Search

This visualization and caption advance ethnographic insight by considering a problem at the heart of many forms of toxics regulations, namely, when the same powers responsible for the river's pollution are also responsible for decisions which impact chemicals entering the river and altering all life in the landscape. It also comments on environmental campaigns by taking into account not only the natural landscape, but also the issues impacting the inhabitants of the valley as a result of the uneven power structures which maintain it in its current state.

The caption could be slightly extended to include a little more information about which chemicals are in the river, and which industries they originate from, as well as how this toxicity is economically linked to the issues affecting the inhabitants of the valley (ex.- are particular markets, and or structures which are oppressive, benefited by the presence of particular industry?)

This found image is notable as it presents the Bisri Valley as a lush green place which appears uninhabited, which belies the issues of the inhabitants of the valley, as well as the toxicity of the valley's water.

This image might be enriched by adding a list of some of the industries present at the bottom, thereby accentuating the absense of their visualization in the lush green presentaton.

This visualization and caption show how toxics become enfolded within conflicting objectives at different levels of power. It says that the concept of environmental purity can be instrumentalized towards particular ends which may or may not benefit communities most affected by the toxics, or actually address toxic production or contamination.

This image concludes the essay (although labeled visual "3") thus far, and it dwells on the comment of the author's colleague that the region is a "critical" place, or on the tipping point due to multiple stressors (toxicities?) that impact people's bodies and forms of life. It also provides us with a perspective on what leads to the rivers being polluted in particular. The image gives us an (idealized?) view of the gorgeous valley, seemingly pristine, in need of being "saved."

I think either an analysis and integration of this particular image needs to come through in the caption, or a different image should be swapped in to integrate better with the text. The image is a little confusing, because the beauty of the valley makes it hard to connect with all of the stressors discussed in the caption. The caption could perhaps help us understand this seeming disconnect from the bird's eye beauty to the multiple toxicities on the ground. 

I think the image itself is solid, just whether it is the right one for this caption is what the question is for me.

It's pulled from campaign materials. What's notable is we get a sense of region more broadly and perhaps the beauty that people are trying to "save". 

The overall effect is synthesizing what we have learned from the previous three slides, to consider how multiple toxicities, material and social, compound to make a site "critical" and for people to feel on the brink (of what...breaking?) The image suggests that looks can be decieving or perhaps, provides an idealized opposition to the toxicity that puts in under threat.