Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Chemical Agents The Biopolitical Science of Toxicity Melina Packer ABSTRACT: Th is article reviews interdisciplinary toxicity literature, building from Ger- ald E. Markowitz and David Rosner’s “deceit and denial” and Phil Brown’s “contested illnesses” to argue for a third, more critical analytic that I term “empire and empirics.” Deceit and denial pit corporate actors against antitoxins advocates, while contested illnesses highlight social movements. Empire and empirics center the role of imperial- ism in reproducing today’s unevenly distributed toxic exposures. I fi nd this third path the most generative because the products and the production of science—toxicants and toxicology—are situated in their sociohistorical, politico-economic, ecological, and aff ective contexts. Revealing the imperialist logics embedded into dominant onto- epistemology also illuminates alternative, liberatory pathways toward more environ- mentally just futures. I close with examples of “undisciplined” action research, high- lighting scholar-practitioners who study toxicity with care and in nonhierarchical collaboration. While undisciplining is challenging, its potential for realizing environ- mental justice far outweighs the diffi culties of doing science diff erently. KEYWORDS: biopolitics, chemical violence, critical feminist science studies, environmental justice, toxicity, uneven exposures Toxic chemicals leach across landscapes, ooze out of everyday plastics, and persist in prohib- ited substances. Several generations have thus already, and will continue to, become-with these slippery synthetics, prompting a rethinking of what it means to be human. Given that toxicants are so pervasive and permeable, where, how, or by whom ought the boundaries of “our bodies” be drawn, if at all? Th is critical feminist review of toxicity literature attempts to address such questions of becoming-with, situating the production of synthetic chemicals in sociohistori- cal, politico-economic, ecological, aff ective, and cultural contexts. By “critical feminist,” I mean work that conscientiously breaks from the individualistic and racialized capitalist frames char- acteristic of White liberal feminism, drawing instead from Black, Indigenous, and women of color feminisms, as well as socialist, postcolonial, and queer feminisms. (See Halley 2006 for an overview of feminist genealogies.) I posit that a critical feminist approach to toxicity is neces- sary if toxicants and the multiple harms they generate are to be meaningfully mitigated. Even small doses of certain chemicals, known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), can adversely aff ect developmental and metabolic processes, leading to reproductive problems as well as cancers, stroke, diabetes, and other potentially fatal diseases (Diamanti-Kandarakis et al. 2009). Many ubiquitous toxicants—found in such commonplace items as furniture and food packag- ing—can also detrimentally alter gene expression (phenotype), without altering genetic code (gen- Environment and Society: Advances in Research 12 (2021): 25–43 © Th e Author(s) doi:10.3167/ares.2021.120103 26 Melina Packer otype), in a variety of processes termed “epigenetic.” Because toxic environmental chemicals may or may not catalyze the expression of phenotypes, the negative outcomes of a specifi c toxicant exposure may not manifest themselves until future generations. Of particular concern to critical feminists, among other scholar-activists, is that places and people who are marginalized on the basis of racial, sexual, and/or economic hierarchies bear disproportionately heavier toxic burdens. Such environmental injustices, entangled with the transgenerational eff ects of toxic exposures, threaten to turn hegemonic social categories of race and sex back into the purportedly biological categories that social justice advocates have long argued against (Guthman 2014). Th e following review submits that studies of toxicity, whether grounded in the natural or social sciences, need to incorporate critical theory and historical materialism, modeled aft er what I call “empire and empirics” scholarship. I further suggest, amplifying critical scholars before me (McKittrick 2015; Roy 2008), that care work and nonhierarchical collaborative study between scientists and cultural scholars, engagements that intentionally center the experiences and knowledges of frontline com- munities (Sze 2020), off er the surest pathway toward more environmentally just futures. I will begin with the “deceit and denial” literature, whose name is taken from the title of Ger- ald E. Markowitz and David Rosner’s (2002) representative book. I will turn to the “contested illnesses” approach, a term borrowed from Phil Brown’s (2007) exemplary monograph, where I also include environmental justice (EJ) research. Th ird, and most extensively, I will review “empire and empirics” contributions, critiques that underscore the inherently racial, sexual, and imperial biases of toxicant science. In other words, empire and empirics analyses attend not only to who bears the heaviest toxic burdens but also to whose bodies are considered nor- mal and fully human by the hegemonic onto-episteme (Weheliye 2014; Wynter 2003). (“Onto- epistemology” combines ontology—ways of being—with epistemology—ways of knowing, to signify the inseparability of being and knowing. Karen Barad  extends this further with her call for ethico-onto-epistemology, emphasizing the inextricability of ethics, too, from being and knowing.) Today’s hegemonic onto-episteme is the Western European, Liberal, Enlighten- ment-era type of knowledge production that powerful, global institutions generally consider to be authoritative and truth-generating, inclusive of such concepts as “the” scientifi c method, rational empiricism, and Cartesian (from French philosopher René Descartes) binaries, which, for exam- ple, include such ideas as man is greater than animal and culture is greater than nature (Forbes 2008; Merchant 1989). Engaging critically with the distribution of toxicants as well as with the limits of dominant onto-epistemology, empire and empirics scholarship charts how toxic expo- sures are unevenly distributed while historicizing the truth-making claims of Western science. Empire and empirics research also grapples with the disturbing ways that chemicals diff erently co-constitute humans, who remain enmeshed in webs of interdependent relations, inclusive of more-than-human animal and plant life as well as inanimate forms (Povinelli 2016; TallBear 2011). I will close with examples of engaged researchers who build from empire and empirics approaches to generate critical feminist scientifi c knowledge, highlighting a range of more jus- tice-centered and relational studies of toxicity that explicitly value care work and collaboration. Deceit and Denial: Clean Science, Dirty Scoundrels Several scholars have documented the multitude of corrupt acts by petrochemical corporations, including attempts to suppress fi ndings that would reduce profi ts and to strong-arm regulators into rule-making decisions that favor the fi rm (Krimsky and Gillam 2018; Markowitz and Ros- ner 2002; Proctor 1995). Following the imprints of imperialism, though these historical lega- cies are not a focus of the deceit and denial literature, petrochemical corporations tend to be Chemical Agents 27 based in the United States and Western Europe. Th eir toxic fallout, meanwhile, disproportion- ately permeates “the periphery,” including marginalized communities within the United States and Western Europe, and across the Global South (Agyeman et al. 2003; Fortun 2001; Pellow 2007). Deceit and denial research frames toxic exposure as a problem stemming from unethical industry employees (inclusive of so-called “sell-out” scientists who leave academia to work for industry) and corrupt government bureaucrats, while the Western sciences that create, defi ne, and measure toxicity remain beyond reproach. Books like Doubt Is Th eir Product (Michaels 2008), Th e Polluters (Ross and Amter 2010), and Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes and Conway 2010) deliberately distinguish between “sound science” and “sounds like science,” to use David Michaels’s (2008) turn of phrase. Th eir authors meticulously detail how petrochemical indus- tries not only suppress in-house scientifi c fi ndings, protected by intellectual property law, but also hire public relations scientists—highly credentialed experts who assure regulators, judges, and juries, as well as the general public, that safety concerns are mere lay misunderstandings. Sheldon Krimsky (2000) takes a slightly diff erent approach, critically analyzing the scientists and regulators who diligently measure toxicants’ harmful eff ects, including especially the low- dose toxicity of EDCs. In Krimsky’s (2018) more recent work, however, readers still encounter a scenario in which “sound science” (read: disinterested) is pitted against “sounds like science” (read: interested). To be sure, archival and juridical records amply evidence how petrochemical industries justify delays in regulatory action by insisting upon the need for more conclusive scientifi c data. (EJ activists refer to this hampering strategy as “paralysis by analysis.”) And yet Krimsky’s (2018) call “to protect the scientifi c enterprise, one of the core pillars of a modern democratic society, against the forces that would turn it into the handmaiden of industry or politics,” a sentiment shared by other deceit and denial scholars, merits greater scrutiny. While carefully researched and engagingly written, deceit and denial accounts tend to be US-centric, overlooking the coloniality of