reflections on methodology.

the natural sciences and early incarnations of social sciences were based on a positivist school of thought that premised objectivity, researcher neutrality and knowledge produced through the scientific model.

such studies make use of quantitative data collection methods, and the establishment of causal relationships as the golden standard for what constitutes true knowledge.  undoubtedly these methods have led to great discoveries and have helped us ‘progress’. [for better or for worse]. the fact of the matter is that the scientific method and positivism is thoroughly steeped in androcentric, patriarchal ways of producing and ways of knowing knowledge.  despite appearing to be extremely reductionist, studies often use White, male, able-bodied heterosexual as research subjects and then apply the results to… everyone else.

this is where feminist methodology steps in and turns positivism on its head. feminist social science methods question the very  nature of knowledge production- questions such as

– what can be studied?

– what constitutes knowledge?

– who is the expert (researcher or the researched?)

– what role does the researcher’s perceptions, values and worldview play in the research process?

– what methods should be used to gather data?

the continued adherence to the traditional scientific model and the glorification of quantitative methods has come to light in the conversations i’ve had with the variety of people i’ve discussed my research with over the past year or so.
‘but… your sample is so small. why didn’t you use a random sampling technique?’
‘why are you only interviewing 10 people?’
‘aren’t you worried that their answers will be biased?’
‘wouldn’t a bigger study yield better results?’
‘why aren’t you using a survey?’

to be sure, i could write entire posts on each of those questions and the power relationships imbued within. the fact of the matter is that i am carrying out a thoroughly feminist research project whose goals do not align with any of the tenets of positivism or the quest for so-called neutral, objective knowledge. instead the kind of research i am doing takes into account my positionality- that is, the different social roles that i occupy which by their very nature influence the research process and concomitant analysis.

indeed, the epistemological standpoints informing this research are two-fold: to add to the growing body of literature on women’s unpaid domestic work, and to bring awareness to the potential dangers and ubiquity of chemicals in the world around us.  and with that, i best get back to it.

the burden of proof.

yet more thoughts on chemical regulation.  why such concern with chemical regulation? i’ve lamented the fact that, albeit noble and good, individual change can only do so much. real,  effective change (i’m talking paradigm shifts here, people) need to occur at the institutional level.

we need to change the way chemicals are regulated so that the eco-conscious don’t have to toil over which brand of natural shampoo to buy, and whether their dish soap will spur some blue-green algae.

with proper chemical regulation (and labelling standards), no-one will have to think about it. because our government and industry will protect us from harmful chemicals.

Canada’s chemical management plan (CMP) on the surface appears to be shifting the burden of proof. under the traditional biomedical model that uses epidemiological testing to determine a chemical’s safety, it is regulators (read: cash-strapped government agencies) that are responsible for proving a substance’s harm before it is subject to regulation in consumer products.

to wit:

an estimated 80 000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States; another 1000 or more are added each year. complete toxicological screening data are available for just 7 percent of these chemicals.

(from the breast cancer fund‘s report: state of the evidence- the connection between breast cancer and the enviroment).

that’s what happens when the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of regulators. indeed, the absence of evidence of harm is taken as evidence of absence of harm (chew on that one for a while… i know i have).

so here’s the deal with CMP. industry is now required to submit any data they have on toxicological effects of their chemicals. but they aren’t required to conduct any new testing. they must provide info that “improves, where possible, information for risk assessment…”

hmmm. there’s a reason why industry is so vehemently opposed to toxicological testing. it’s ’cause the results don’t lie: these chemicals are killing us and the environment!

so Canada has conveniently created a climate that appears to shift the burden of proof to industry, but all it amounts to is incentive for industry to know nothing. if they don’t conduct tests, they can continue to claim ignorance; the absence of evidence ensures that these chemicals continue to be in all those consumer products we all use so unproblematically.

coming up: effecting change. or, why i study what i do.

