Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:48:05.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Howling Winds: Sound, Sense, and the Politics of Noise Regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2019

Michael Mopas
Michael Mopas*
Affiliation:
Sociology & Anthropology Carleton [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores attempts made in North America to govern noise and uses the current debates over the impact of wind turbines on human health as a site for examining the politics of noise regulation. I address a number of key questions: First, how has noise been defined and how have these definitions changed over time? Second, how have we tried to control noise and on what grounds have we done this? Lastly, how have our responses to noise been shaped by who is making the noise and who is being disturbed? I argue that our understandings of noise and how we regulate it cannot be disentangled from the broader social, political, cultural, and technological contexts in which these discussions take place. Ultimately, the debates about noise regulation have as much to do with who is making the noise and who is being disturbed as the noise, itself.

Résumé

Cet article explore les tentatives de gestion des bruits utilisées en Amérique du Nord. Les débats actuels relatifs à l’impact des éoliennes sur la santé humaine seront examinés afin d’étudier les politiques de régulation du bruit. J’aborde, dans cet article, un certain nombre de questions clés. Premièrement, de quelle manière le bruit a-t-il été défini, et comment ces définitions ont-elles évolué au fil du temps? Deuxièmement, de quelle façon avons-nous tenté de contrôler le bruit, et sur quels motifs ces tentatives s’appuyaient-elles? Dernièrement, de quelle manière nos réponses au bruit ont-elles été façonnées par les personnes qui produisent le bruit et par celles qui sont affectées par celui-ci? J’argüe que notre compréhension du bruit, ainsi que la façon dont nous le réglementons, ne peuvent être dissociées des contextes sociaux, politiques, culturels et technologiques plus larges dans lesquels ces discussions se déroulent. Ultimement, les débats sur la régulation du bruit se rapportent autant aux personnes qui sont responsables du bruit et celles qui sont perturbés par ce dernier, que le bruit lui-même.

Keywords

soundnoiseregulationurbanruralSonbruitrèglementationurbainrural
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 34 , Special Issue 2: Vers une déstabilisation du sensorium du droit: Étude de la jurisprudence des sens / Troubling Law’s Sensorium: Explorations in Sensational Jurisprudence , August 2019 , pp. 307 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Bailey, P. 1996. Breaking the sound barrier: A historian listens to noise. Body & Society 2 (2): 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijsterveld, K. 2008. Mechanical sound: Technology, culture and public problems of noise in the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bijsterveld, K. 2001. The diabolical symphony of the mechanical age: Technology and symbolism of sound in European and American noise abatement campaigns, 1900-40. Social Studies of Science 31 (1): 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dembe, A. 1996. Occupation and disease: How social factors affect the conception of work-related disorders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). N.D. Noise: A challenge to cities (pamphlet). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Fine, S. 2014. Legal battle over Ontario wind turbine farm may redefine “harm.” The Globe and Mail. <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/legal-battle-over-ontario-wind-turbine-farm-may-redefine-harm/article21714017/> (Last accessed: July 12, 2018)Google Scholar
Flynn, D., Leasure, W., Rubin, A., and Cadoff, M.. 1977. Noise regulation measurement for regulatory purposes. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Health Canada. 2014. Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results. <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca> (Last accessed: July 12, 2018)+(Last+accessed:+July+12,+2018)>Google Scholar
Hendy, D. 2014. Noise: A human history of sound and listening. London: Harper Collins Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry 30: 225–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, L. 1964. The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Novak, D. 2015. Noise. In Keywords in Sound, ed. Novak, D. and Sakakeeny, M., 125–38. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkel, C. 2018. Rural families hit legal dead end in fight against Ontario wind turbine projects. The Globe and Mail. <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rural-families-hit-legal-dead-end-in-fight-against-ontario-wind-turbine-projects/article24723735/> (Last accessed: July 12, 2018)Google Scholar
Picker, J. 1999. The soundproof study: Victorian professionals, work space, and urban noise. Victorian Studies 42 (3): 427–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radovac, L. 2011. The “war on noise”: Sound and space in La Guardia’s New York. American Quarterly 63 (3): 733–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. 2014. Causing a Racket: Unpacking the elements of cultural capital in an assessment of urban noise control, live music, and the quiet enjoyment of private property. Osgoode Hall Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series 10 (15): 1–36.Google Scholar
Sewald, R. 2011. Forced listening: The contested use of loudspeakers for commercial political messages in the public soundscape. American Quarterly 63 (3): 761–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. 2012. The Garden in the Machine: Listening to early American industrialization. In The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies , ed. Pinch, T. and Bijsterveld, K., 39–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Valverde, M. 2011. Seeing Like a City: The dialectic of modern and premodern ways of seeing in urban governance. Law & Society Review 45 (2): 277–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valverde, M., and Mopas, M.. 2004. Insecurity and the Dream of Targeted Governance. In Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces , ed. Larner, W. and Walters, W., 233–50. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Legislation and by-laws cited

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 7, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.19Google Scholar
Noise By-law, By-law no. 2017-255, a By-law of the City of Ottawa respecting noisesGoogle Scholar
Noise Control Act of 1972, P.L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234, 42 U.S.C. § 4901 – 42 U.S.C. § 4918.Google Scholar

Court and tribunal cases cited

Dixon v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, 2014 ONSC 7404 (CanLII)Google Scholar
Kroeplin v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, 2014 ONSC 7404 (CanLII)Google Scholar