The Wall - Poor man’s poster and the use of public space

Recently I read a list of the songs that were prohibited during the dictatorship in Argentina. Among them was “The Wall” by Leonard Cohen. A wall can give many different connotations. In the book Patas Arriba by the Uruguayan journalist and writer Eduardo Galeano he refers several times what has been “written on the walls”. Now I am not particularly interested in what has been written on the walls, but more specifically in the use of writing on the walls of public buildings as a use of public space, as a way to express political views. The use of wall writing as a political method in this geopolitical region was corroborated a few days ago when I read in an article about a Uruguayan politician, who recently seemed to have changed political opinion by switching from the alpargatas that he has been wearing since the 70s to dress shoes and tie, which had been questioned in Fray Bentos by someone who had “written a question at the wall”. I cannot help but do a comparison with Sweden, where writing on the walls is often considered a sign of decadence and public pollution. However, here I believe that the possibility to express opinions in the form of stencils and spray painted slogans on the walls have to be considered as the poor or alternative wo/man’s posters. This while the authorities have the option to cover the city in posters on dedicated sites.

Is taking side part of the “understanding”?

A research dilemma has approached me during the last couple of weeks when I have realized that I tend to take sides. Through my academic training I have come to consider that science and knowledge production are never innocent, they are part of political processes, for example by what research is promoted and then how results are negotiated and used, and whose knowledge counts (as valuable). In academic circles the discussion about objectivity, impartiality and neutrality has been alive and thriving and is far from new, dealing with whether it is at all possible, or if we have to admit that we always have a partial perspective, that we never look from everywhere or nowhere (Haraway 1991), and further that the researcher has a “privileged speaking position” (Back and Solomos 1993, cited in Hammersley 1999).Others have suggested that it is necessary to take side and that it is not even desirable to attempt to be neutral (Galis 2007). The ideal is then to be an “engaged intellectual” with a commitment to values and offer a worldview or interrupting the process of socio-cultural reproduction (Hammersley 1999:8). This is distinct to being committed to a category of persons, or to a political organization. So, since my own concern about “taking sides” is not new, I want to discuss the specific issues that have made me delve upon the area recently.

Today I have been inspired by Martyn Hammersley and his book Taking sides in social research: essays on partisanship and bias (1999). He quotes Patti Lather who has written that “Once we recognise that just as there is no neutral education there is no neutral research, we no longer need apologize for unabashedly ideological research and its open commitment to using research to criticize and change the status quo” (Lather 1986a:67; cited in Hammersley 1999:2). Hammersley argues that she takes this as a starting point rather than something which needs arguments to be backed up, and he cites a contradictory view offered by Patai. She claims that “In fact, putting scholarship at the explicit service of politics carries many (and rather obvious) risks, and should not be greeted with the facile assumption that of course it is what ‘we’ should do” (Patai 1994:68; cited in Hammersley 1999:2). The issue is interesting in relation to the expectation and policy directive that Swedish research should be socially relevant. It was only a few days ago that I received an invitation to a conference in Sweden concerning the theme on how to perform socially relevant research. My question is – for whom, and who decides what is relevant in a context where knowledge is valued due to the contribution of practical activities like political, professional or commercial (Hammersley 1999).

Through the university one is trained to perform valid studies. In an article on anti-racism by Back and Solomon, also referred to by Hammersley, they discuss what to neglect when presenting the findings publicly in order not to harm the people one is studying (Back and Solomos 1993, cited in Hammersley 1999). I found this interesting as well, not only in relation to what one reports at the end, but also in relation to what one decides to include in the project. I am currently debating with myself on whether to observe a specific activity that there has been commotion about within the movement that I am focusing on. Do they have the right, from a research ethical perspective, to question what I study or not? Would I betray them if I went? Would I close doors? Is my responsibility even to get engaged in a critical discussion with the actors of the opposing stand?

I consider that my research is “critical”. “Critical” research doesn’t imply that research per se is independent, but that it is independent from a dominant ideology (Hammersley 1999:3). It is here that I feel as if I have been absorbed by the field which I am studying (I am sure there is a concept, probably from psychoanalytical research for this phenomena or sensation). Through the interaction with the environmental movement I have been convinced that there is harmful cyanide in the water around the gold mines, of the cancerogenous qualities of gliphosate and electromagnetic fields, and of the environmental hazards posed by deforestation. Just like participants in the movement I interpret that this is a sign of poor political management, corruption and how neoliberal economic values rule. But my taking side does not only concern actors, but also different forms of political participation – individual vs collective forms, like demonstrations vs saving water in your bathroom, petitions for waste management vs recycling in your home. But wait a minute, do I dare to publish these thoughts on a public website? So, finally some views on the value of contrasts in keeping a reflexive standpoint to my project. In everyday studies which have been influences by surrealism there is a methodological appreciation for “surprising juxtapositions” (Highmore 2002:23). I mention this as a safety vault, in the sense that I hope I will manage to keep a healthy academic reflexivity on what my study indicates by moving between contexts, contexts that can offer contrasts, or juxtapositions, that highlight the norms, practices and discourses within the movement that I am studying and attempting to understand.

References:
Galis, Vasilis (2007) “Studying the Development of Athens Metro and the Greek
Disability Movement: Neutrality, Reflexivity, and Epistemological Choice”, conference paper at 4S, Montreal, October 2007.
Hammersley, Martyn (1999) Taking sides in social research: essays on partisanship and bias. Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (1988) “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies. Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 575-599.
Highmore, Ben (2002) Everyday Life and Cultural Theory. Routledge.