 

reflections on a biomoniotoring webinar.

i’m often accused (rightfully so, i must admit) of being overly critical of technology and its effects on post-industrial life.  i’m a bit of a luddite and would prefer to do things the hard (read: slow) way than become over-reliant on technology.  anyone who went through gerry coulter’s ‘political sociology’ or ‘contemporary theory’ courses at bishop’s university will have an appreciation for where this critique of technology stems from. a diet rich in virilio, baudrillard and foucault doesn’t exactly lend itself to developing an unbridled confidence in science and technology; in fact it results in just the opposite.

well, friends, i just had an experience that is changing my opinion on technology. i just participated in a webinar on biomonitoring with sharyle patton from commonweal.

this is a prime example of technology being used for good. a webinar is an online seminar that allows for people from all walks of life and from all corners of the globe to come together to engage in discussion.  while sharyle’s power point presentation streamed, we could hear her presentation and simultaneously chat with the other webinar participants.

i got into a discussion with one of the participants about acknowledging the disproportionate body burden borne by  marginalised communities- of particular note, canadian First Nations are particularly susceptible to higher rates of exposure to environmental toxins. in the past i’ve written about environmental racism and how the geographic proximity between a reserve and chemical plant resulted in a  troubling skewed gender ratio.

the webinar rekindled some much needed inspiration and determination: it reminded me that there are many people out there who want to critically engage with and discuss the impacts of synthetic chemicals on environmental and human health, and served to remind me (or, maybe, teach) that technology isn’t all bad.

the webinar and sharyle’s power point will be available for download later this afternoon, should you be interested. big thanks to the canadian women’s health network for putting on the event.

 

meaningless ecospeak.

it’s extremely easy to be critical of industry and big business. indeed it is the dominant capitalistic paradigm and its unrelenting pursuit for more, more, more that drives both environmental degradation as well as allowing for (nay, fostering) the conditions under which the production of harmful substances and products flourish.

business and sociology are two different languages that are, on the surface, extremely incongruent with one another. in my undergrad days i recall my training in all things critical and sociological, and i remember the difficulty i had in communicating with my roommates who were in business. but, perhaps more importantly, i recall my unwillingness to learn about business, and conversely their unwillingness to hear me rant and rave about audre lorde or baudrillard or foucault.

and while it’s easy to be critical of an entire discipline to encompasses goals that i find more morally reprehensible than not, i believe sociology, too, deserves its own critique. in learning about the vagaries of social inequalities that define canadian society, i recall the helplessness that i felt when i would come to the end of a journal article (or worse, an entire textbook), and see no more than a few sentences accorded to what can only be described as a hint to a course of action to be taken to begin addressing the problem in any meaningful way.

it’s something that i’ve since struggled with; the ability to describe the problem but relative inability to offer solutions.

enter paul hawken, business person and  author of  the ecology of commerce. his self-described ‘declaration of sustainability’ was first released in 1993. for those of you who keep up with my blog, you’ll know that my work is deeply indebted to ulrich beck’s risk society. which was published in 1992.

hawken’s message (from what i’ve read so far) is this: it’s not business that we need to do away with, but rather how we do business. his writing is filled with rich analogies that undermine the taken for granted air that surrounds business.  for example, native Hawaiians have 138 different words to describe rain. business has 2 words for profit- gross and net. neither of these take into account the conditions under which they were produced; ‘it does not factor in whether people or places were exploited, resources depleted, communities enhanced, lives lost…’.

business needs to integrate itself holistically into the world in which it operates. we can’t go on extracting and exploiting and producing at the rate we are as though resources are endless. ‘at present we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it gross domestic product’.

the great irony in specialising in a certain discipline (and as one engrosses deeper into the academe, the specialising becomes ever more refined), is that it, in a sense, it only allows you to communicate with those who are familiar with your field: those who are already versed in your language. anecdotally, when asked if they share their concerns about chemicals with those around them, many of my research participants told me that they often felt like they were ‘preaching to the choir’. in other words, they were sharing information with people who were already versed in the knowledge.

what if hawken and beck sat down and had a conversation? could they converse? would they? what would come of it?

i must commend hawken’s work, for it is the only example that i have seen of business tip-toeing onto sociological terrain. he speaks of carrying capacity and the health of the commons, concepts usually relegated to works on social sustainability. he doesn’t call for an overthrow of the system, but rather a re-imagination its design. what is profoundly refreshing about his work, then, lies in the fact that he offers tangible solutions to do so.

and so, i leave you with this inspirational quote that i happened upon at just the right moment:

working for the earth is not a way to get rich; it is a way to be rich. the world begs for dreamers to set up shop, invent a new product or social technology, and create the kinds of breakthroughs that will bring us together to act responsibly as passengers on this magnificent place we call home.

everybody’s free to wear sunscreen.