science and the liberal nation-state alike (Lowe 2015; Petitjean et al. 1992). For instance, Frederick R. Davis’s (2014) history of toxicology, which focuses on the carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting pesticide DDT, only mentions in passing the US congressional decision to ban DDT domestically and yet still allow US-based chemical corpora- tions to deploy this toxicant across the Global South. Focusing on the United States is not without good reason, as several major petrochemical fi rms originated in the United States and continue to exert tremendous power given the sheer volume of poisons they distribute worldwide (Clapp 2017). Yet this US-centric angle carries signifi cant limitations. As empire and empirics work shows, which is discussed further below, contemporary disparities in toxic exposure emerge from imperialist legacies, both in terms of who becomes more poisoned and how science claims to “know” poisons. Future accounts of petrochemical scientists’ deceit and denial ought to situate their narratives within (settler) colonial states’ own legacies of deceit and denial. Ann Laura Stol- er’s (2008) concepts of “imperial debris” and “imperial formations” provide a particularly helpful analytic. Stoler’s framing compels scholars to re-view today’s chemo-environmental injustices as ongoing reverberations of (settler) colonialism, rather than as discrete, fi nite occurrences of the recent past or disconnected present. Th e next review category, contested illnesses, comes closer to understanding toxic exposures as inextricable from historical-material power asymmetries. Contested Illnesses: Environmental Injustices and Embodied Health Movements Contested illnesses analyses tend to amplify inequitable sociostructural relations more than those of deceit and denial. Indeed, illnesses oft en become contested by and through the pro- 28 Melina Packer cesses of deceit and denial, as petrochemical industries routinely deny claims that their toxic products cause disease. However, contested illnesses work generally separates science from cul- ture in ways that curtail these otherwise compelling projects. Contested illnesses scholars might question the bounds of an epidemiological study design, for example, but not go so far as to socio-historically locate the science of epidemiology all together. Nevertheless, their scholarly- activist approaches off er crucial contributions by documenting marginalized communities’ dif- ferential exposures to toxicants, underscoring how physical and environmental disparities in toxic burdens are thoroughly social. Laura Pulido’s (1996) chronicle of the California-based United Farm Workers Organizing Committee shows how these predominantly Chicano/a and Hispanic worker-activists saw pes- ticides as both a demand and a tool of their 1960s struggle. Farmworker-organizers understood that their greater exposure to pesticides and vulnerability to health risks was precisely because of their disempowerment, and that they would not experience reduced exposures unless they gained greater social power vis-à-vis their bosses. Brian Williams (2018) also historicizes the racialization of pesticide exposure in the United States, documenting how White supremacist plantation owners of the southern states responded to Black resistance to Jim Crow-era oppres- sion by increasing their reliance on pesticides. Rather than pay living wages to “uppity” Black farmworkers, White plantation owners adopted more mechanistic, and more poisonous, farm- ing methods. Julie Guthman and Sandy Brown (2016), among others (Arnold 2016; Barba 2020; Harrison 2006; Shattuck 2019), show how the racialization of pesticide exposure persists into the present. Newly regulated soil fumigant “buff er zones” around schools and residences in California, for instance, render invisible the toxic burdens borne by racialized farmworkers well within the toxic zone, workers who can presumably harvest more produce faster aft er the soil has been fumigated. As Guthman shows in her newest book, Wilted (2019), both exploitative labor practices and land values, whether residential or agricultural, depend upon the mainte- nance of this toxic geography. Following Pulido, scholars like Sylvia Tesh (2000) and Scott Frickel (2004) amplify social movements, documenting how EJ activists and advocates struggle to gain scientifi c “proof ” for the injustices of toxic exposure, demanding in some cases the “undone science” (Frickel et al. 2010) that would corroborate their lived experiences. Synthetic chemicals and their manufac- turers are especially hard to indict, given the messy complexity of multiple chemical interac- tions, long latency periods between exposure and ill health, and toxicology’s inherently limited understanding of toxicants themselves (as elaborated at the end of this section). Phil Brown (2007) emphasizes the embodied experiences of toxic exposure, noting how EJ activism informs health-focused social movements. People suff ering from contested illnesses, so named because their etiologies are in dispute, politicize their toxic exposures to gain publicly funded research and public health–centered regulation. Engaging in “citizen science,” or what Phil Brown and Edwin Mikkelsen (1990) call “popular epidemiology,” environmental health activists take bio- medical matters into their own hands, conducting their own health surveys and measuring their own exposures and body burdens so that public offi cials will take notice of community- generated scientifi c evidence that more conventional, top-down measures might not have cap- tured (see also Steingraber 2010). Embodied health social movements show particularly well how contested illnesses extend the work of deceit and denial, as popular epidemiologists lever- age the language of science to counter chemical manufacturers’ claims that their industrial toxicants are not to blame for exposed communities’ innumerable cancers, reproductive dys- functions, asthma, metabolic disease, and so on (Shostak 2004). Lindsey Dillon’s (2014) ethnographic work in Hunter’s Point, a historically Black and eco- nomically and environmentally marginalized neighborhood in San Francisco, California, em- Chemical Agents 29 phasizes how government-led attempts to repair toxic damages are a far cry from reparations. Th e ongoing legacies of a highly toxic Navy base, alongside city government’s chronic disin- vestment in Hunter’s Point, co-produce this neighborhood’s enduring, racialized underem- ployment and chemical contamination. Chloe Ahmann (2018) chronicles a similar case of a profoundly polluted, marginalized neighborhood within Baltimore, Maryland. Attending to her interlocutors’ struggles against the “slow violence” (Nixon 2013) so characteristic of toxic exposure, Ahmann conceptualizes “moral punctuation,” wherein EJ activists rework time as a political maneuver. Moral punctuation “condenses protracted suff ering and demands an ethical response, eschewing the delays of political caution and the painstaking work of ensuring scien- tifi c certainty” (Ahmann 2018: 144). Javier Auyero and Debra Swistun (2008, 2009) attend to the suff ering of slow violence in an Argentinian shantytown. Chemical latency not only makes it diffi cult for exposed communities to demand justice but also confuses people into underesti- mating dangers and becoming apathetic. While acknowledging the extreme duress of structural poverty, Auyero and Swistun caution that disenfranchised residents can be easily manipulated by “socially consequential institutions” (2008: 358), namely Shell Corporation, government offi - cials, and local physicians, who diff erently wield toxic uncertainty to the detriment of individual and environmental health. Science remains the voice of authority in contested illnesses scholarship, but is leveraged diff erently than in deceit and denial literature. Whereas in the latter industry-friendly scientists wield “sounds like science” (Michaels 2008) to delay and dilute regulations, contested illnesses activists reclaim “sound science” and demand “undone science” in order to receive long-overdue medical care and other public entitlements. Aya Hirata Kimura (2016) takes this conversation further, noting how citizen science itself is not immune to the ills of social hierarchies. Working alongside “radiation brain moms” in Fukushima, Japan, Kimura, in her ethnography, shows how mothers who mistrust Japanese state/scientifi c authorities’ assurances—that food grown in the fallout of the 2011 nuclear disaster is safe for their children to consume—are dismissed and derided as antiscientifi c, irrational, and “rumor-spreading” because of their inferior social status as women. Kimura also notes how this particular citizen science eff ort adopted characteristics of Western science rather than local activism. Mothers testing their families’ food (for radiation levels) presented themselves and their eff orts more like bench scientists than organizers. Th eir community-based testing sites were laboratory-like—clean, quiet, controlled—rather than the teeming, righteous activist spaces one might imagine. Th is subdued reaction was not a product of mothers’ lack of genuine anger, but was instead due to a trifecta of silencing forces: neoliber- alism, scientism, and postfeminism. Kimura’s work raises important questions about the future of citizen science eff orts, or “the scientization of activism” (2016: 20), given the constrained role of the citizen-subject under neoliberal governance. Nancy Langston (2010) underscores gendered inequities as well, focusing on inadequate and unjust regulatory and medical institutions in her history of the DES disaster in the United States (see also Sze 2006). DES is a synthetic