The question of site safety has restarted the debate on the French ‘nucleocracy’.
In The World after Fukushima the Japanese nuclear sector is associated with a form
of autocratic rule. In Nuclear Power: the French Exception (Nucléaire: exception
française) [61] the sector is said to be dangerous, inevitably leading to a militarized
and centralized police state. The narrator reminds us of the post-Fukushima context:
Germany and Switzerland are planning their exit from nuclear power; Italians
declare their opposition to the revival of the sector; and Japan stops the operation of
its facilities. France, however, refuses to give up atomic power, “Our governments
have made nuclear power a state religion, protected by an all-powerful technocracy” [61]. French dogmatism is presented as an obstacle to common sense: despite
the Fukushima accident, the state wants to preserve the industry, which it sees as the
guarantor of energy independence and French influence.
Critics of the Japanese and French nuclear sector have united to denounce
authoritarian abuses of the system and promote a more separatist society.
Documentaries reflect this aspiration, which has emerged from the anti-nuclear
movement, by showing the effects of the accident on Japanese civil society. In these
representations, the crisis provokes an unprecedented mobilization of the population. New solidarity networks emerged spontaneously. The clearance of contaminated zones has united volunteers from throughout the archipelago, “Me and my
parents are from Hiroshima. So we feel particularly affected by radioactivity. So I
came here to help” [51]. The victims of military and civilian atomic power appear
to belong to a community with a shared destiny.
Such documentaries highlight collective resilience and the re-conquest of social
action. The organization ‘The Renaissance of Fukushima’ brings together farmers,
doctors, psychologists, geologists, physicists and retirees. Their mission is to make
“the invisible visible” [38]. Members measure soil contamination, exchange data
and expertise, and try to find solutions to restart agriculture. The accident interrupted the ancestral practice of working the land. Recovery symbolizes their hope
of a renaissance in the contaminated areas.
These images reflect a constellation of positive initiatives and interactions:
sharing knowledge and skills, establishing a support system, strengthening links
between mankind and nature, and thinking about the meaning of community. The
social balance that was destroyed by the disaster must be reconstituted. According
to one farmer, “This nuclear accident, it’s not only about Fukushima. We all need
to take responsibility because we let ourselves be overwhelmed by nuclear power.
We must be united and think together” [37]. Local action celebrates the struggle for
life, while radioactivity causes necrosis. This neo-activism contrasts with the vertical management of the disaster. We are witnessing the emergence of an alternative
society, driven by a deep desire for autonomy, which could regenerate the foundations of democracy.
17
17
The sociopolitical implications of these initiatives should however be carefully noted, “Since
March 11, we have seen the growing importance of local action. But we cannot say if this is a
positive development, a move to greater autonomy and better cooperation” [62].
152
A. Portelli
In The World after Fukushima the Japanese nuclear sector is associated with a form
of autocratic rule. In Nuclear Power: the French Exception (Nucléaire: exception
française) [61] the sector is said to be dangerous, inevitably leading to a militarized
and centralized police state. The narrator reminds us of the post-Fukushima context:
Germany and Switzerland are planning their exit from nuclear power; Italians
declare their opposition to the revival of the sector; and Japan stops the operation of
its facilities. France, however, refuses to give up atomic power, “Our governments
have made nuclear power a state religion, protected by an all-powerful technocracy” [61]. French dogmatism is presented as an obstacle to common sense: despite
the Fukushima accident, the state wants to preserve the industry, which it sees as the
guarantor of energy independence and French influence.
Critics of the Japanese and French nuclear sector have united to denounce
authoritarian abuses of the system and promote a more separatist society.
Documentaries reflect this aspiration, which has emerged from the anti-nuclear
movement, by showing the effects of the accident on Japanese civil society. In these
representations, the crisis provokes an unprecedented mobilization of the population. New solidarity networks emerged spontaneously. The clearance of contaminated zones has united volunteers from throughout the archipelago, “Me and my
parents are from Hiroshima. So we feel particularly affected by radioactivity. So I
came here to help” [51]. The victims of military and civilian atomic power appear
to belong to a community with a shared destiny.
Such documentaries highlight collective resilience and the re-conquest of social
action. The organization ‘The Renaissance of Fukushima’ brings together farmers,
doctors, psychologists, geologists, physicists and retirees. Their mission is to make
“the invisible visible” [38]. Members measure soil contamination, exchange data
and expertise, and try to find solutions to restart agriculture. The accident interrupted the ancestral practice of working the land. Recovery symbolizes their hope
of a renaissance in the contaminated areas.
These images reflect a constellation of positive initiatives and interactions:
sharing knowledge and skills, establishing a support system, strengthening links
between mankind and nature, and thinking about the meaning of community. The
social balance that was destroyed by the disaster must be reconstituted. According
to one farmer, “This nuclear accident, it’s not only about Fukushima. We all need
to take responsibility because we let ourselves be overwhelmed by nuclear power.
We must be united and think together” [37]. Local action celebrates the struggle for
life, while radioactivity causes necrosis. This neo-activism contrasts with the vertical management of the disaster. We are witnessing the emergence of an alternative
society, driven by a deep desire for autonomy, which could regenerate the foundations of democracy.
17
17
The sociopolitical implications of these initiatives should however be carefully noted, “Since
March 11, we have seen the growing importance of local action. But we cannot say if this is a
positive development, a move to greater autonomy and better cooperation” [62].
152
A. Portelli