 

a dear friend recently shared this video with me. the messages are simple yet profound. i think if everyone listened to this video each morning, the world would be a happier place.

yet, the advice denoted in the title is problematic (of course it is… i’m a sociologist).

sunscreen is universally heralded for its purported ability to prevent skin cancer.

sunscreen is just one of those things that we take for granted. i mean, who would question something that is so heavily endorsed to prevent cancer?

well, the Environmental Working Group has published a pretty shocking exposé about sunscreen.

Below are 9 surprising truths about sunscreen.

1. There’s no consensus on whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer.

the jury’s out on whether sunscreen on its own can help prevent skin cancer.

2. There’s some evidence that sunscreens might increase the risk of the deadliest form of skin cancer for some people.

increased rates of melanoma among sunscreen users. wait… what?

3. There are more high SPF products than ever before, but no proof that they’re better.

there’s no way to know that SPF 50+ is more protective than a lower SPF

4. Too little sun might be harmful, reducing the body’s vitamin D levels.

i don’t know about you, but a little Vit D is all i need to get the serotonin a flowin’.

5. The common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A may speed the development of cancer.

many of the chemicals in sunscreen are carcinogenic.  seems counter-intuitive, no?

6. Free radicals and other skin-damaging byproducts of sunscreen.

When consumers apply too little sunscreen or reapply it infrequently, behaviors that are more common than not, sunscreens can cause more free radical damage than UV rays on bare skin.

7. Pick your sunscreen: nanomaterials or potential hormone disruptors.

the requirements of a good sunscreen: maybe my standards are too high, but it must be out there, somewhere!

you’ve heard me talk about hormone disruptors before!

8. Europe’s better sunscreens.

have i ranted before about EU vs. American/Canadian chemical regulation?

9. The 33rd summer in a row without final U.S. sunscreen safety regulations.

no enforceable guidelines (in the US) for consumer safety? now that just seems silly.

 

So folks, the moral of the story here is, do your research. the EWG has an absolutely fabulous tool for checking out the toxicity of various cosmetics, sunscreens included. some food for thought if you’re lucky enough to be heading down south for spring break!

 

 

paradigm shift.

the topic of regulating chemicals is becoming increasingly controversial.  the evidence can’t be ignored- from lowered sperm counts to the multitude of effects of endocrine disruptors (seen here, here, here), these chemicals are beginning to affect how we – nay, our ability to- reproduce.

why aren’t more people up in arms about this? why aren’t we taking to the streets and demanding that these chemicals stopped being used in consumer products? when did we become so complacent in our own poisoning? i think ulrich beck was on to something when he said that ‘a permanent experiment is being conducted, so to speak, in which people serving as laboratory animals in a self-help movement collect and report data on their own toxic symptoms against the experts sitting there with their deeply furrowed brow’

it’s a pretty grim picture to paint. we’re all lab rats, but as beck points out, the experiment on people that takes place does not take place. in normal lab settings, a great deal of provisions and monitoring takes place. in this real-life, global experiment of synthetic chemicals, no one’s keeping tabs. there are no surveys, statistics, monitoring, correlation analysis, and perhaps worst of all, there is no consent. we’re all exposed to the chemicals regardless of the personal decisions we make, regardless of any precautionary  behaviour or strategies we may adopt.

but most people don’t adopt any precautionary tactics, because for most, this doesn’t even register on their radar.  and why should it?

we’re a trusting people. we trust that our government has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the products that line the shelves at the grocery store and in our world at large are safe.

and well, to be fair, the government thought they had.  risk assessment strategies for new (and current) chemicals is based squarely in the biomedical model that champions strict proof of causality. but, as we are coming to see, the effects of chemicals on the human body are much more subtle than black and white causality. as it stands, current toxicology doesn’t take into account the cumulative effects of low-dose, long term exposure (say from drinking from a Nalgene everyday for years, or microwaving a dish with saran wrap), nor does it factor in the reactionary effects between chemicals, instead focussing solely on the effects of the chemicals one at a time.

fortunately scientists themselves are beginning to recognize that the current model of risk assessment is fraught with inefficiencies. in today’s WaPo, the environmental protection agency is calling for chemical risk assessment to be broadened to include the fields of genetics, developmental biology and endocrinology when assessing a chemical’s safety. this could be the beginning of the paradigm shift necessary to start taking control of the chemical industry and facing the reality of its impact on humans- hopefully,  before it’s too late.

