I think it would help to create a more direct connection between the caption and the image. Both are very heavy with theoretical potential, but there needs to be a greater synchrosity between them. In addition, the toxicity of the place itself could use further explanation. Where is this in Washington, D.C.? Why is this particular space significant for exploring toxicity?
It is unclear whether the ethnographer took the photograph or found it. The notable factors are the specific times/days listed on the sign, the color of the sign (pink), the specific boundaries listed, the fact that the photo appears to have been taken at night. All of these factors convey an eerie feel to the photo, one that has the potential for propagating horrific violence against certain grousp of people based on race, class, sex, and gender.
I think including more context about policing in Washington DC would help enrich the power of the image, as well as the ethnographer's take on the image aside from the quotes listed by other authors. Some background on the ethnographer's overall project would also be helpful for understanding where this image fits within the overall argument.
Toxicity is largely a social phenomenon based on the policing of certain bodies over others via class, race, gender, and sex. The police themselves are toxic, serving the whims of the city and upper-class residents--in this case, the notion of "safety" is toxic, as in order for some groups of people to feel "safe," others end up being put in great danger by the very forces that are allegedly supposed to be protecting everyone. Questions of citizenship arise from this visualization--who is seen as being a citizen worthy of care and protection?
The source of the image is not clear, but it might be a photograph taken by the ethnographer. It depicts a sheet of red paper, pasted onto a pole. The photo is taken in a way that the main text is visible, but the background is out of scope. Since it was likely taken at night, it made me imagine an active red light red-light district around (maybe it's just the red paper...). Or maybe there is nothing special around, because it's a prostitution free zone.
This image directly ties the author's concerns about politicization of urban aesthetics with the hegemonic forms of sexuality that are coded into urban policy. The caption and commentary shows how certain kinds of non normative bodies are categorized as risky and how this becomes enforced spatially through policies around prostitution free zones. The argument emerges more from the caption than the image per se. The image itself shows an example of urban code to crack down on prostitution and how it is made visually present on-site to people in the city.
I love how this image sinks us into the materiality of archiving a complex environmental problem. It communicates a "david vs. goliath" situation and forces us to imagine the enormity of information and knowledge that must be processed to politically contend with the chemical industry.
I think you can reframe the caption into ethnographic writing (right now its a bit self-conscious), so that you describe Wilma, her history of engagement, and what these papers represent to her and the history of the case (and why paper not digital?) and then broadening out to your wider questions about archiving the anthropocene and its political stakes.
This is a photograph, not taken by the author. The composition is very helpful in communicating ethnographic scale and the character of the subject. I find it aesthetically very engaging.
This visualization conveys ethnographic insight on a variety of levels. Using a photo of a woman’s one-stop archival shop allows the contributor to scale the conversation from these masses of printed paper to larger conversations around archival and data practices in not only environmental justice circles, but also academic spaces.