estrogen that was (over-)prescribed to millions of women in the 1950s. Th is toxicant caused reproductive cancers and other serious health issues for future children and grandchildren of the women who ingested it. Langston argues that man- ufacturers, regulators, and physicians continued to market, approve, and prescribe DES, despite known (and unknown) health risks, because these patriarchal institutions dismissed women’s self-identifi ed health needs while perpetuating gendered myths about miscarriage and meno- pause. Maintaining the critical gaze on the regulator, Jill Harrison (2011) describes US environ- mental and agriculture agency responses, or lack thereof, to citizen science and activist actions around pesticide drift . Harrison found not only that power asymmetries persist between farm- workers of color and predominantly White chemical regulators, but also that scientifi c practices 30 Melina Packer themselves render certain exposures—and bodies and systems—invisible. Th e devices used to measure toxicity levels are not designed to capture where and how pesticides drift from their targets of application, for example. Harrison hints at the science studies critique that scholars like Michelle Murphy (2006) take as their starting point. Offi cial pollution measurements are not simply fl awed because of where monitoring devices are placed (i.e., deliberately far from aff ected areas), but also because such measurements make authoritative claims about toxicants that are predictive at best. While all scientifi c inquiry is predictive, toxicology’s predictions are particularly dangerous. Toxicology’s necessarily uncertain fi ndings are interpreted to be “certain enough” for the purposes of chem- ical regulation and deployment (Boudia 2014; Nash 2008; Packer 2020). As Sara Shostak notes: “[Th e] gold standard of toxicological testing relies on the thirteen-week and two-year rodent bioassays” (2013: 20). Even the best toxicology studies necessitate a great deal of extrapolation (from rodent to human, high dose to low dose, short-term to long-term), and rarely analyze more than one chemical at a time. Arguably, then, given this inherently uncertain science, we come to know toxicants not through the toxicology, but through violence done to other/ed bodies. In the cases of DES, discussed above, or thalidomide (Dally 1998; Winerip 2013), it is pregnant women and their children and grandchildren who bear the (body) burdens of uncer- tain toxicological predictions. (See also Mansfi eld 2012; and Lappé et al. 2019.) DES and tha- lidomide are but two of a plethora of public health disasters that revealed the real dangers of toxicants—chemical violence that toxicology’s controlled laboratory conditions cannot predict, never mind prevent. Empire and empirics scholarship, reviewed next, confronts these limits of dominant toxicant science. Empire and Empirics: Decentering Dominant Onto-Epistemology I characterize studies of toxicity as critical feminist if they off er intersectional (Crenshaw 1989) analyses that understand chemical deployment and its ill-health eff ects as always already racialized and sexualized (Voyles 2021). Th is third approach, grouped here under the head- ing “empire and empirics,” refuses Eurocentric e/valuations of human mattering and unsettles Western knowledge claims, while simultaneously insisting that specifi c people and places bear disproportionate toxic burdens and that these unevenly distributed harms must cease. Soraya Boudia and colleagues (2018) call for a scholar-activist shift to toxic “residues,” as opposed to isolating a specifi c chemical, country, or community, in an eff ort to unsettle domi- nant science and states’ arbitrary yet authoritative demarcations of regulation and nation. Toxi- cants do not adhere to Western liberal regulatory or classifi catory systems, and critical research on toxicants should likewise complicate its conceptual tools. As Boudia and colleagues phrase it: “Residues are transgressive. Th ey disobey boundaries, appear where they shouldn’t appear, alter environments, and enter communities and bodies without permission. Following them around, rooting them out, holding them up to the light, allows a diff erent world to come into view, a world we cannot see so clearly if we begin our exploration with the economics of chemical pro- duction or the legal studies of chemical regulation or the chemical politics of sick communities” (2018: 167). Natalia Duong’s (2018) creative consideration of “the agency of Agent Orange” allows such a diff erent world to come into view. Duong’s analysis of conjoined, and later surgi- cally separated, twins Việt and Ðú’c—born conjoined because of the toxic eff ects of dioxin, a lin- gering metabolite of the chemical weapon Agent Orange—follows the residues of this US-made and deployed poison across Southeast Asia through the babies’ bodies, the Vietnamese hospital, Japanese charitable contributions for the surgical procedure, and the postwar Vietnamese state, Chemical Agents 31 among other actors and spaces. In so doing, Duong deft ly decenters the US state-subject and dominant scientifi c approaches, refuses to stigmatize disability, and demands accountability. Kristina Lyons (2018) disentangles an analogous form of chemical warfare: the aerial spraying of US-made pesticides, mainly the carcinogenic glyphosate, for the “war on drugs” in Colombia. Th ese aerial deployments destroy farmer livelihoods as they poison interdependent, more-than- human ecologies. Lyons’s feminist ethnography off ers “evidentiary ecologies as an alternative form of evidence-making under conditions of military duress” (2018: 416). Colombians’ lived experiences of aerial deployments of toxicants, to which they respond with socio-ecological reparative practices, call for accountability above and beyond the imposed limits of “offi cial state compensatory processes” (2018: 416). While not exclusive to toxicants, Hannah Landecker’s (2015) “biology of history” concept also traces the bio-chemical-material residues of warfare, bringing power asymmetries into stark relief. One especially virulent strain of antibiotic-re- sistant bacteria named “Iraqibacter” (Acinetobacter baumannii) was not merely generated by bacterial movements alone, but rather was co-produced by US and other imperialist incursions into Iraq (Dewachi 2019). Th e 1990s Gulf War blocked Iraqis’ access to the variety of medicines necessary for thwarting antibiotic resistance; having to adapt itself to only three diff erent antibi- otics, A. baumannii quickly mutated and is now resistant to all known antibiotics. Alongside Lyons’s (2018) critique of Colombia’s offi cial compensatory regimes, Fabiana Li (2009), Daniel Renfrew (2013, 2017, 2018), Peter C. Little (2019), and Angeliki Balayannis (2020) document how top-down and technocratic processes of accountability both fail to curb petrochemical corporate power and allow government actors to shirk responsibility, all the while maintaining an illusion of action. As Li writes of Environmental Impact Assessments: “Couched in a language of transparency, environmental management, and democratic participation, these practices are both pervasive and diffi cult to criticize” (2009: 219). Renfrew (2013, 2017) cautions against the pragmatism of public health campaigns, drawing from his anthropological work on Uruguay’s unequal lead exposures, which tend to individualize environmental health crises and blame the racialized victim. Because preventing toxic exposure requires dethroning deeply invested and well-resourced petrochemical corporations, “[the] harm reduction approach is then portrayed as the only viable option; a more fi nancially feasible and politically expedient ‘pragmatic’ response” (Renfrew 2018: 3). Balayannis (2020) follows chemical residues via the mental and physical labor behind the so-called “removal” of hazardous waste. Her multisited ethnography shows how the “bureaucratic spectacles” of remediation cleanly omit toxic resi- dues that are irremediable, for instance the contaminated soil beneath an abandoned pesticide shed. Such bureaucratic spectacles cannot contain the slippages of substances, as when haz- ardous material suits tear, or sacks containing pesticides split, excessively contaminating the Tanzanian laborers, in Balayannis’s study, who carry out the toxic work of removing banned and expired chemicals produced elsewhere. On another side of the African continent, Little (2019) conceptualizes “toxic postcolonial corporality” as a means of refusing the technocratic, pragmatic, and ultimately inadequate government responses to racialized environmental injus- tices. Ghanaian electronic waste “recyclers” are structurally positioned to take on this extremely toxic work as a cumulative result of colonial exploitation and extraction, inclusive of the uneven global movements of electronic commodities (Akese and Little 2018; Little 2019). Little suggests that centering workers’ embodied struggles, including such visceral evidence as the burn scars on their skin, refuses the depoliticized distancing and victim-blaming of public offi cials (e.g., extolling workers to wear face masks correctly), while simultaneously constituting undeniable, powerful testimony against the insults and injuries of greenwashed technofi xes. Gabrielle Hecht (2012) similarly traces toxic residues across sociospatial boundaries without letting perpetrators off the hook. Her analysis of radioactive materials fi rmly centers imperial- 32 Melina Packer ism both because “empire has long been central to nuclear geographies” (2012: 22) and because of which people and places are considered nuclear. For example, in 1995, US authorities labeled Niger, Gabon, and Namibia, which