打开文本图片集
[摘要]本文从科学史的视角,运用科技与社会研究中的争议研究法,把环境正义的实证研究当成研究的标的,依照其所使用的分析工具与方法,分为三波不同的研究浪潮。在分析了环境正义实证研究的三波浪潮后,作者发现,环境(不)正义的范围与内涵不是一成不变的,而是会随着时间的推移而不断变迁的。在第一波浪潮里,科学证据显示收入与种族在美国全国范围内都起着作用。进入第二波浪潮后,虽然研究者依然承认收入与种族的重要性,但却宣称环境不正义只是地方性的问题,而非全国性的议题;除此之外,此时的研究者还强调转变研究方法与观察重心的重要,这使得环境正义研究由结果取向转变到过程取向的研究上。到了第三波浪潮时,种族议题完全被逐出研究范畴之外,即便这波研究者承认收入影响了地方层次的场址选定,但却强调因为整个研究尚不完备,因此纵然是高质量的研究,也不应该在决策过程中讨论。总的来说,环境正义运动已经越来越难从科学社群中获得奥援了!本文强调,纵使我们可以在短时期内忽视科学证据的问题,但从长远来看,没有科学作为运动的后盾必将减损运动的正当性。
[关键词]环境正义;科学知识;邻避;科技与社会
[中图分类号]B82-058[文献标识码]A[文章编号]1674-6848(2010)04-0027-16
[作者简介]黄之栋(1977—),男,台湾人,英国爱丁堡大学社会暨政治学院(School of Social and Political Studies)博士,现任职于台湾交通大学通识中心环境史研究室,主要从事环境正义、科技与社会、左翼思想等研究;黄瑞祺(1954—),男,台湾台北市人,社会学博士,台湾“中央研究院”欧美研究所研究员,主要从事欧美社会政治理论、全球化及生态社会学等研究。(台湾台北11529)
[收稿日期]2010-06-30
The Debate of Environmental Justice: a Historical Analysis on Environmental Justice Research
■Chin-Tung HuangRuey-Chiy Hwang
Abstract: After scrutinising the history of empirical environmental justice(EJ) researches, three successive waves, we argue, can be identified according to their similarities in terms of scale of analysis, statistical methodologies, and most importantly their common focus. By observing scopes and contents of scientific evidences, we conclude that the support of sciences for the EJ movement is getting weaker than that of before. Broadly, both races and incomes are statistically significant on the national scale in the first wave. However, despite races and incomes still being important, no American nationwide evidences can be found in the second wave. Moreover, researchers of this wave argued that people should focus on the intent in discrimination, rather than the fact of exposure. Finally, races were totally excluded from considerations of the third-wave EJ researchers. Although re-searchers still considered that the correlation of incomes can be found in a small scale, because of the immaturity of empirical EJ researches, none of them should be taken into consideration in the policy decision-making process. In sum, the evidence that can be adopted to support the EJ movement was growing less and less. Even though the science is no longer a “reliable friend”, the question is that “can we promote EJ without the support of sciences?”.We suggest in conclusion that it would be a serious mistake to discount the importance of scientific researches, since the EJ movement still needs sciences to provide a scientifically or “really” necessary way to foster an equal distribution of the environmental quality. After all, the final goal of EJ movement is to find a solution, rather than simply to prove the fact of injustice.
Key words: environmental justice (EJ); scientific knowledge; NIMBY; STS
一、绪论:环境正义的社会建构
自1980年代后期以降,人们开始注意到,尽管大家都希望享受清新的空气、干净的饮水与良好的环境,但实际的情况却是:有些地方空气污浊难耐,有些巷口脏乱不堪,更有些土壤受到工业废弃物的严重污染。很显然,虽然大家对自身所处的环境都有所期待,但环境损益(“goods” and“bads”)却绝非平均分配,社会中往往有一群人承担了不成比例的环境风险与危害。
为了描述这种不成比例的风险承担,论者创建了诸多环境正义相关用语,如环境种族主义、环境公平等;也开始了一连串的调查与研究,希望借由提供正确的环境信息,来促使政府正视这类由环境负荷不公正分配所产生的社会问题 (Maples ,2003; 石山德子,2004)。在社会运动工作者致力增进民众对环境正义的理解与社会学家钻研环境不正义的前因后果之下,环境正义的概念渐渐为大众所理解,环境正义运动也随之如火如荼地开展。