When, on the 20th of April 2010, the oil platform Deep Water Horizon was struck by a massive explosion of gas, nobody would have expected that the consequences following the event would shake national politics, damage an entire ecosystem, sicken local people and lead to a chain of further negative consequences, an opening of a Pandora’s box.
In this paper I would like to investigate in the construction of scientific facts about the impacts of the spill and the distribution and allocation of responsibility. The use of massive amounts of toxic dispersants, which led the oil to disappear from the surface of the sea, in consequence also led to the slow but constant sickening of Gulf Coast residents and clean-up workers. The debate succeeding the incident is one of power, responsibility and construction of truth about the aftermath of the incident. Gulf Coast locals feel abandoned by the officials and the government. From their point of view, they don’t seem willing to acknowledge their suffering from chemical poisoning with dispersed oil and the chemical ‘Corexit’, which was used in massive amounts (ca. 6,8 million litres) by ‘British Petroleum‘ (BP) to dissolve the oil in the water column. A central question of the incident and its aftermath is therefore one of responsibility in a neoliberal society with neoliberal power structures.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Theoretical premises
2.1 ‘Ecogovernmentality’ and the enactment of expertise
2.2 Neoliberal governmentality and responsibility
2.3 The construction of scientific facts and the ambiguity of truth
3 Case Study
3.1 The invisible oil
3.2 Sickness without a cause
3.3 The contestation of seafood safety
4 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Focus
This paper investigates the social construction of scientific facts regarding the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, specifically examining how responsibilities are allocated in a neoliberal context. It explores the tension between official scientific narratives and the lived experiences of affected individuals, analyzing how expert knowledge serves to shift risks onto the individual.
- Neoliberal governmentality and the decentralization of state responsibility
- The role of expert knowledge in simplifying complex environmental crises
- Public perception versus scientific "black boxing" of toxicity
- The political economy of truth in post-disaster scenarios
- Institutional mediation of health risks for cleanup workers and locals
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 The invisible oil
In this section, I want to investigate how it was possible that BP made the oil ‘disappear’ through the use of almost seven million litres of toxic dispersants and why this action was tolerated by the government and its agencies. I will further have a closer look at how scientific facts were produced in accordance with neoliberal responsibility and ecogovernmentality, which builds upon simplification of natural matters and the shift of risk and responsibility from power holders and corporations to the level of the individual citizen.
Mary Douglas (1966:5) sees pollution as containing reflections on “the relation of order to disorder, being to non-being, life to death”. In other words, she sees pollution as expressing a general view of social order. The refraction of this order through anomaly can lead to anxiety, suppression and avoidance. “In short, our pollution behaviour is the reaction which condemns any object or area likely to confuse or contradict cherished classification” (Douglas 1966:36).
Douglas explains the interplay between the normal and the abnormal in society as a play of power relations. The normal and abnormal are endowed with different grades of agency (the ability to act) with which they can exert power on surrounding objects. The anomalous (in this case study dispersed oil and ambiguous chemical exposures) subverts an existing order and isn't easily definable because of its hybrid character. Practices concerning purity can therefore be seen as an attempt to re-establish an ordered view of the surrounding world, which corresponds with cultural notions of norms and structures. The subversion of these notions equals the subversion of cultural rules and traditions. Abnormal behaviour is seen as destroying established structures of society and endangering its function. Notions of order and hygiene are therefore part of power structures, which play the role of stabilizing political order, power relations and cultural moral beliefs (Douglas 1966:94-113).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill and outlines the research focus on scientific knowledge production and neoliberal responsibility.
2 Theoretical premises: This section establishes the conceptual framework, discussing ecogovernmentality, neoliberal frameworks, and the sociology of scientific knowledge construction.
3 Case Study: This chapter applies the theoretical framework to the Deepwater Horizon incident, focusing on the invisibility of oil, health impacts on workers, and the contested safety of seafood.
4 Conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes findings, emphasizing how scientific expertise remains dynamic, constructed, and influenced by power relations in the aftermath of the disaster.
Keywords
Deepwater Horizon, Ecogovernmentality, Neoliberalism, Scientific Facts, Expert Knowledge, Oil Spill, Dispersants, Risk Society, Pollution, Social Construction, Power/Knowledge, Environmental Anthropology, Toxicity, Seafood Safety, Responsibility
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work examines how scientific "facts" regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill were constructed and how these narratives served neoliberal interests to deflect corporate and state responsibility.
What are the primary thematic areas?
The themes include the anthropology of science, neoliberal governmentality, the social perception of pollution, and the politics of expert knowledge in disaster management.
What is the central research question?
The primary inquiry focuses on how responsibility is defined and allocated within a neoliberal society when faced with the ecological and human impacts of a major disaster.
Which scientific methods are utilized in this paper?
The author employs a qualitative anthropological approach, utilizing discourse analysis and existing social theories—such as those of Foucault, Douglas, and Latour—to deconstruct institutional reporting.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section investigates the use of chemical dispersants, the struggle of affected residents to gain recognition for their health problems, and the validity of government-sanctioned seafood testing.
Which keywords characterize this analysis?
Key terms include ecogovernmentality, neoliberalism, scientific construction, risk society, and the political economy of truth.
How does the author interpret the role of dispersants like Corexit?
The author views the use of dispersants not just as a cleanup tool, but as a political device to render oil "invisible," thereby simplifying the problem and avoiding complex liability issues.
What is the significance of the "black boxing" concept mentioned in the text?
It refers to the process where scientific results are presented as fixed, objective truths, which effectively hides the underlying uncertainties and political choices made during the research and data collection phases.
Why does the author critique the seafood safety tests performed by official agencies?
The author argues that these tests were limited in scope, failed to account for long-term bioaccumulation of toxins, and were designed primarily to reassure the public rather than uncover potential health risks.
What does the text imply about the "biological citizen"?
It refers to the pressure placed on victims of environmental disasters to translate their personal suffering into medically sanctioned data in order to gain political or economic recognition.
- Citation du texte
- Simon Meier (Auteur), 2011, Politics of invisibility, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/174549