together “accounted for more than one-fi ft h of the uranium that fueled power plants in Europe, the US, and Japan” (2012: 13), as bereft of nuclear activity, simultaneously erasing these African uranium miners’ exposures as well as their crucial, if not sacrifi cial, role in the global nuclear industry. What makes something or someone nuclear is not simply the presence or absence of radiation, but the presence or absence of radiation measure- ments and measurers (on the problems of postcolonial scientifi c capacity, see Tousignant 2018). As Hecht writes: “Colonial rule (and its legacies), grounded in presumptions of racial diff erence, [makes] that translation particularly diffi cult to achieve” (2012: 15). Presumptions of racial dif- ference paired with “chemicals’ sneaky and undetectable characteristics” (Nunn 2018: 1333) also make for particularly pernicious “toxic encounters” (2018: 1330). Alongside other authors in this section, Neil Nunn (2018) insists on placing “toxic geographies” in their “longstanding histories, ideologies and systems of control” (2018: 1332)—specifi cally settler colonial space, in his work (see also Romero et al. 2017 on “chemical geographies”). Arguing that Canada’s contemporary governance strategies obscure the connections between settler colonialism and ongoing racialized disparities in toxic exposures, Nunn urges anticolonial EJ struggles to resist settler culture’s tendency to compartmentalize “toxic encounters and [frame] these incidents as distinct and unrelated” (2018: 1332). Instead, an Indigenous EJ thinks of “toxicity as a form of aff ective relationality between people and other subjects, material, immaterial and animate, inanimate” (2018: 1333). Vanessa Agard-Jones (2013, 2014, 2015), Adriana Petryna (2013), and Michelle Murphy (2006, 2013, 2017) narrate various entwinements of imperialism and toxicants wherein racial- ized and sexualized hierarchies become embodied in unprecedented forms. In Agard-Jones’s (2013, 2014) case, Afro-Caribbeans in the Antilles, colonized by France, remain exposed to and still suff er from chlordécone long aft er direct colonial rule. (Known as kepone in English, this endocrine-disrupting pesticide was manufactured by the US-based Allied Chemical Co.) Nota- bly, chlordécone was banned in the United States and France nearly two decades before it was banned in Martinique and Guadeloupe. Agard-Jones’s (2015) analysis shows that in addition to colonial toxic products, the Antilles also remains burdened by colonial toxic masculinity, as local media derogatively suggest that chlordécone exposures have produced homosexual- ity among men. Narrating a diff erent space and time of imperialism, Petryna (2013) listens to lower-classed Ukrainians recall how they were forced to “remove” nuclear waste from the Cher- nobyl catastrophe (beginning in 1986) aft er robots disposed to complete the same task could not operate because of such extraordinarily high levels of radioactivity. Th is uneven proximity to nuclear fallout has produced new forms and practices of what Petryna calls “biological citizen- ship,” whereby those seeking public entitlements must demonstrate and document a state-sanc- tioned degree of deformation and disability. Michelle Murphy and Reena Shadaan (Murphy 2013, 2017; Shadaan and Murphy 2020) stress the racialized, “transgenerational chemical violence” of EDCs in particular. In the Anishi- naabe and Haudenosaunee territories (known, for now, as the Great Lakes area of the United States and Canada), toxicants long since prohibited continuously permeate resident relations. “Forever chemicals” like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) persist in the air, water, and soil, and bioaccumulate in fi sh and human breastmilk while their harmful eff ects may be passed on epi- genetically (see also Liboiron 2021). Kim Fortun (2001) similarly emphasizes the complexities of “continuing liability,” drawing from the 1984 Bhopal disaster—still ongoing—wherein a pes- ticide factory exploded, having been poorly maintained by the US corporation Union Carbide. Th is sudden and enormous release of highly toxic gases gruesomely murdered an estimated Chemical Agents 33 15,000 impoverished, rural Indians and gravely injured and impaired at least 600,000 more. In such toxic disasters, EJ advocates must struggle against the inequities of “First World” trans- national corporations situating their high-risk sites in “Th ird World” locales while avoiding any sort of transnational liability. Meanwhile, EJ activists must also struggle against the “rigor- ously unlinear, unpredictable, cumulative eff ects” of the toxicants themselves (Fortun 2001: xvi), movements and inter/re/actions for which Western science fails, or refuses, to fully account. Mel Chen (2011, 2012) extends such historically contextualized analyses of disproportionate chemical harm, examining in the case of lead exposure how toxically induced diff erence itself becomes a site of continued discrimination. Urban-residing, African American boys, who are already racially stereotyped as “at-risk,” or volatile, unintelligent, and impure, are further stig- matized once lead-poisoned, and are presumed to be necessarily more “delayed.” Chen calls for an antiracist, queer, “crip” (Kafer 2013) politics that holds perpetrators accountable with- out succumbing to White supremacist, heteronormative, and ableist assumptions about race, sexuality, and cognition (see Barba 2020 and Clare 2017). Chen’s methods—unabashedly sen- sual and nonlinear—productively destabilize Western onto-epistemology in and of themselves. Nicholas Shapiro (2015) off ers a complementary contribution in his concepts of the “chemical sublime” and “chemo-ethnography,” the latter along with Eben Kirksey (Shapiro and Kirksey 2017). Within the chemical sublime, “indistinct and distributed harms [of toxic exposures] are sublimated into an embodied apprehension of human vulnerability to and entanglements with ordinary toxicity, provoking refl ection, disquiet, and contestation” (Shapiro 2015: 369). Chemo- ethnography is how Shapiro and Kirksey characterize recent anthropological approaches, such as Chen’s, to better understanding chemicals in and as relations. “Chemo-ethnographers . . . conduct research on economic, personal, political, and sentimental relationships that have emerged with modern chemistry . . . [considering] chemical relations in more-than-human realms” (Shapiro and Kirksey 2017: 482). Similarly, other scholars (Ahmann and Kenner 2020; Auyero and Swistun 2009; Spackman and Burlingame 2018) document forms of what Elizabeth Roberts and Camilo Sanz (2018) call “bioethnography,” tracing the complex entanglements of biological, ecological, chemical, and social co-constitution. Western-trained scientists began sounding alarms over toxicants’ interference with hormones as early as the 1960s (Carson 1962; Davis 2014; Krimsky 2000). By the 1990s, this mounting concern over the adverse eff ects of EDCs had reached a crescendo in what Giovanna Di Chiro (2010) calls a “heteronormative sex panic.” Public health advocates expressed grave concerns over “feminized frogs,” “demasculinized alligators,” and “plummeting sperm counts” (Colborn and Clement 1992; Guillette et al. 1996; Hayes et al. 2002; Swan 2021), while media outlets suggested that female–female couplings in seagulls could only be “abnormalities” produced by EDC exposure (see critiques in Ah-King and Hayward 2013; Pollock 2016; and Lambert and Packer 2019). Like Agard-Jones (2015), discussed above, Anne Pollock (2016) and Alexis Shot- well (2016) challenge these heteronormative stereotypes without losing sight of the structural inequities that overexpose specifi c communities. Paraphrasing Pollock, even if it were true that hormone-interfering chemicals “make animals gay,” why should this outcome be understood as harmful? While “queering endocrine disruption” (Pollock 2016) does important work to shift scientifi c cultures, including pointing interrogations toward the polluters, such critiques must take care not to undermine marginalized communities’ intergenerational claims of unjust expo- sures and related pursuit of reparations. It is worth noting here as well that Syngenta Corpora- tion has viciously attacked biologist Tyrone Hayes for his research on the endocrine-disrupting eff ects of their toxicant atrazine, one of the world’s most prevalent pesticides. Syngenta’s cam- paign against Hayes seems to have been especially hostile because Hayes is African American (Aviv 2014). 