and the Veronica Strange podcast. I’d like to talk about the readings from the first part of the week, and then start to address briefly my questions I came up with, my inspiration behind them, and thoughts.
For the first portion of this week’s readings, we had an article by Laura Pulido, our first chapter in Shiva’s Water Wars, and an article by Joshua Inwood on neoliberalism. All three of these pieces were centered on the commodification of water, and how capitalism, privatization, and the state affect the distribution and sanctity of water.
The Inwood article, I believe, brought up the most interesting discussion out of all three pieces we read. His main argument, that neoliberalism drives the modern U.S. economy through free-market ideals, results in racist capitalism and inequalites on a global, national, and local scale. He argues, following the civil rights movement, the taboo associated with blatant racism spurred the need for politicians to repackaged their appeals to white supremacist values. They used more obscure language, which promoted deregulation, and denounced social welfare programs. All of which ultimately disadvantaged black and other POC communities over whites, which in turn creates the neoliberal U.S. identity. A product of this identity is racist capitalism (or capitalism, as it inherently disadvantages minority groups) which Pulido dissects in her article about Flint, MI. Historically abandoned by GM as the auto industry diverged from Michigan, the state did the same thing by allowing the city to use water polluted by industry from the Flint River. GM later filed complaints that the water from Flint was corroded they machinery, and were permitted to switch water sources, however, the citizens of Flint were still using water from the Flint river.
This situation results in a conundrum. Much of the economy in Flint was based on GM, but at the same time their water is being polluted by the same industry that provides much of the job market. My question for the provocateurship centered on the concessions that must obviously be made between the most overarching stakeholders for the issue: state, industry, and people. Common in much conservative rhetoric, is the notion that regulation kills small business and drives industry out of the U.S. At what point is allowing small amounts of pollutants in water ways acceptable, if at all? I wonder the extent of necessary run off from industry that simply cannot be filtered entirely out of water. And where would the waste contained from those industries go, if not into the water? Containment similar to nuclear waste could be possible, but placing it into a landfill could result in ground water contamination.
This brings me to an issue that arises in India, where conflict of interest occur in the economic sector, the cultural one, and ultimately the health of the Ganges. A popular industry in India is the dyeing of textiles, however, hazardous chemicals from that process are release into the Ganges, or its tributaries. However, when livelihoods are on the line, or generations long businesses, should these people stop their production in order to prevent pollution? The income from this industry may outweigh their concern about run-off. The need for more established treatment facilities is imperative. Funding and bureaucratic red tape may prevent a comprehensive plan for updated infrastructure however.
Quotes and Questions for Provocateurship…
“The EPA, in contrast, focuses on variability in consumption, identifying who eats a lot of fish and why. They find that variability is racial: people who eat a lot of fish are disproportionately people of color. Seen in this light, the FDA’s race-neutral focus on the average is
also racial, in that it posits ‘white’ diets as ‘normal'” (Mansfield, 2012. p. 10).
Q: When the FDA addresses its issues in a ‘colorblind’ manner, it ultimately ends up harming the populations which fall in deviations outside of the norm, resulting in ‘white-washing’. Are attempts to view issues with a colorblind lens ever beneficial, do they even truly exist, and what are examples of those cases? Does this spur eventual cultural assimilation, or push marginalized groups ever further towards the fringe?
“the EPA has amassed significant evidence that there are racial disparities in quantities and types of fish consumption, especially because for some people fish is neither a luxury nor a sport, but is an inexpensive component of their livelihoods and/or a longstanding part of their cultural identity.” (Mansfield, 2012. p. 7).
Q: There are obvious cultural differences among the many ethnic groups, or ‘races’, within the U.S., with diet varying greatly among those groups. At which point, if at all, can concessions be made between industry, the state, and culture to prevent environmental injustice? Can industry exist without producing injustice, and ultimately should cultures adapt to the inevitability of industry and globalization? How much power should be given to the state to impose regulation and interfere with the market?
In theory the power is held by the State or political institution. In terms of market, according to the neoliberalism they don’t exercise this power in favor of private companies. However, depending on countries, each government apply neoliberalism doctrine at different level. That means some governments lets private companies do what they want in a less structured and supervised market. That happens especially when the government allows privatizations of public services. In other cases, the government fixes the regulations, sometimes so strict than private supplier are so monitored than it is not in their interest to prioritize benefits over the population. For example, the water public supply of France is so strict that only few private companies are allowed to have the market. In addition, there are laws that protect the users because water is considered as a vital need. The interest of the users is prioritized thanks to the state over those of private companies.
To answer the question, voters decide who they elect to apply the policy they would like. So indirectly people are the decision makers of the degree the state should interfere in the market.
I’m so grateful for this post. It’s insightful and incredibly well-written. Keep up the excellent work! Patient Portal
Thanks to this article I can learn more. Expand my knowledge and abilities. Actually the article is very real. The solution worked for me thanks to the community and the members for the solution. hpinstantink com