Introduction 7
building to some extent on museology and more broadly on studies of popular culture. 20 Nuclear heritage studies encompass the broader atomic cultures, including imaginaries, artifacts, architectures, and institutions. As
research from the emerging field of nuclear cultural heritage studies has
pointed out, the relevance of atomic heritage becomes visible in its material, relational, and representational features. 21 This opens up for the study
of entangled histories and relational networks – from situated technologies,
planning, modes of governing, and expertise to everyday practices. Such a
more plural approach to things nuclear allows different actors, social groups,
and publics to engage with matters kept secret during the Cold War era and,
in parts of Central Asia and Russia, subject to secrecy again after a short
opening during the 1990s and early 2000s.
The chapters in this volume show how the heritage of the atom in the
former Soviet space has become manifest in urban planning (Guth) and
public monuments (Bauer), museums, and literature (Kaibach), artistic productions (Castringius), archival documents, legal legacies (Penter), specific
stocks of medical knowledge (Sembritzki), and everyday practices (Roche).
Moreover, memory work also takes place through the very scientific data
labor aimed at documenting the impact of nuclear testing, including the
work to navigate the layering of open and secret materials for risk assessment and mitigation of radiation effects (Nikonova, Bauer). Especially given
the decades of secrecy and an “information boom,” followed again by new
restrictions for many of these sites, we believe it is worthwhile to probe
both the concept of heritage and legacies. The latter can function as generative heuristics to examine the heterogeneous assemblages of the post-Soviet
nuclear complex.
For this volume, the concept of legacy allows us to render visible and
articulate concerns linked to lingering shadows of the past, hauntings that
might have been secret, covered up, or forgotten over time, but which can
still materialize quite violently in the present and/or the future. Heritage, in
contrast, denotes an active seizing, interpreting, or configuring of the past.
As Gisela Welz notes (in her study of heritage and food in Cyprus), “heritage
does not exist prior to preservation,” but rather is “the result of purposeful
action.” 22 Often this is guided by standards that are external to the context
and developed along with heritage making. This approach builds on studies of value and valuation as well as on studies of heritage production. 23 It
offers an interesting mode of connecting the chapters in this volume – from
where they were situated in the nuclear production, supply, and usage chain
in the first strand to the question of how they feature if we place them on a
continuum of legacy and heritage – when we define legacy as the uncanny,
uncertain consequences of the nuclear industries and heritage as the purposeful production of memory and memorialization of an era of the past or
the active shaping of products for the future. Here, for instance, the atomic
landscape gardens of urban planning in Aktau/Shevchenko (Guth) would
feature into an account of the heritage of modernist utopia, while the shadow
building to some extent on museology and more broadly on studies of popular culture. 20 Nuclear heritage studies encompass the broader atomic cultures, including imaginaries, artifacts, architectures, and institutions. As
research from the emerging field of nuclear cultural heritage studies has
pointed out, the relevance of atomic heritage becomes visible in its material, relational, and representational features. 21 This opens up for the study
of entangled histories and relational networks – from situated technologies,
planning, modes of governing, and expertise to everyday practices. Such a
more plural approach to things nuclear allows different actors, social groups,
and publics to engage with matters kept secret during the Cold War era and,
in parts of Central Asia and Russia, subject to secrecy again after a short
opening during the 1990s and early 2000s.
The chapters in this volume show how the heritage of the atom in the
former Soviet space has become manifest in urban planning (Guth) and
public monuments (Bauer), museums, and literature (Kaibach), artistic productions (Castringius), archival documents, legal legacies (Penter), specific
stocks of medical knowledge (Sembritzki), and everyday practices (Roche).
Moreover, memory work also takes place through the very scientific data
labor aimed at documenting the impact of nuclear testing, including the
work to navigate the layering of open and secret materials for risk assessment and mitigation of radiation effects (Nikonova, Bauer). Especially given
the decades of secrecy and an “information boom,” followed again by new
restrictions for many of these sites, we believe it is worthwhile to probe
both the concept of heritage and legacies. The latter can function as generative heuristics to examine the heterogeneous assemblages of the post-Soviet
nuclear complex.
For this volume, the concept of legacy allows us to render visible and
articulate concerns linked to lingering shadows of the past, hauntings that
might have been secret, covered up, or forgotten over time, but which can
still materialize quite violently in the present and/or the future. Heritage, in
contrast, denotes an active seizing, interpreting, or configuring of the past.
As Gisela Welz notes (in her study of heritage and food in Cyprus), “heritage
does not exist prior to preservation,” but rather is “the result of purposeful
action.” 22 Often this is guided by standards that are external to the context
and developed along with heritage making. This approach builds on studies of value and valuation as well as on studies of heritage production. 23 It
offers an interesting mode of connecting the chapters in this volume – from
where they were situated in the nuclear production, supply, and usage chain
in the first strand to the question of how they feature if we place them on a
continuum of legacy and heritage – when we define legacy as the uncanny,
uncertain consequences of the nuclear industries and heritage as the purposeful production of memory and memorialization of an era of the past or
the active shaping of products for the future. Here, for instance, the atomic
landscape gardens of urban planning in Aktau/Shevchenko (Guth) would
feature into an account of the heritage of modernist utopia, while the shadow