Cultural Capital and My Identity Crisis

Cultural capital is a sociological concept for which I could certainly provide you a hoity-toity academic definition, but I won’t. Why? Because, mes amis, cultural capital can be best summed up by its synonym: cred. You know, like street cred. Think of different social groups- piercing/tattoo enthusiasts, Goths (interesting to note that my word processor auto-capitalized that), punks. Since they’re on the margins of society it’s pretty easy to picture what constitutes cred: whether it’s a sleeve or tri-hawk, these cultural markers are readily visible and help solidify one’s membership to one’s group by demonstrating their commitment to the lifestyle, amongst other things. But just because they’re ‘deviant’ doesn’t mean that the rest of ‘us’ don’t have cultural capital, too. It may just be a little more taken for granted, which doesn’t preclude the fact that we all, in one way or another, do things, act certain ways, dress in certain styles, to attain more cultural capital.

By all means given my political associations, personal values, and worldview, I should be an au naturel hippy that eschews traditional gender conformity. But for those of you who know me, you know that’s pretty far from the truth.  I am, in fact, a make-up wearing, uber feminine, ‘business-casual’ dressing grad student. As a feminist, I’ve always struggled with the extent to which I conform to (and derive satisfaction and a sense of self from) my ability to conform to gender norms, to be feminine. Now that I’ve finally come to a place where I can accept that my wearing make-up doesn’t negate my commitment to the struggle towards achieving gender equity, I now have a new identity crisis with which to contend: am I ‘chemical-free’ enough?

I did an interview today and it was fabulous. It was inspiring and invigorating all at once to speak with this woman. I’m pretty well-versed in the literature (both social and scientific) on the effects of various chemicals on human and environmental health, so you can imagine my astonishment (and sheer delight!) when, part way through the interview, I realized how much I was learning from this woman (to be fair, for the reflexive interviewer, all interviewers are opportunities to learn, but that’s a whole other discussion).

We continued chatting after the interview, discussing how the environmental health movement was becoming more mainstream, when she alluded to the fact that I don’t appear to be someone who is ‘chemical-free’. And it’s true. I don’t. Based purely on aesthetics, I wouldn’t fit in with the group of people who most closely ascribe to the chemical free lifestyle. And that is a source of great anxiety for me. I don’t have cultural capital amongst hippies, nor do I have a comfortable space carved out in academe (sometimes I don’t even know if what I’m studying constitutes sociology!!). I find myself in a perpetual state of flux where I’m trying to conduct a study that has real-world relevance that happens not to be within the confines of traditional academic discourse, and yet I don’t ‘appear’ to lead a lifestyle congruent with that which I’m studying. While it’s certainly occupied my mind a great deal as of late, I’m trying not to let it interfere with my work. I think having it pointed out that I don’t appear to be ‘chemical-free’ speaks to our tendency to judge. And while I won’t go on a tirade about preconceived notions, I will take this as a lesson to remain open minded and not judge a book by its cover.

environmental racism

i’ve heretofore been been writing social analyses on the effects of chemicals on the body from products that we choose as consumers to buy, and consequently expose ourselves to. as such it possible to conceptualise resistance on an individual scale by changing consumption patterns.  but what happens when an entire community is contaminated by virtue of its geographic proximity to pollution-spewing factories? well, my friends, environmental racism ensues.

the AAmjiwnaang First Nation community is situated near sarnia, ontario, which happens to be known colloquially as canada’s chemical valley.

beyond dealing with the residual inequalities that stem from canada’s colonial past (some of which are documented here), this particular Aboriginal community has- wait for it- the unwelcome distinction of the world’s lowest documented birth ratio.

so what does that mean? it means that the chemicals leaching into the water ways- known as endocrine disruptors- are resulting in a high level of miscarrriages of male fetuses. this serves as a case in point of visibilizing the invisible- the effects here of chemicals on the body are undeniable.

my friend used to have a bumper sticker that read ‘we all live downstream’. in other words, that which we dump onto and into the earth will eventually come back to us. but as the case of the AAmjiwnaang people shows, some people live more downstream than others. this is yet another documented case of racialized and marginalized population living close to a site of known pollution than say, the white affluent population of sarnia.

in the context of canada’s colonial history, that an Aboriginal population bears the unfortunate title of lowest birth ratio should be sounding more than a few alarms. indeed, by doing nothing the federal government is complicit in what amounts to cultural genocide. the viability of an entire culture is at stake here as the ramifications of a skewed gender ratio come to light.