34 Melina Packer Elizabeth Hoover (2017) and Elizabeth F. S. Roberts (2017) wrestle more directly with these “violent entanglements” (Roberts 2017), while also making the authority of dominant science work for diff erent sovereign subjects. Roberts’s economically, socially, and geographically mar- ginalized Mexican interlocutors perceive the police as more of a threat to their well-being than the toxic sewage permeating their neighborhood, the stench of which keeps the police away. Moving as an intermediary, Roberts works closely with the residents of Colonia Periférico to shift the ways her epidemiologist colleagues conceive, conduct, and conclude their scientifi c studies. Hoover’s (2017) work underscores the settler colonial undertones (and overtones) of such concepts as “toxic trespass” while also highlighting Mohawk nations’ “survivance” (Vizenor 2008) strategies against the ongoing occupation of their territories. Th e rivers, livelihoods, and landscapes of the Akwesasne community with which Hoover engages have been polluted by settler colonial incursions for hundreds of years. For Akwesasne, more recent (1980s) episodes of methyl mercury and PCB pollution, among other toxicants, interrupting their fi shing, eating, and breastfeeding are only the latest in a series of bodily, sensory, and material violations (also see Spice 2018). Toxic exposures from the 1980s and beyond, compounded by toxic exposures— broadly defi ned—from the 1880s if not earlier, will persist in Akwesasne spaces and bodies into the foreseeable future. As the title of Hoover’s book simply yet profoundly puts it, Th e River Is In Us. Importantly, this Akewsasne community “reshaped how science is conducted and created a third space [of sovereignty] where the subjects and community are also part of the research process. . . . Th ey did not reject the institutions of science altogether, recognizing the need for this type of knowledge, but neither did they agree to a conventional research study” (Hoover 2017: 261–262). Here, we see how empire and empirics scholarship reclaims the “sound science” of deceit and denial analyses by insisting upon nonhierarchical collaborations and explicitly valuing care work. Elizabeth A. Povinelli (2015, 2016) engages with Indigenous cosmologies of “kincentric ecology” (Salmón 2000) as well in her immersive scholarship and art practice with the Aborig- inal Belyuen community of Northern Australia, people who likewise bear disproportionate toxic burdens in the fallout of settler colonialism and its extractive industries. In a sick sort of solidarity with the residents of the poisoned Mexico City neighborhood in Roberts’s (2017) work, Povinelli codirects an “improvisational realism” fi lm, wherein four Indigenous men in Darwin, Australia, successfully avoid police capture (having been falsely accused of theft ) by hiding in a radioactive disposal zone, which itself was erected near a sacred site: “Don’t worry . . . [the police] won’t come in here. We’re safe, too much radiation here; we’re safe” (Povi- nelli 2015). Th e Belyuen cosmology that Povinelli learns from off ers a kind of resignation to the present world’s toxicity, suggesting that the Earth’s inhabitants have no choice now but to turn to diff erent forms. Many non-European onto-epistemologies have long understood that “the body” neither begins nor ends at the skin (Cajete 2000; Kimmerer 2020). Recent fi ndings in epigenetics and the nonlinear movements of EDCs are also upending dominant interpretations of heredity as well as of the toxicology tenet that “the dose makes the poison” (Vogel 2008). Counterintuitively, perhaps, EDCs can be more harmful at lower doses than at higher doses, demonstrating that toxicity also depends upon the timing of exposure, rather than simply on the quantity. Indeed, all manner of environmental traumas, from famine to dispossession to working the third shift , can detrimentally interfere with our metabolic sys- tems and catalyze inheritable, epigenetic changes that lead to ill health (Brave Heart 2000; Th ayer and Kuzawa 2011; Rothstein et al. 2009). As the limits of Western onto-epistemology become clearer to conventional practitioners themselves, I suggest that humble engagement with Indigenous, Black feminist, queer, and other anticolonial conceptions of interdependence holds great deconstructive and regenerative potential. Chemical Agents 35 Conclusion Critical historians and practitioners are increasingly unsettling Western onto-epistemology (including the natural and social sciences), situating the development of this worldview in leg- acies of imperialism and its attendant schemes of racialization and sexualization. Historiciz- ing the scientifi c enterprise in this way compels re-analysis of knowledge producers as well as knowledge produced. Phenomena such as “the” body or chemical are inextricable from the social relations that conceive them (Barad 2007). Toxicants are thus better understood as “impe- rial formations” (Stoler 2008) than as preextant or discrete entities, for it was racialized and sexualized projects of empire (Anderson 2006; Lugones 2007; Markowitz 2001) that seeded what is now widely referred to as “Science,” inclusive of its material and semiotic objects. Th is historical emergence means that, in addition to toxic exposures, the toxicant too is racialized and sexualized. How might critical thinkers and EJ activists proceed from this “permanently polluted” place (Liboiron et al. 2018)? Indigenous and postcolonial scholars rightfully insist that research methods be as committed to decentering Euro-Americanness as research topics (Lyons et al. 2017; Tuck and Yang 2012). In response to these calls, a growing community of engaged researchers are building from empire and empirics critiques to productively dismantle disciplinary boundaries. Scholar-activists such as Kim Fortun (2014), Nicholas Shapiro and colleagues (2017), Katherine McKittrick (2015, 2021), and Julie Sze (2020) are among those who insist on repoliticizing the depoliticized quantifi cations of dominant science by way of nonhierarchical collaboration between physical scientists, social scientists, humanists, artists, activists, and other “creatives” (Prescod-Weinstein and McKittrick 2021). Empire and empirics analyses further reveal that “living in a toxic world” (Nading 2020) includes radical forms of care work. Caitlynn Beckett and Arn Keeling (2019) rethink the kinds of toxin removal projects critically analyzed by Balayannis (2020), for exam- ple, by insisting on new forms of remediation that are “ongoing, creative [processes] of com- munity healing” (2019: 216). Reframing remediation processes as ongoing, rather than as fi nite events delimited by the bureaucratic technics of toxic cleanup, centers public participation and the aff ected public’s EJ demands. Nerea Calvillo’s (2018) ethnographic work in Madrid, Spain, likewise calls attention to diff erent ways of attuning to toxicity. In response to government offi - cials moving air pollution monitors so that less was offi cially tallied, Madrid residents acted in collective ways to “shift the focus from asking ‘what is toxic?’ to asking ‘what do we need to know about the toxic to act?’” (Calvillo 2018: 374). Resonant with Lyons (2018), Manuel Tironi (2018) highlights “intimate” forms of activism, documenting the small yet powerful acts of care-work-as-resistance that marginalized Chilean residents engage in, such as cleaning chem- ical residues off their tenderly cultivated gardens or healing their loved ones’ toxicant-induced ailments. Tironi urges EJ advocates to acknowledge these “hypo-interventions” and “intimate activism” as care-full forms of everyday resistance to the unavoidable, unending crises of per- manent pollution. Critical scholars more identifi ed with the natural sciences are also studying toxicity dif- ferently. For example, Max Liboiron’s Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research (CLEAR) practices generative methods of toxicant research that are at once feminist, queer, anticolonial, and fi rmly grounded in the material realities of unjust exposures (CLEAR 2017a). CLEAR studies do not simply measure the quantity of plastics polluting a given fi sh system, for instance, but also intentionally include the colonial legacies that produce these ongoing toxic relations, and meaningfully involve local residents, embracing their diff erent sets of expertise (Liboiron 2020b). Sara Wylie’s (2018) Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science (Public Lab) engages in community-based, participatory scientifi c knowledge production as 36 Melina Packer well, using “low cost, do-it-yourself environmental monitoring tools.” Cleo Woelfl e-Erskine’s (2020) Feminist Research in Eco-Social-Hydrologies (FRESH) lab conscientiously experiments in ways that make Black, Indigenous, queer, and trans liberation movements central to urban ecological restoration, or what they term “science for the riparian dispossessed.” Whether through “improvisational realism” fi lmmaking (Povinelli 2015), Tribal protocol (as opposed to colonial/university-defi ned Institutional Review Boards; Hoover 2017), intersectional feminist lab meetings (CLEAR 2017b; Woelfl e-Erskine 2020), or DIY environmental-monitoring tools (Wylie 2018), undisciplined, engaged scholarship refuses—and prefi gures alternatives to—the technocratic abstractions and obfuscations generated by offi cial risk assessment, remediation, or accountability regimes (see Mansfi eld 2021). In sum, approaches like bioethnography (Rob- erts and Sanz 2018) and chemo-ethnography (Shapiro and Kirksey 2017), or the participatory practices of CLEAR and Public Lab, produce scientifi c knowledge with intention, rejecting the dominant view of science as disinterested and acultural. Expanding early feminist analyses of the situatedness of all knowledge (Haraway 1988), even that which makes claims to objectivity (Harding 1995), today’s critical feminist studies of toxicity embrace care and collaboration out of their recognition that (embodied) experiences, practices, and knowledges are always incom- mensurable and nevertheless valid. Such transdisciplinary eff orts are not without their challenges, from unsupportive academic departments to funding scarcities to government-led attempts to “cancel” critical race theory (Goldberg 2021). Moreover, given that tens of thousands of toxicants are currently circulating (Birnbaum 2013), many of which will never disappear even once production ends, vital ques- tions endure: who is to be held accountable and how do “we” (Liboiron 2020a) move on when toxic eff ects are forever? Empire and empirics analyses help reveal care work and collabora- tion as liberatory pathways through today’s bio-chemical-political predicaments. In the poetic phrasing of Black feminist theorist Saidiya Hartman: “[Care] is the antidote to violence” (Kaba 2017). Toxicants cannot be put back in their bottles, but cultural-scientifi c spaces can center the embodied experiences of frontline communities and relational onto-epistemologies of other/ ed cosmogonies. Clearly, the dominant Western approach to toxicants has not adequately pro- tected environmental health. I encourage conventionally trained scientists to more care-fully and collaboratively confront the biochemical and the biopolitical of toxicity. We may all learn from cultural scholars, artists, and EJ activists to better understand toxicants’ imperial forma- tions and unruly residues, and rise to the challenges that such creative, undisciplined studies demand. Only through truly decolonizing actions will we co-create more pleasurable, livable lives on a swift ly turning planet. