David Nagiuib Pellow's 'Slums Of Aspen'

Jacob Langstaff
SOCY 4047
Essay 4

In The Slums of Aspen, authors Lisa Sun-Hee Park and David Nagiuib Pellow examine the two distinct lifestyles that exist in Aspen, CO. These are the wealthy privileged community and the low-income workers, particularly Latino immigrants, that allow it to be “heaven on earth” (Park and Pellow, 2011). Park and Pellow contend that while the Aspen elite represent themselves as environmentally conscious, they continue to make decisions that counter that claim. This environmental privilege is due to a misguided logic that creates a disconnection between the way of life in a place like Aspen and the environmental and social issues that make it achievable.
One of the primary arguments of the book was the explanation for how this privilege is maintained. They contend that environmental privilege results from social, political, and economic power that one group attains over another that enables them exclusive access. This can be seen through the ski prices as the immigrant workers could not afford to access the mountain. Another reason for this continued privilege is seen in the way the workers are treated and left feeling. Some workers have to drive over one hundred miles round trip due to the inability to afford closer

housing. One Mexicana worker explained that as a Latino you don’t feel as if you fit in. She described that the concern for the residents is that loss of exclusivity. Another interviewee described a time when she tried to buy a sweater only to have the salesperson ask her if she could afford it. The resident’s privilege is also closely tied to their quality of life. By claiming their environmentalism is in effort to preserve their way of life, they reveal that their lifestyle comes at the domination of both the environment and the low-income workers that allow it to exist. Helping to support this privilege is the connection between the environmental and nativist movements.
Another important argument of the book was the link between environmentalism and the efforts to control certain groups. Nativist environmentalism can be viewed as a political movement seeking racial exclusivity to certain places. It also was described as a form of racism rooted around a sense of entitlement centered on socio-ecological importance. In 1999, the city council passed a resolution petitioning Congress to restrict the number of immigrants entering the United States. Their reasoning for this was reducing the negative impact of immigrants on the environment. Complaints included exhaust pollution from older cars and fear of overpopulation. While this is occurring, they continue to approve the construction of luxurious vacation homes that include heated driveways. The authors highlighted some contradictions of this type of environmentalism. The first is found in what they termed “Aspen Logic”. Within Aspen Logic, capitalism and environmentalism are considered allies. This has been disputed in class discussions as well as in The Slums of Aspen as scholar James Speth believes capitalism is not compatible with ecological sustainability or social justice.
The other contradiction in nativist environmentalism focuses on the town’s anti-immigration mentality all while being dependent on their presence.

This provides a real life example to the disconnection of a way of life and the social aspects that make it possible. The immigrants make just enough money to skate by and are stuck living in a trailer located within a flood zone. Park and Pellow contend that it is these conditions that are essential to the creation of the image of a “pristine, post-industrial refuge” (Park and Pellow, 2011). Further contributing to this image is the keeping of immigrants in the backrooms of businesses to allow the wealthy the ability to enjoy the surroundings without unwanted social

elements.
I find the book’s primary contribution to the scholarship on “environmental justice” to be the approach they take in conducting their research. Using a strategy also seen in the documentary Fenceline: A Company Town Divided, the authors focus on the perspective of the oppressed group. I believe the best way to show issues of environmental injustice is by the telling of real life stories. Using personal testimony allows the audience to get a better understand of the problems occurring. Hearing from immigrants that they feel unwanted yet wealthy residents confirming their importance just highlights the masking of the roots to these problems. This type of research also allows a group who would normally not have a voice, the opportunity to be heard. I find the book’s primary limitation to be while they did give evidence to the problem, the authors didn’t provide steps to address the inequalities that they brought to light. While highlighting things such as the need for those at the top to finally realize the reality of the situation. For environmental injustice to be eliminated, they must first give up their privileges. They don’t give a plan to how you would convince them to do this.
Refining Expertise dives into another case of environmental injustice situated in New Sarpy, Louisiana. Located next to a refinery, concerned citizens engaged in an example of an environmental David vs. Goliath story as they battled for the relocation away from it and the bettering of the environment for those who wanted to stay. Author Gwen Ottinger helped highlight the need for activists to reconfigure their activities in response to the way companies are now framing themselves to de-fang their opposition. Some primary arguments of the book included illustrating the way in which companies frame themselves now with the lack of enforced regulatory protection. Ottinger points at that companies use exercises of power as a last resort within the United States. Instead of steamrolling the community opposition, they accommodate the community with a variety of complaints without actually addressing the issue of community health. She classified it as a form of “passive revolution”, which undermines the unity of counter-hegemonic forces while reinforcing the company’s dominance in this instance. This goes along with a second argument raised. The refining experts’ use of neoliberal ideas and policies to shield from criticism and opposition.
By ensuring a system of community-industry dialogue, they can help eliminate regulatory agency participation. This type of system allows industries to mask the fact that citizens have little influence on company behavior behind panels that convey equality between industry and community residents. This provides them a way to assert their expertise and authority in a “down-to-earth” way that people can relate to rather than being “know-it-alls who will not listen to community members” (Ottinger, 2013). Another argument raised was the necessity for citizen participation during environmental policy creation to combat expert-dominated policy making. This helps to challenge expert authority over policy issues that can have a significant impact on citizens. The author points out however that taking a stand against a company can negatively impact the community as well. Activists claiming that the community is unlivable hurts the community image and quality just as much as industry can. In this case by publicizing their complaints, CNSS members risked future investments coming into the community such as homeowners looking to raise their families.
I found Refining Expertise’s primary contribution to the scholarship on “environmental justice” to be the illustration of the way in which industry operates within the United States. Losing the aggressive nature towards opposition and going towards an attitude of cooperation with communities has allowed them to achieve their goals without additional opposition. Working to facilitate a variety of community complaints and concerns has allowed companies to gain the trust of communities without actually addressing the central concern on community health. Doing this provides company experts’ the ability to bring in their expert knowledge and not have it questioned. Ottinger raising the alarm on this notion gives evidence to the need for democratizing environmental policy by incorporating the insights of the public and not just relying on science being the foundation of decision making. Local knowledge from residents should also be incorporated.
The primary limitation of this book was her strategy of arguing the inability of residents to make an informed choice. Ottinger claims that by emphasizing social inequalities and limitations of science, informed choices are “an idealization at best” (Ottinger, 2013). Due to the ever-changing nature of science, it could then be argued that you could never make an informed decision as the science we now know might one day be disproven, altered, or supplemented. Viewing the situation in this way eliminates the concept of informed choice as we will never fully understand science nor all the variables that can go into the complexity of social inequality. This only serves to continue the denial of those who believe they are enterprising individuals. Therefore I believe this argument could end up becoming counterproductive. It could create more division within the community and not just provide a case for relocation.