Auyero and Swistun write that the eyes of the people of Flammable were neither fully closed nor fully opened. The essential question is “How in the midst of a slow-motion toxic disaster in which children have high levels of lead and where the air and water that residents breathe and drink are highly contaminated, can Flammable dwellers allow themselves to doubt about (or, worse deny) the “hard facts” of industrial pollution.” (p 93)
1) Thinking about toxic uncertainty/confusion,
Describe the concept.
Discuss what made it possible in Flammable.
Discuss two political, two economic, and two social factors that contributed to its existence and persistence. To support the factors you discuss, please use specific examples from the book.
Why was there little, if any, collective action on the part of the residents of Flammable?
Connect the toxic uncertainty/confusion of the people who live in Flammable with those who live in Donaldsonville, LA.
Take a position on if, and how, toxic uncertainty/confusion relates to your own life and provide supportive evidence for either stance. (Consider that toxic pollution may be more subtle in some places)
2) Describe the concept of environmental suffering and how it relates to the people of Flammable and Donaldsonville.
3) What did you learn from reading this book and what, if anything, resonated for you?
Sample Solution
