[Last modified: November, 11 2024 01:23 PM]
I took this week’s assignment as an opportunity to reflect on the political dimensions of my research topic. I’m currently working on PFAS, a man-made chemical used in many products today – ranging from cosmetics to waterproof rain jackets, to firefighter foam, to Teflon, etc. – that has been contaminating our ecosystems, our bodies, and our futures. The component of the future is significant in the story of this group of chemicals because they are also known as “forever chemicals.” This term means that the chemical bond between the carbons and fluorine (C-F bonds) is so extremely strong and stable that it barely degrades in the environment or in our bodies, and instead accumulates over time. Even more concerning is the fact that we are slowly passing these toxic elements on to future generations, as PFAS is found in the breast milk of women. Studies have found that nearly every living thing, and 99 percent of humans, has some level of PFAS, making it, if anything, the new condition of life in the Anthropocene.
In short, I’m planning to listen to the stories of the community in Zwijndrecht, an area close to Antwerp (Belgium), which has been heavily contaminated by the chemical company 3M. Knowing that many of them who have had their blood tested have very high concentrations of PFAS, this is obviously a sensitive topic. My main concern for my project is finding a balance between wanting to theorize (toxic) bodies in the Anthropocene and staying with what the people actually want to discuss. I feel that doing anthropology of the more-than-human always runs the risk of fetishizing the non-human a bit too much, forgetting that you are always inevitably studying certain people’s relationships with the non-human. And when this relationship is a negative one, like PFAS being detrimental to the body, it can quickly become disrespectful in some way. To be honest, I don’t know if all of this makes a lot of sense. I think I’m actually pondering a question essential to anthropology in general: namely, whether it is too extractive to ask people about such sensitive topics in order to play around with concepts and build theory around it. It is obvious to conclude that, as with any topic, there should be a lot of care and reflection about those boundaries of respect.
Another important point in this research is that positionality becomes a blurry concept when talking about toxic bodies. Knowing that almost everyone has some level of PFAS in their blood, it becomes more about how high those levels are. Knowing that at some point I will be talking with this community, I think it would be good for me to get my own blood levels checked for PFAS. I think the concrete realisation of toxicity being irreversible in your body does something to the mind that could help me relate more deeply with the people in Zwijndrecht. So, positionality becomes blurry in the sense that we are all intoxicated in some way, but not to the same degree. As a researcher, you are simultaneously experiencing the same thing, but also not quite, and as the levels of PFAS that are directly detrimental to our health change constantly, the boundaries of how much you can relate shift as well.