Conflict over a specific technological intervention
environmental risk perception, knowledge and ambivalence in the mining exploitation of Bajo de la Alumbrera
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-771Keywords:
ambivalence, environmental conflict, local knowledge, expert-lay interactionAbstract
The population of a small town in Argentina is experiencing fear of damages caused to the environment, to production and to health by the open cast mining that is taking place in their territory since 1997. This fear has generated a conflict between experts and the local population. Both sides deny and discredit each other. This paper aims at exploring the local population’s rejection to the mining exploitation in their surroundings as a way of installing a new debate over the relationship between experts and general public in the construction of knowledge. The approach of this paper is micro-social and centres itself on the arguments provided by different actors that participate in the conflict. Throughout the text that follows, these arguments are carefully discriminated in order to define the subjective positions of the participants. There is also place for an extensive exploration of the importance and meaning the knowledge of experts has on non experts and of the role that common people’s knowledge plays in issues concerning pollution. Finally, this paper analyses all aspects related to the situation that have had an influence on the subjective perception of local people and, particularly, in regard of the ambivalence they show when giving their opinion about the risk that open cast mining represents to their territory.
Downloads
References
AUYERO, J. y SWISTUN, D. A. (2008): Inflamable. Estudio del sufrimiento ambiental, Buenos Aires, Ed. Paidós.
BAUMAN, Z. (1991): Modernity and Ambivalence, Oxford, Polity Press-Blackwell Publ. Lted.
BLOK, A., JENSEN, M. y KALTOFT, P. (2008): “Social identities and risk: expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 17, pp. 189-209.
BULKELEY, H. (2000): “Common Knowledge? Public understanding of climate change in Newcastel, Australia”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 9, pp. 313-333.
COLLINS, H. M. y EVANS, R. (2002): “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 32, nº 2, pp. 235-296.
COLLINS, H. M. y EVANS, R. (2009): Rethinking Expertise, The University of Chicago Press.
EPSTEIN, S. (1995): “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials”, Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 20, nº 4, pp. 408-437.
FESTINGER, L. (1957): A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford, Stanford University Press.
FUNTOWICZ, S. y RAVETZ, J. (1993): Epistemología política. Ciencia con la gente, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina.
GIDDENS, A. (1994): Consecuencias de la modernidad, Madrid, Ed. Alianza Universidad.
GORMAN, M. (2002): “Levels of Expertise and Trading Zones: A Framework for Multidisciplinary Collaboration”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 32, nº 5-6, pp. 933-938.
HORNIG PRIEST, S. (2006): “Public Discourse and Scientific Controversy A Spiral-ofSilence Analysis of Biotechnology Opinion in the United States”, Science Communication, vol. 28, nº 2, pp. 195-215.
IRWIN, A. y MICHAEL, M. (2003): Science, social theory and public knowledge, Maidenhead, Philadelphia, Open University Press.
LEACH, M., SCOONES, I. y WYNNE, B. (2005): Science and citizens: Globalization and thechallenge of engagement, Londres, Zed Press.
LEAHY, P. y MAZUR, A. (1980): “The rise and fall of public opposition in specific social movements, Science Studies of Science, vol. 10.
LUJÁN, J. L. y TODT, O. (2000): “Perceptions, attitudes and ethical valuations: the ambivalence of the public image of biotechnology in Spain”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp. 383-392.
MCCORMICK, S. (2007): “Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Mobilization and Contestation” Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, nº 4, pp. 609-623.
RIECHMANN, J. y TICKNER, J. (2002): El principio de precaución. En medio ambiente y salud pública: de las definiciones a la práctica, Barcelona, Ed. Icaria.
SCOTT, A. y DU PLESSIS, R. (2008): “Eliciting situated knowledges about new technologies”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 17, pp.105-119.
SVAMPA, M. (2008), Cambio de época. Movimientos sociales y poder político, Buenos Aires, Ed. Siglo XXI - CLACSO.
SZTOMPKA, P. (2006): Trust. A Sociological Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
TESH, S. N. (2001): Uncertain Hazards: Environmental Activists and Scientific Proof, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
UNGAR, S. (2000): “Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: Climate change versus the ozone hole”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 973, pp. 297-312.
TUTTON, R. (2007) “Constructing Participation in Genetic Databases: Citizenship, Governance, and Ambivalence”, Science Technology Human Values, vol. 32, nº 2, pp. 172-195.
VACCAREZZA, L. (2007): “The public perception of science and technology in a periphery society: critical analysis from a quantitative perspective”, Science, Technology and Society, vol. 12, nº 1.
VARA, A. M. (2007): “Sí a la vida, no a las papeleras. En torno a una controversia ambiental inédita en América Latina”, REDES, nº 25, pp. 15-49.
VESSURI, H. (2004): “La hibridación del conocimiento. La tecnociencia y los conocimientos locales a la búsqueda del desarrollo sustentable” Convergencia, mayo-agosto, vol. 35, nº 11, pp. 171-191.
WYNNE, B. (2003): “Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science”, en A. Irwin y B. Wynne (eds.): Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
YEARLEY, S. (2000): “Making systematic sense of public discontent with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 9, pp. 105-122.
YEARLEY, S. (1999): “Computer Models and the Public’s Understanding of Science: a case-Study Analysis”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 29, nº 6, pp. 845-866.
YOUNG, N. y MATTHEWS, R. (2007): “Experts’ understanding of the public: knowledge control in a risk controversy”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 16, pp. 123-144
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
