Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK; Nucleus of Advanced Amazonian Studies (NAEA), Federal University of Pará, Brazil.
Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, UT, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Nov;241:112448. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112448. Epub 2019 Jul 27.
This paper scrutinizes the assertion that knowledge gaps concerning health risks from climate change are unjust, and must be addressed, because they hinder evidence-led interventions to protect vulnerable populations. First, we construct a taxonomy of six inter-related forms of invisibility (social marginalization, forced invisibility by migrants, spatial marginalization, neglected diseases, mental health, uneven climatic monitoring and forecasting) which underlie systematic biases in current understanding of these risks in Latin America, and advocate an approach to climate-health research that draws on intersectionality theory to address these inter-relations. We propose that these invisibilities should be understood as outcomes of structural imbalances in power and resources rather than as haphazard blindspots in scientific and state knowledge. Our thesis, drawing on theories of governmentality, is that context-dependent tensions condition whether or not benefits of making vulnerable populations legible to the state outweigh costs. To be seen is to be politically counted and eligible for rights, yet evidence demonstrates the perils of visibility to disempowered people. For example, flood-relief efforts in remote Amazonia expose marginalized urban river-dwellers to the traumatic prospect of forced relocation and social and economic upheaval. Finally, drawing on research on citizenship in post-colonial settings, we conceptualize climate change as an 'open moment' of political rupture, and propose strategies of social accountability, empowerment and trans-disciplinary research which encourage the marginalized to reach out for greater power. These achievements could reduce drawbacks of state legibility and facilitate socially-just governmental action on climate change adaptation that promotes health for all.
本文审视了这样一种观点，即认为气候变化健康风险知识差距是不公正的，必须加以解决，因为这些差距阻碍了以证据为导向的干预措施，以保护弱势群体。首先，我们构建了一个由六种相互关联的隐形形式（社会边缘化、移民的强制隐形、空间边缘化、被忽视的疾病、心理健康、不均匀的气候监测和预测）组成的分类法，这些隐形形式是导致目前对拉丁美洲这些风险的理解存在系统性偏见的基础，并倡导一种利用交叉性理论来解决这些相互关系的气候-健康研究方法。我们认为，这些隐形现象应该被理解为权力和资源结构失衡的结果，而不是科学和国家知识中的随意盲点。我们的论点借鉴了治理理论，认为取决于背景的紧张关系决定了使弱势群体为国家所理解的好处是否超过了成本。可见性意味着在政治上被计算和有资格获得权利，但证据表明，对无权者的可见性存在危险。例如，在偏远的亚马逊地区的洪水救援工作使边缘化的城市河滨居民面临被迫搬迁和社会经济动荡的创伤性前景。最后，借鉴后殖民背景下的公民身份研究，我们将气候变化概念化为政治破裂的“开放时刻”，并提出社会问责、赋权和跨学科研究的策略，鼓励边缘化群体争取更大的权力。这些成就可以减少国家可见性的弊端，并促进以社会公正为导向的气候变化适应行动，为所有人促进健康。
