Environmentalism is a global phenomenon since environmental issues have gained mainstream attention over the last century. Environmental movements are complex, plural, and of much research interest to sociological scholarship in an era of diverse and intense environmental transformation. Kerala is an important region for environmental activism in India, where various movements emerged in response to multiple environmental challenges ranging from forest loss to industrial pollution. However, scholarly attention has been restricted to specific environmental movements, such as the Silent Valley movement and the anti-Coca-Cola struggle, and environmentalism in Kerala has not been explored in a comprehensive manner.

My Ph.D. thesis explores environmentalism in Kerala through the lenses of science, legality, and subjectivity. I focus on relevant environmental movement case studies and also draw from my experiences participating in environmental movement activities in different parts of Kerala. I critically engage with the tensions associated with the increased use of science (scientization) and law (juridification) in environmental movements and reflect upon the implications of such use for the future of environmentalism. Subsequently, I delve into the formation of environmental subjectivities (subjectification) through activists’ embodied practices.

First, I present the case of endosulfan poisoning as an instance of controversy over scientific evidence and uncertainty about causality emerging from agriculture scientists’ insistence on proof of etiology that has effectively jeopardized justice for endosulfan victims. I ask fundamental questions about what knowledge counts as evidence, how various scientific and political interests shape the nature of evidence, and how this whole process denies or delays justice to the victims. I show that the epistemological positioning used by agriculture scientists to define and argue the health impacts of toxicants like endosulfan is rooted in the narrow scope of regulatory science where linear causes and effects are quantified, and environments and human bodies are conceptualized as ontologically separate entities. On the other hand, environmentalists recognize the complex materiality of endosulfan, making it difficult to standardize, manage and predict its toxic impacts. They champion an all-encompassing view of science that accounts for human suffering and the complex and temporally delayed harmful effects of industrial chemicals.