Any accident expresses a conflict that manifests as an imbalance between human
and/or non-human entities. In the case of Fukushima Daiichi, it concerns two
‘energy’ entities: the plant and its environment. These are social and cultural
constructions and embody antagonistic forces.
The nuclear power plant can be described in very simple or very complex terms.
It can be seen as: a simple technical device that generates electricity; as a
socio-technical system that regulates functional relationships between humans and
machines, and between it and its environment; or in terms of a combination of
human and non-human elements linked by a struggle for physical or political
power. At the same time, it is the result of human activity, which is called into
question from the moment it is unable to recover from the nuclear accident. Its
energy takes multiple forms.
7
The plant’s environment is overwhelmed and transformed by natural forces: a
magnitude 9.0 earthquake, followed by a tsunami.
Each of the three protagonists—the earthquake, the tsunami, and the nuclear
power plant—has destructive potential, leading to an examination of the relationship between nature and the nuclear plant. In this context, the disaster represents an
increase in entropy. Can it be seen as the last stage in a conflict? Using Marc
Bloch’s war metaphor, does the disaster that follows the accident and the disaster
put an end to the conflict? “A last resort for the resolution of political disputes, war
must be used to end a conflict and allow a return to equilibrium, even if fragile.
However, modernity sterilises this organized violence, the capacity for destruction,
the sacrifices are so great that they make it impossible to go back”.
8
4.2 The Gift Paradigm
The second paradigm is that of the gift [9]. Unlike the market, reciprocal gift-giving
corresponds to an exchange that has no beginning or end. Although the giving of a
gift should not correspond to a state of indebtedness, it is nevertheless the position
the receiver finds themselves in. In turn, reciprocating the gift makes the new
receiver indebted. The event that led to the catastrophe can be considered as part of
this relational system.
Three consequences arise. First, the system creates a long-term context,
assuming that gifts continue to be exchanged. Should the receiver not reciprocate,
the donor has a hold over them. Second, the gift that is given in return is never the
formal equivalent of the initial gift, and the new giver must demonstrate the
superiority of their gift to the initial giver. Third, the power that is expressed by
the gift giver and the recipient who reciprocates makes a lasting impact on their
7
This observation is not based on technical arguments; it simply refers to the ability of the nuclear
reactor to destroy its own cooling mechanisms.
8
Quoted by Emilio Gentile in L’apocalypse de la modernité, la grande guerre et l’homme nouveau
[The Apocalypse of Modernity, the Great War and the New Man], Flammarion, 2011, p. 171.
Does the Concept of Loss Orient Risk Prevention Policy?
27
and/or non-human entities. In the case of Fukushima Daiichi, it concerns two
‘energy’ entities: the plant and its environment. These are social and cultural
constructions and embody antagonistic forces.
The nuclear power plant can be described in very simple or very complex terms.
It can be seen as: a simple technical device that generates electricity; as a
socio-technical system that regulates functional relationships between humans and
machines, and between it and its environment; or in terms of a combination of
human and non-human elements linked by a struggle for physical or political
power. At the same time, it is the result of human activity, which is called into
question from the moment it is unable to recover from the nuclear accident. Its
energy takes multiple forms.
7
The plant’s environment is overwhelmed and transformed by natural forces: a
magnitude 9.0 earthquake, followed by a tsunami.
Each of the three protagonists—the earthquake, the tsunami, and the nuclear
power plant—has destructive potential, leading to an examination of the relationship between nature and the nuclear plant. In this context, the disaster represents an
increase in entropy. Can it be seen as the last stage in a conflict? Using Marc
Bloch’s war metaphor, does the disaster that follows the accident and the disaster
put an end to the conflict? “A last resort for the resolution of political disputes, war
must be used to end a conflict and allow a return to equilibrium, even if fragile.
However, modernity sterilises this organized violence, the capacity for destruction,
the sacrifices are so great that they make it impossible to go back”.
8
4.2 The Gift Paradigm
The second paradigm is that of the gift [9]. Unlike the market, reciprocal gift-giving
corresponds to an exchange that has no beginning or end. Although the giving of a
gift should not correspond to a state of indebtedness, it is nevertheless the position
the receiver finds themselves in. In turn, reciprocating the gift makes the new
receiver indebted. The event that led to the catastrophe can be considered as part of
this relational system.
Three consequences arise. First, the system creates a long-term context,
assuming that gifts continue to be exchanged. Should the receiver not reciprocate,
the donor has a hold over them. Second, the gift that is given in return is never the
formal equivalent of the initial gift, and the new giver must demonstrate the
superiority of their gift to the initial giver. Third, the power that is expressed by
the gift giver and the recipient who reciprocates makes a lasting impact on their
7
This observation is not based on technical arguments; it simply refers to the ability of the nuclear
reactor to destroy its own cooling mechanisms.
8
Quoted by Emilio Gentile in L’apocalypse de la modernité, la grande guerre et l’homme nouveau
[The Apocalypse of Modernity, the Great War and the New Man], Flammarion, 2011, p. 171.
Does the Concept of Loss Orient Risk Prevention Policy?
27