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the editors, especially Alex Nading, and two anonymous reviewers for their insight- ful comments, all of which greatly improved this article. I am also grateful to Anila Daulatzai, Annie Shattuck, Natalia Duong, Omi Salas-SantaCruz, S. Chava Contreras, and my spring 2020 writing workshop colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, for their constructive criticisms of earlier draft s. Any remaining errors are my own. MELINA PACKER is a Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Gender and Sex- uality Studies at the University of California, Riverside. She is currently writing a book about US toxicology through the critical lens of queer feminist STS. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Chemical Agents 37 NOTES 1. Th e environmental justice (EJ) literature is vast and beyond the scope of this review on toxicity. See Kojola and Pellow (2020) for a recent review of EJ scholarship. 2. A full account of the toxic residues of Agent Orange would require its own article. For more on the “contested illnesses” wrought by this particular chemical weapon, see Tine Gammeltoft ’s (2014) ethnography of Vietnamese parents struggling with the stigma of Agent Orange exposure, as mate- rialized by their babies’ potential health issues. Children of Vietnam veterans in the United States have also experienced exposure-related complications, which likewise remain contested by chemical manufacturers Dow and Monsanto (now Bayer). See Hertz-Picciotto et al. (2018). 3. A rich body of literature exists on the chemo-cultural toxicity of nuclear radiation specifi cally, too numerous to fi t in this review, including for example the work of Traci Brynne Voyles (2015) and Joseph P. Masco (2004, 2015). 4. In this “antiscience” historical moment, I wish to emphasize that such critiques of science are not refusals of reality (Weigel 2019), nor openings for climate denial, but rather more explicit acknowl- edgments of reality and the exigency of action. REFERENCES Agard-Jones, Vanessa. 2013. “Bodies in the System.” Small Axe: A Caribbean Journal of Criticism 17 (3 (42)): 182–192. doi:10.1215/07990537-2378991. Agard-Jones, Vanessa. 2014. “Spray.” Somatosphere, May. http://somatosphere.net/2014/05/spray.html. Agard-Jones, Vanessa. 2015. Case #1: Vanessa Agard-Jones, “Chlordécone” (Paper presented virtually at “Th e Manufacturing of Rights” conference in Beirut, Lebanon, 14–16 May). YouTube, 14:49. Posted by News of Council. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvqVkR4Iuqs. Agyeman, Julian, Robert D. Bullard, and Bob Evans, eds. 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ah-King, Malin, and Eva Hayward. 2013. “Toxic Sexes—Perverting Pollution and Queering Hormone Disruption.” O-Zone: A Journal of Object Oriented Studies 1: 1–12. http://www.diva-portal.org/ smash/record.jsf ?pid=diva2 percent3A684585&dswid=-9950. Ahmann, Chloe. 2018. “‘It’s Exhausting to Create an Event out of Nothing’: Slow Violence and the Manipulation of Time.” Cultural Anthropology 33 (1): 142–171. doi:10.14506/ca33.1.06. Ahmann, Chloe, and Alison Kenner. 2020. “Breathing Late Industrialism.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 6: 416–438. doi:10.17351/ests2020.673. Akese, Grace A., and Peter C. Little. 2018. “Electronic Waste and the Environmental Justice Challenge in Agbogbloshie.” Environmental Justice 11 (2): 77–83. doi:10.1089/env.2017.0039. Anderson, Kay. 2006. Race and the Crisis of Humanism. London: Routledge. Arnold, David. 2016. Toxic Histories: Poison and Pollution in Modern India. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Auyero, Javier, and Débora Swistun. 2008. “Th e Social Production of Toxic Uncertainty.” American Soci- ological Review 73 (3): 357–379. doi:10.1177/000312240807300301. Auyero, Javier, and Débora Swistun. 2009. Flammable: Environmental Suff ering in an Argentine Shanty- town. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aviv, Rachel. 2014. “A Valuable Reputation.” Th e New Yorker, 3 February. https://www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation. Balayannis, Angeliki. 2020. “Toxic Sights: Th e Spectacle of Hazardous Waste Removal.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 38 (4): 772–790. doi:10.1177/0263775819900197. Barad, Karen Michelle. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Barba, Mayra G. Sánchez. 2020. “‘Keeping Th em Down’: Neurotoxic Pesticides, Race, and Disabling Biopolitics.” Catalyst: Feminism, Th eory, Technoscience 6 (1). https://catalystjournal.org/index.php/ catalyst/article/view/32253. 38 Melina Packer Beckett, Caitlynn, and Arn Keeling. 2019. “Rethinking Remediation: Mine Reclamation, Environmental Justice, and Relations of Care.” Local Environment 24 (3): 216–230. doi:10.1080/13549839.2018.155 Birnbaum, Linda S. 2013. “When Environmental Chemicals Act like Uncontrolled Medicine.” Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 24 (7): 321–323. doi:10.1016/j.tem.2012.12.005. Boudia, Soraya. 2014. “Managing Scientifi c and Political Uncertainty: Environmental Risk Assessment in an Historical Perspective.” In Powerless Science? Science and Politics in a Toxic World, ed. Soraya Boudia and Nathalie Jas, 95–114. New York: Berghahn Books. Boudia, Soraya, Angela N. H. Creager, Scott Frickel, Emmanuel Henry, Nathalie Jas, Carsten Reinhardt, and Jody A. Roberts. 2018. “Residues: Rethinking Chemical Environments.” Engaging Science, Tech- nology, and Society 4: 165–178. doi:10.17351/ests2018.245. Brave Heart, Maria. 2000. “Wakiksuyapi: Carrying the Historical Trauma of the Lakota.” Tulane Studies in Social Welfare 21: 245–266. Brown, Phil. 2007. Toxic Exposures: Contested Illnesses and the Environmental Health Movement. New York: Columbia University Press. Brown, Phil, and Edwin J. Mikkelsen. 1990. No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cajete, Gregory. 2000. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers. Calvillo, Nerea. 2018. “Political Airs: From Monitoring to Attuned Sensing Air Pollution.” Social Studies of Science 48 (3): 372–388. doi:10.1177/0306312718784656. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. New York: Fawcett Crest. Chen, Mel Y. 2011. “Toxic Animacies, Inanimate Aff ections.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 17 (2): 265–286. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/437417. Chen, Mel Y. 2012. Animacies: Biopolitics, Racial Mattering, and Queer Aff ect. Durham, NC: Duke Uni- versity Press. Clapp, Jennifer. 2017. “Bigger Is Not Always Better: Th e Drivers and Implications of the Recent Agri- business Megamergers.” Global Food Politics Group, University of Waterloo. Waterloo. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/314206957_Bigger_is_Not_Always_Better_Drivers_and_Impli cations_of_the_Recent_Agribusiness_Megamergers. Clare, Eli. 2017. Brilliant Imperfection: Grappling with Cure. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. CLEAR. 2017a. “Pollution Is Colonialism.” Endocrine Disruptors Action Group, 18 September. https:// endocrinedisruptorsaction.org/2017/09/18/pollution-is-colonialism/. CLEAR. 2017b. “CLEAR Lab Book.” CLEAR, 30 December 30. https://civiclaboratory.nl/clear-lab-book/. Colborn, Th eo, and Coralie Clement. 1992. Chemically-Induced Alterations in Sexual and Functional Development: Th e Wildlife/Human Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Scientifi c Publishing. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Th eory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989 (1): 139–167. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ uchclf1989&id=143&div=&collection=journals. Dally, Ann. 1998. “Th alidomide: Was the Tragedy Preventable?” Th e Lancet 351 (9110): 1197–1199. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)09038-7. Davis, Frederick Rowe. 2014. Banned: A History of Pesticides and the Science of Toxicology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dewachi, Omar. 2019. “Iraqibacter and the Pathologies of Intervention.” Middle East Report 290. Spring. https://merip.org/2019/07/iraqibacter-and-the-pathologies-of-intervention/. Di Chiro, Giovanna. 2010. “Polluted Politics? Confronting Toxic Discourse, Sex Panic, and Eco- Normativity.” In Queer Ecologies: Sex, Nature, Politics, Desire, ed. Catriona Mortimer-Sandilands and Bruce Erickson, 199–230. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Diamanti-Kandarakis, Evanthia, Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, Linda C. Giudice, Russ Hauser, Gail S. Prins, . . . and Andrea C. Gore. 2009. “Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientifi c Statement.” Endocrine Reviews 30 (4): 293–342. doi:10.1210/er.2009-0002. Chemical Agents 39 Dillon, Lindsey. 2014. “Race, Waste, and Space: Brownfi eld Redevelopment and Environmental Justice at the Hunters Point Shipyard.” Antipode 46 (5): 1205–1221. doi:10.1111/anti.12009. Duong, Natalia. 