Metropolitan Networks: A Socio-spatial Analysis of Social Ties in Tehran

Abstract

Previous research shows that residents of metropolitan areas tend to have social ties outside their neighborhoods, but ties’ locations and what they indicate in terms of social relations and urban structure are not sufficiently studied. Using survey data and interviews collected in Tehran, Iran, I examine the level of propinquity of strong social ties. Measuring the geographical distance and relative orientation between participants and their ties, I discuss the implications of having ties outside residential neighborhoods. I examine how these relations are formed and sustained and analyze how they impact class relations and perceptions of social structure. Results indicate that ties who reside in other neighborhoods offer points of reference for situating oneself in relation to others, both in socioeconomic and cultural sense. Participants’ narratives suggest that ties’ locations, together with ties’ origins and types, impact interpretations of group relations and social hierarchies associated with location in the metropolitan area.

The Social Life of the “Forever Chemical”

“…Th e creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 marked a period of landmark reforms aimed at reining in the excesses of industrial pollution "externalized by capitalist ledger books" (Murphy 2017: 495) and shift ed onto people, the environment, and future generations. But environmental governance quickly became a site of competing agendas, with corporations mobilizing through trade associations and similar organizations to infl uence regulatory actions (Hepler-Smith 2019; Richter et al 2020). State institutions are also susceptible to regulatory capture by industry, leading to "deep capture" during antiregulatory neoliberal times (Dietrich 2013).…”

“…Despite many successes since the 1970s, the regulatory system also contributes to the perpetuation of toxic pollution (Fortun 2001;Hepler-Smith 2019;Murphy 2004). Federal laws such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 exempted existing chemicals, meaning thousands of substances, including PFOA and PFOS, simply eluded scrutiny from scientists outside of industry (Richter et al 2020). DuPont, for instance, began studies of PFOA toxicology in the 1960s and 3M was collecting data on worker exposure in the 1970s.…”

“…DuPont, for instance, began studies of PFOA toxicology in the 1960s and 3M was collecting data on worker exposure in the 1970s. But PFOA did not become a focus of concern for regulators until the late 1990s and early 2000s because the companies failed to disclose their internal data about human exposure and health risks (Bilott 2019;Richter et al 2020). Th e TSCA was also designed to allow quick marketing of new chemical products, to protect confi dential business information, and to require regulators to demonstrate harm before acting, even when they lack the necessary data and analytical methods, concealed by industry, to evaluate toxicity.…”

“…Th is limits the ability to meaningfully review chemicals, "producing selective ignorance" and instilling a "culture of forbidden [corporate] knowledge within the EPA" (Richter et al 2020). Without the ability to independently test chemicals, the EPA oft en relies on industry to selfreport concerns.…”

“…For decades, industry simply asserted that PFAS were safe (Bilott 2019). In the fi rst reform since its inception, the 2016 Lautenberg Act updated the TSCA to establish new chemical prioritization rules for EPA oversight and new notifi cation and reporting requirements, but under the Trump administration EPA leadership was slow to implement changes that would favor public health over industry chemical use (Richter et al 2020). As the nationwide PFAS crisis grows, it is clear now that the EPA's corporate-friendly regulatory structure trickles down in the form of tremendous gaps in data and spheres of ignorance among independent scientists and state regulators who seek to understand the impacts of PFAS.…”