(in)tangibility.

in a previous post i lamented the difficulty i have in describing my research to curious ears, because i cover so much ground and for the fact that i’m carving out my own niche in sociology (at least, i like to think so. that, and the lack of resources on my specific topic leads me to believe that it’s an emerging topic within the field.)

in essence, i’m finding  out why and how women problematize their relationship with synthetic chemicals in post-industrial society. i’ll admit, it’s been difficult to conduct this research without some pre-conceived notions, if only for the fact that the topic is so near and dear to me. indeed, i’m studying something that is intimately related to my worldview and has the potential to espouse some of my fundamental values.  i’m lucky to have so far interviewed women who are smart, passionate and able to articulate why they find chemicals so problematic. i’ve been surprised to learn how women come to learn about the riskiness of chemicals.

a light bulb just went off. i’m asking a lot of these women, which is to basically describe the intangible. the negative effects of these chemicals on our lives aren’t immediately visible, nor are they necessarily tangible in any sensory way. as beck put it, modern risks come only to consciousness through scientized thought, and cannot be related to primary experience.

all at once, i’m excited and left feeling despaired about the potential enormity of my project. i’m looking at people’s individuated responses and reactions to a problem of global, borderless proportions. can individual responses to a global problem ever be enough? is it enough to foster a feeling of protection through individual avoidance of chemical products in light of the fact that causal links between chemical exposure and their effects on health are superfluous at best?

 

shopping our way to safety.

last night, at an undisclosed location, an undisclosed person picked up a can of anti-bacterial lysol spray, poised to spray his mattress, to ‘kill the sick germs’. i flipped. ‘what are you doing? don’t you know that’ll do more harm than good??’ he went on to extol the virtues of a chemical-laden antibacterial spray (read from the back of the bottle, natch), eventually conceding to wait until i had left to do the spraying.

he did, however, make a very good point: any sense of protection i derived from avoiding the offending chemicals was largely illusory, since they are in fact, everywhere. but that doesn’t change the fact that i refuse to purposefully douse my mattress (which is probably releasing chemicals to begin with!) in carcinogens.

the way i see it, avoiding chemical exposure is something akin to attempting to reduce one’s carbon footprint: it makes you feel good, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not making much of a difference.

yet it’s something i still do. because, well, it makes me feel good. it makes me feel protected.

i, like a growing faction of concerned consumers, strive to reduce exposure to suspect synthetic chemicals through the products that i choose (not) to buy.

a little elbow grease + borax + vinegar + essential oils is all it takes to clean my house. my handsoap is phthalate -free. my furniture is second hand to reduce both off-gassing and the waste generated by new products (packaging and the like). my body lotion is certified by the natural products association. my deodorant, made by hand, is a mix of shea butter, baking soda, corn starch and essential oils (though some would argue its efficacy, i think it works just fine thankyouverymuch).

but here’s my problem: these are band-aid solutions. as audre lorde said, ‘the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house’. what does this mean? it means that simply tweaking consumer behaviour within the capitalist paradigm that puts profits over people isn’t going to change much of anything, people.what it does do is allow for the continued proliferation of the status quo. the chemical industry ain’t going anywhere if we keep buying their stuff, even if it’s labeled ‘eco-friendly’.

it’s basically a crapshoot. one can adopt a wholly sustainable, natural lifestyle, but that won’t change the fact that we all carry some kind of body burden.

we are in essence, shopping our way to safety. (by the by, that’s also the name of a fabulous book by a. szasz that you should definitely check out).

on a pessimistic day, i know that i’m simply part of a growing niche market, battling my conscience as i purchase a new tube of burt’s bees lip balm, knowing full well that the company is owned by clorox (yuck!). on a better day, i take pride in the fact that i make my own cleaning products and laundry soap, and pat myself on the back for knowing that i’ve made tangible steps to reduce my reliance on synthetic chemicals.

what do you folks think? are you concerned about chemicals? do you ‘shop your way to safety’?