2018. “Agent Orange Bodies: Việt, Đức, and Transnational Narratives of Repair.” Cana- dian Review of American Studies 48 (3): 387–414. doi:10.3138/cras.2018.005. Forbes, Jack D. 2008. Columbus and Other Cannibals: Th e Wétiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism, and Terrorism. New York: Seven Stories Press. Fortun, Kim. 2001. Advocacy aft er Bhopal: Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fortun, Kim. 2014. “From Latour to Late Industrialism.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Th eory 4 (1): 309–329. http://www.haujournal.org/index.php/hau/article/view/hau4.1.017. Frickel, Scott. 2004. Chemical Consequences: Environmental Mutagens, Scientist Activism, and the Rise of Genetic Toxicology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Frickel, Scott, Sahra Gibbon, Jeff Howard, Joanna Kempner, Gwen Ottinger, and David J. Hess. 2010. “Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Set- ting.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35 (4): 444–473. doi:10.1177/0162243909345836. Gammeltoft , Tine M. 2014. Haunting Images: A Cultural Account of Selective Reproduction in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goldberg, Michelle. 2021. “Opinion | Th e Campaign to Cancel Wokeness.” New York Times, 26 February. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/opinion/speech-racism-academia.html. Guillette, Louis. J., D. B. Pickford, Daniel. A. Crain, Andrew. A. Rooney, and H. F. Percival. 1996. “Reduction in Penis Size and Plasma Testosterone Concentrations in Juvenile Alligators Living in a Contaminated Environment.” General and Comparative Endocrinology 101 (1): 32–42. doi:10.1006/ gcen.1996.0005. Guthman, Julie. 2014. “Doing Justice to Bodies? Refl ections on Food Justice, Race, and Biology.” Anti- pode 46 (5): 1153–1171. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01017.x. Guthman, Julie. 2019. Wilted: Pathogens, Chemicals, and the Fragile Future of the Strawberry Industry. Berkeley: University of California Press. Guthman, Julie, and Sandy Brown. 2016. “Whose Life Counts: Biopolitics and the ‘Bright Line’ of Chloropicrin Mitigation in California’s Strawberry Industry.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 41 (3): 461–482. doi:10.1177/0162243915606804. Halley, Janet E. 2006. Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: Th e Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066. Harding, Sandra. 1995. “‘Strong Objectivity’: A Response to the New Objectivity Question.” Synthese 104 (3): 331–349.doi:10.1007/BF01064504. Harrison, Jill Lindsey. 2006. “‘Accidents’ and Invisibilities: Scaled Discourse and the Naturalization of Regulatory Neglect in California’s Pesticide Drift Confl ict.” Political Geography 25 (5): 506–529. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.003. Harrison, Jill Lindsey. 2011. Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hayes, Tyrone B., Atif Collins, Melissa Lee, Magdelena Mendoza, Nigel Noriega, A. Ali Stuart, and Aaron Vonk. 2002. “Hermaphroditic, Demasculinized Frogs aft er Exposure to the Herbicide Atra- zine at Low Ecologically Relevant Doses.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (8): 5476–5480. doi:10.1073/pnas.082121499. Hecht, Gabrielle. 2012. Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hertz-Picciotto, Irva, Nancy Berliner, Wendy B. Bernstein, Michael J. Carvan III, Aradina Chakravarti, . . . . and Dana C. Dolinoy. 2018. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535904/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK535904 .pdf. 40 Melina Packer Hoover, Elizabeth. 2017. Th e River Is in Us: Fighting Toxics in a Mohawk Community. Minneapolis: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press. Kaba, Mariame. 2017. “Free Us All.” Th e New Inquiry, 8 May. https://thenewinquiry.com/free-us-all/. Kafer, Alison. 2013. Feminist, Queer, Crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kimmerer, Robin Wall. 2020. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientifi c Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions. Kimura, Aya Hirata. 2016. Radiation Brain Moms and Citizen Scientists: Th e Gender Politics of Food Con- tamination aft er Fukushima. Durham: Duke University Press. Kojola, Erik, and David N. Pellow. 2020. “New Directions in Environmental Justice Studies: Examining the State and Violence.” Environmental Politics 30 (1–2): 100–118. doi:10.1080/09644016.2020.1836898. Krimsky, Sheldon. 2000. Hormonal Chaos: Th e Scientifi c and Social Origins of the Environmental Endo- crine Hypothesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Krimsky, Sheldon. 2018. “Essay: Monsanto’s Ghostwriting and Strong-Arming Th reaten Sound Science– and Society.” Environmental Health News, 26 June. http://www.ehn.org/monsanto-eff ort-to-skew- science-2581194459.html. Krimsky, Sheldon, and Carey Gillam. 2018. “Roundup Litigation Discovery Documents: Implications for Public Health and Journal Ethics.” Journal of Public Health Policy 39: 318–326. doi:10.1057/ s41271-018-0134-z. Lambert, Max, and Melina Packer. 2019. “Perspective: How Gendered Language Leads Scientists Astray.” Washington Post, 10 June. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/10/how-gendered- language-leads-scientists-astray/. Landecker, Hannah. 2015. “Antibiotic Resistance and the Biology of History.” Body & Society 22 (4): 19–52. doi:10.1177/1357034X14561341. Langston, Nancy. 2010. Toxic Bodies: Hormone Disruptors and the Legacy of DES. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lappé, Martine, Robbin Jeff ries Hein, and Hannah Landecker. 2019. “Environmental Politics of Reproduc- tion.” Annual Review of Anthropology 48 (1): 133–150. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011346. Li, Fabiana. 2009. “Documenting Accountability: Environmental Impact Assessment in a Peruvian Mining Project.” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 32 (2): 218–236. doi:10.1111/ j.1555-2934.2009.01042.x. Liboiron, Max. 2020a. “Th ere’s No Such Th ing as ‘We.’” Discard Studies, 12 October. https://discardstud ies.com/2020/10/12/theres-no-such-thing-as-we/. Liboiron, Max. 2020b. “Plastics in the Gut.” Orion Magazine, 19 November. https://orionmagazine.org/ article/plastics-in-the-gut/. Liboiron, Max. 2021. Pollution Is Colonialism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Liboiron, Max, Manuel Tironi, and Nerea Calvillo. 2018. “Toxic Politics: Acting in a Permanently Pol- luted World:” Social Studies of Science 48 (3): 331–349. doi:10.1177/0306312718783087. Little, Peter C. 2019. “Cuerpos, Toxinas e Intervenciones Laborales Con Residuos Electrónicos En Ghana: ¿Hacia Una Corporalidad Poscolonial Tóxica?” [XXX] AIBR, Revista de Antropologia Iber- oamericana 14 (1): 52–72. doi:10.11156/aibr.140104. Lowe, Lisa. 2015. Th e Intimacies of Four Continents. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Lugones, María. 2007. “Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System.” Hypatia 22 (1): 186–219. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01156.x. Lyons, Kristina. 2018. “Chemical Warfare in Colombia, Evidentiary Ecologies and Senti-Actuando Prac- tices of Justice.” Social Studies of Science 48 (3): 414–437. doi:10.1177/0306312718765375. Lyons, Kristina, Juno Salazar Parreñas, Noah Tamarkin, Banu Subramaniam, Lesley Green, and Tania Pérez-Bustos. 2017. “Engagements with Decolonization and Decoloniality in and at the Interfaces of STS.” Catalyst: Feminism, Th eory, Technoscience 3 (1): 1–47. doi:10.28968/cft t.v3i1.28794. Mansfi eld, Becky. 2012. “Environmental Health as Biosecurity: ‘Seafood Choices,’ Risk, and the Pregnant Woman as Th reshold.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (5): 969–976. doi:10 .1080/00045608.2012.657496. Chemical Agents 41 Mansfi eld, Becky. 2021. “Deregulatory Science: Chemical Risk Analysis in Trump’s EPA.” Social Studies of Science 51 (1): 28–50. doi:10.1177/0306312720970284. Markowitz, Gerald E., and David Rosner. 2002. Deceit and Denial: Th e Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollu- tion. Berkeley: University of California Press. Markowitz, Sally. 2001. “Pelvic Politics: Sexual Dimorphism and Racial Diff erence.” Signs 26 (2): 389– 414. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175447. Masco, Joseph. 2004. “Mutant Ecologies: Radioactive Life in Post–Cold War New Mexico.” Cultural Anthropology 19 (4): 517–50. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2004.19.4.517. Masco, Joseph. 2015. “Th e Age of Fallout.” History of the Present 5 (2): 137–168. doi:10.5406/history present.5.2.0137. McKittrick, Katherine. 2015. “Axis, Bold as Love: On Sylvia Wynter, Jimi Hendrix, and the Promise of Science.” In Sylvia Wynter: On Being Human as Praxis, ed. Katherine McKittrick, 142–163. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. McKittrick, Katherine. 2021. Dear Science and Other Stories. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Merchant, Carolyn. 1989. Th e Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientifi c Revolution. New York: Harper & Row. Michaels, David. 2008. Doubt Is Th eir Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Th reatens Your Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murphy, Michelle. 2006. Sick Building Syndrome and the Problem of Uncertainty: Environmental Politics, Technoscience, and Women Workers. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Murphy, Michelle. 2013. “Distributed Reproduction, Chemical Violence, and Latency.” S&F Online 11 (3). http://sfonline.barnard.edu/life-un-ltd-feminism-bioscience-race/distributed-reproduction- chemical-violence-and-latency/. Murphy, Michelle. 2017. “Alterlife and Decolonial Chemical Relations.” Cultural Anthropology 32 (4): 494–503. doi:10.14506/ca32.4.02. Nading, Alex M. 2020. “Living in a Toxic World.” Annual Review of Anthropology 49 (1): 209–24. