Toxic sites sat in volunteers’ actual backyards yet were treated as distant

Evidence

As one volunteer pointed out, nearly all the ¢sh had died, and all the ¢shing clubs had died as well. Certainly, these issues were not literally distant,'' or removed.” Literally, these problems were in their backyards. — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 29

Categorization

• XREF: Challenges proximity-based theories of engagement; resonates with the reader’s project of finding solidarity mechanisms beyond threat/out-group proximity. — connects to: Volunteers classify nearby catastrophic hazards as ‘not close to home’ — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 20; Volunteers justify engagement by geographic proximity of a problem — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 25

Related

• Volunteers classify nearby catastrophic hazards as ‘not close to home’ (similarity 0.89)
• Volunteers justify engagement by geographic proximity of a problem (similarity 0.89)
• Volunteers notice when their ‘close to home’ rationale fails to explain their own care (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Volunteers justify engagement by geographic proximity of a problem #corroborates (0.75) — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 25