公平卻不見得正義：美國環境公平政策的分析

Abstract

在環境正義的領域裡，用語的問題一直是爭論的焦點。而環境公平（Environmental Equity）一詞，大概又是當中最難以區辨、也最常引發爭議的一個。為了釐清爭議，本文試圖採取社會理論的視角，通過美國環保署著名的《環境公平：為所有社區降低風險》報告，來疏理環境公平一詞背後所背負的歷史性與階段性意義。質言之，本文仔細耙梳了環境公平裡的「不義性」，並說明為什麼美國環保署一開始接受了環境公平這個概念，並認為只有這個詞最適合用來引導他們的政策，但最後卻又決定放棄該詞。此外，本文還將利用「以言行事」（doing things with words）的理論，來對環境公平報告書進行多重操演性 (performativity）的分析，並透過對「實作」（practice）的強調來探索新法論上新的可能。

In the language of environmental justice (EJ), environmental racism, equity and justice are often considered interchangeable. Using detailed historical exposition in tandem with the analysis of performativity, this article seeks to demonstrate that these terms in fact exist in particular reference frames and therefore should not be considered conflated. Special attention is paid to US EPA’s 1992 Environmental Equity Report. It is argued that, after the publication of the 1992 report EJ is widely considered a “scientific” issue. This scientific understanding is however by no means value-free, as this report implicitly inclined to support a particular value judgement, which moulds, and sometimes even distorts, our understanding of EJ. This article suggests that although understanding EJ through a scientific lens is tempting, a just society cannot be achieved merely through scientific research. Therefore, EJ research should move towards a deeper understanding on performativity questions.