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-010220-074557. Nash, Linda. 2008. “Purity and Danger: Historical Refl ections on the Regulation of Environmental Pollutants.” Environmental History 13 (4): 651–658. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25473292. Nixon, Rob. 2013. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press. Nunn, Neil. 2018. “Toxic Encounters, Settler Logics of Elimination, and the Future of a Continent.” Anti- pode 50 (5): 1330–1348. doi:10.1111/anti.12403. Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Packer, Melina. 2020. “Finding the Man in the Glyphosate.” PhD Diss., University of California, Berkeley. Pellow, David N. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Petitjean, Patrick, Catherine Jami, Anne Marie Moulin, and Equipe REHSEIS (Centre national de la recherche scientifi que), eds. 1992. Science and Empires: Historical Studies about Scientifi c Develop- ment and European Expansion. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Petryna, Adriana. 2013. Life Exposed: Biological Citizens aft er Chernobyl. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press. Pollock, Anne. 2016. “Queering Endocrine Disruption.” In Object-Oriented Feminism, ed. Katherine Behar, 183–199. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2015. “Windjarrameru, Th e Stealing C*nts.” E-Flux Journal 56th Venice Biennale— SUPERCOMMUNITY, 21 May. http://supercommunity.e-fl ux.com/texts/windjarrameru-the- stealing-c-nts/. Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2016. Geontologies: A Requiem to Late Liberalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 42 Melina Packer Prescod-Weinstein, Chanda, and Katherine McKittrick. 2021. “Public Th inker: Katherine McKittrick on Black Methodologies and Other Ways of Being.” Public Books, 1 February. https://www.publicbooks .org/public-thinker-katherine-mckittrick-on-black-methodologies-and-other-ways-of-being/. Proctor, Robert. 1995. Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know about Cancer. New York: Basic Books. Pulido, Laura. 1996. Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Renfrew, Daniel. 2013. “‘We Are Not Marginals’: Th e Cultural Politics of Lead Poisoning in Montevideo, Uruguay.” Latin American Perspectives 40 (2): 202–217. doi:10.1177/0094582X12467764. Renfrew, Daniel. 2017. “Spectral Science: Tracing the Confl ict Zones of Uruguayan Lead Poisoning.” Culture, Th eory and Critique 58 (4): 375–390. doi:10.1080/14735784.2017.1356739. Renfrew, Daniel. 2018. “Lead Poisoning and the Dangers of Pragmatism.” International Journal of Envi- ronmental Research and Public Health 15 (9): 1997. doi:10.3390/ijerph15091997. Roberts, Elizabeth F. S. 2017. “What Gets Inside: Violent Entanglements and Toxic Boundaries in Mex- ico City.” Cultural Anthropology 32 (4): 592–619. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca32.4.07. Roberts, Elizabeth F. S., and Camilo Sanz. 2018. “Bioethnography: A How-To Guide for the Twenty-First Century.” In Th e Palgrave Handbook of Biology and Society, ed. Maurizio Meloni, John Cromby, Des Fitzgerald, and Stephanie Lloyd, 749–775. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Romero, Adam M., Julie Guthman, Ryan E. Galt, Matt Huber, Becky Mansfi eld, and Suzana Sawyer. 2017. “Chemical Geographies.” GeoHumanities 3 (1): 158–177. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2017 .1298972. Ross, Benjamin, and Steven Amter. 2010. Th e Polluters: Th e Making of Our Chemically Altered Environ- ment. New York: Oxford University Press. Rothstein, Mark, Yu Cai, and Gary Marchant. 2009. “Th e Ghost in Our Genes: Legal and Ethical Implica- tions of Epigenetics.” Health Matrix: Th e Journal of Law-Medicine 19 (1). https://scholarlycommons .law.case.edu/healthmatrix/vol19/iss1/3. Roy, Deboleena. 2008. “Asking Diff erent Questions: Feminist Practices for the Natural Sciences.” Hypatia 23 (4): 134–156. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2008.tb01437.x. Salmón, Enrique. 2000. “Kincentric Ecology: Indigenous Perceptions of the Human-Nature Relation- ship.” Ecological Applications 10 (5): 1327–1332. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:KEIPOT]2 .0.CO;2. Shadaan, Reena, and Michelle Murphy. 2020. “EDCs as Industrial Chemicals and Settler Colonial Struc- tures: Towards a Decolonial Feminist Approach.” Catalyst: Feminism, Th eory, Technoscience 6 (1). doi:10.28968/cft t.v6i1.32089. Shapiro, Nicholas. 2015. “Attuning to the Chemosphere: Domestic Formaldehyde, Bodily Reasoning, and the Chemical Sublime.” Cultural Anthropology 30 (3): 368–393. doi:10.14506/ca30.3.02. Shapiro, Nicholas, and Eben Kirksey. 2017. “Chemo-Ethnography: An Introduction.” Cultural Anthro- pology 32 (4): 481–493. doi:10.14506/ca32.4.01. Shapiro, Nicholas, Nasser Zakariya, and Jody Roberts. 2017. “A Wary Alliance: From Enumerating the Environment to Inviting Apprehension.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3: 575–602. doi:10.17351/ests2017.133. Shattuck, Annie. 2019. “Risky Subjects: Embodiment and Partial Knowledges in the Safe Use of Pesti- cide.” Geoforum 123: 152–161. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.04.029. Shostak, Sara. 2004. “Environmental Justice and Genomics: Acting on the Futures of Environmental Health.” Science as Culture 13 (4): 539–562. doi:10.1080/0950543042000311850. Shostak, Sara. 2013. Exposed Science: Genes, the Environment, and the Politics of Population Health. Berkeley: University of California Press. Shotwell, Alexis. 2016. Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Spackman, Christy, and Gary A Burlingame. 2018. “Sensory Politics: Th e Tug-of-War between Pota- bility and Palatability in Municipal Water Production.” Social Studies of Science 48 (3): 350–371. doi:10.1177/0306312718778358. Chemical Agents 43 Spice, Anne. 2018. “Processing Settler Toxicities: Part I.” Footnotes, 16 June. https://footnotesblog.com/ 2018/06/16/processing-settler-toxicities-part-i/. Steingraber, Sandra. 2010. Living Downstream: An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Stoler, Ann Laura. 2008. “Imperial Debris: Refl ections on Ruins and Ruination.” Cultural Anthropology 23 (2): 191–219. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2008.00007.x. Swan, Shanna H. 2021. Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Th reatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sze, Julie. 2006. “Boundaries and Border Wars: DES, Technology, and Environmental Justice.” American Quarterly 58 (3): 791–814. doi:10.1353/aq.2006.0070. Sze, Julie. 2020. Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger. Oakland,CA: University of California Press. TallBear, Kimberly. 2011. “Why Interspecies Th inking Needs Indigenous Standpoints.” Cultural Anthropology, 18 November. https://culanth.org/fi eldsights/260-why-interspecies-thinking- needs-indigenous-standpoints. Tesh, Sylvia Noble. 2000. Uncertain Hazards: Environmental Activists and Scientifi c Proof. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Th ayer, Zaneta M., and Christopher W. Kuzawa. 2011. “Biological Memories of Past Environments: Epi- genetic Pathways to Health Disparities.” Epigenetics 6 (7): 798–803. doi:10.4161/epi.6.7.16222. Tironi, Manuel. 2018. “Hypo-Interventions: Intimate Activism in Toxic Environments.” Social Studies of Science 48 (3): 438–455. doi:10.1177/0306312718784779. Tousignant, Noémi. 2018. Edges of Exposure: Toxicology and the Problem of Capacity in Postcolonial Sene- gal. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630. Vizenor, Gerald Robert. 2008. Survivance: Narratives of Native Presence. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Vogel, Sarah A. 2008. “From ‘Th e Dose Makes the Poison’ to ‘Th e Timing Makes the Poison’: Concep- tualizing Risk in the Synthetic Age.” Environmental History 13 (4): 667–673. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/25473294. Voyles, Traci Brynne. 2015. Wastelanding: Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Voyles, Traci Brynne. 2021. “Toxic Masculinity: California’s Salton Sea and the Environmental Conse- quences of Manliness.” Environmental History 26 (1): 127–141. doi:10.1093/envhis/emaa076. Weheliye, Alexander G. 2014. Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Th eories of the Human. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Weigel, Moira. 2019. “Feminist Cyborg Scholar Donna Haraway: ‘Th e Disorder of Our Era Isn’t Neces- sary.’” Th e Guardian, 20 June. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/20/donna-haraway- interview-cyborg-manifesto-post-truth. Williams, Brian. 2018. “‘Th at We May Live’: Pesticides, Plantations, and Environmental Racism in the United States South.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1 (1–2): 243–267. doi:10.1177/2514848618778085. Winerip, Michael. 2013. “Th e Death and Aft erlife of Th alidomide.” New York Times, 23 September. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/booming/the-death-and-aft erlife-of-thalidomide.html. Woelfl e-Erskine, Cleo. 2020. “F.R.E.S.H. Water Relations.” F.R.E.S.H. Water Relations. https://water- relations.net/ (accessed Feb. 7, 2021). Wylie, Sara. 2018. “Public Lab.” Sara Wylie, 15 January. https://sarawylie.com/2018/01/15/public-lab/. Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, aft er Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument.” CR: Th e New Centennial Review 3 (3): 257–337. doi:10.1353/ncr.2004.0015.
Environment and Society – Berghahn Books
Published: Sep 1, 2021
Keywords: biopolitics; chemical violence; critical feminist science studies; environmental justice; toxicity; uneven exposures
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.