Violence, threats and criminalization of activism as part of the political context

When reading the book La zona gris (2007) by Javier Ayuero the question I felt like asking him was: “did you ever feel afraid during your field work?” The book gives an ethnographic account of the collective violence that took place during the crisis in December 2001 in Argentina, and investigates different interpretations of what happened. He describes and analyses the close to 300 lootings of supermarkets that took place, and relates this to how politics is done in the country. He deals with phenomena such as ‘punteros’, ‘cacerolazos’, and ‘clientelismo’. Especially for a foreigner the books serves as an interpretation and in many ways an explanation of the political context of what he calls the grey zone of politics, the quotidian practice that is carried out in the zone between formal and normal party politics, and “extraordinary” events like the looting and collective violence of 2001. To understand the political practices, formal as well as informal, seems vital for a study that wants to get to grips with the relationship between environmental struggles and the political culture.

With this academic introduction I do not only want to raise questions about ethical and practical issues like the possible dangers involved in doing this kind of field work and my responsibility to act on injustices, but also give some examples that I have come to hear about. A few days ago I received an e-mail from one of the many mailing lists that I belong to, that expressed severe concern about an aggressive act against some neighbourhood ambientalistas [environmental activists] who were putting up posters in Avellaneda, an area of Buenos Aires. They were attacked by several people who were travelling in a pick-up with a noticeable registration number. The ambientalistas were putting up posters that were criticizing a multinational corporation and the local politicians who let them start their waste treatment practices in the area. The aggressors questioned their criticism of both the company and the politicians. The ambientalistas interpreted that they aggressors were sent by the local authorities, and before leaving the ambientalistas the aggressors had evidently announced that “this time you were saved [by the police], next time you won’t”. The ambientalistas interpreted the act of violence as instigated by the local authorities, whom they criticized.

The second case that has been discussed extensively within the environmental groups that I interact with is the legal case against the environmental activists Carina and Marcela, in Famatina, the province of Rioja. They were put in prison after having blocked a road as an attempt to try to stop a so called mega mining business to start looting the communal resources. In the following video it is possible to view what evidently lead up to the prosecution, and according to the information that I have the men who are trying to carry the girls aside to be able to pass, are lawyers who work for the environmental office for the local authorities. You can read more and send requests for a fair treatment of the girls at the following link: http://www.hermanosdelatierra.net/secciones/en-el-tapete.html

The third case that I will relate to has received the most media attention, probably because it deals with an agricultural practice that concern 50% of the Argentinean agricultural land – the pesticide ingredient gliphosate that is part of the soybean package provided by the multinational corporation Monsanto. I am not completely sure that all 50% of the agricultural land which is grown by soybean is actually genetically modified and part of the package, but probably a large part is. The scientist Carrasco has performed a medical study of the toxicology of the pesticide gliphosate and his conclusion is that it has the capacity to change the embryonic development, i.e. that it can be harmful for human beings to be exposed to it. Since the revelation of his findings have become known, he has received several threats, and they credibility of his study has been questioned in various contexts. Of course, from one point of view it is possible to claim that all attention is good, and that the environmental movement which opposed the use of gliphosate can benefit from it, but here I want to pay attention to the construction of environmental knowledge, and the freedom of speech including the academic freedom. From my point of view, all three examples place emphasis on the use of public space, in both discursive and a more practical sense.

Unión de Asambleas Ciudadanias in Jujuy

The decision to go to the 10th UAC proved to be a very good one. I met a lot of interesting people, got a practical example of how it is possible to organize activists, and performed several interviews. The whole event started with a march under the same heading as the UAC – “Against the looting of our natural goods and contamination, and for food sovereignty and life”. Approximately 1000 people from different organizations marched the streets of San Salvador de Jujuy, handing out flyers, and not one single wall was left untouched by the spray cans and the slogans “water is worth more than gold”, “food sovereignty now”, “Agrarian reform now” and “Against agro business”. The march finished in front of the Provincial governmental building where a communication was handed over which questions the productive model that has resulted in contaminating mining business and monocultivation of sugar cane and soy beans. The communication further proposed that the Ordenamiento Territorial Participativo (OTP) [The Participatory Territorial Regulation] should be carried out properly.

The march was followed by a panel discussion on “Mega mining business, Agro business and Food sovereignty” at the old train station of Jujuy which now hosts a cultural centre. We had to endure the coldest day of the year, not the ultimate conditions for deliberation. But the message from the panellists was clear – the mining industry which uses cyanide and the monocultivation of soy beans and sugar cane, have to be replaced by alternatives. As in many other similar contexts that I have been observing the production model was questioned.

The following two days of discussions within the UAC was mainly performed in smaller groups of approximately 10 people. The aim of the discussions was to give practical input to how to improve the organization of the encounters, and to give proposals to the environmental problems. However, within the group that I participated in an important matter seemed to be the exchange of ideas and experiences between the different representatives from different organizations from varying provinces. Through the discussions the group decided to draw two trees to illustrate the suggestions and description of the problems. The concepts common resources, diversity, solidarity, organization, territoriality and critical education were used to symbolize the alternative to the current production model; a production model where foreign companies, neo-capitalism and mass media govern, with resulting poverty and environmental destruction.

In the evening of the first day of the encounter a spontaneous candle march was organized to the house of the owner of the local factory LEDESMA, Blakier. LEDESMA was recognized for the repressive labour policies, and the environmentally destructive practices with sugar cane production. I have to admit that I missed the march, which was a great shame of course. When leaving the town after the meeting was over I could hardly not see anything but sugar cane being grown on the fields, and I could not help but ponder on the relevance of rewriting the book by Sidney Mintz Sweetness and Power, from 1985. The book has got a renewed importance, not because of increased use of sugar in our diet, but because of the belief in sugar cane as a more environmentally friendly alternative when transformed into ethanol, than other fuels. In that sense it has a continuous colonial taint since the demand comes from European environmental policies. So the need to question the production model seems adequate.