Chernobyl's Sixth Sense: The Symbolism of an Ever‐Present Awareness

Abstract

This article examines the symbolic life of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. I argue that Chernobyl symbols serve as a set of resources: they produce memory, and they are the grounds for making a new society. My analyses are based on representations of Chernobyl in academic and popular discourse, literature, and museums. Through discussions of embodiment and collective memory, I argue that Chernobyl has produced a sort of sixth sense or "awareness-plus" among those who share the experience of the disaster.That terrible Japanese catastrophe that was at Hiroshima-the nuclear bomb-it was terribly bright, hot, and of course the radiation was devastating, but it does not compare to Chernobyl. Because Chernobyl continues to exist even in peacetime: it doesn't hit, doesn't bite, doesn't burn, doesn't shine, doesn't boil, doesn't whisper. We can only see with instruments that radionuclides are there. 1

Toxic Heritage

“…Under this framework, a multitude of national storytellers (civil society actors, independent media outlets, official representatives, etc.) have mobilized the public health crisis in support of a moral-political argument about historical responsibility, with the Soviet regime's ineptitude and Moscow's disregard for Ukrainians occupying a central position therein (Petryna 1995;Phillips 2004;Zhukova 2018). This narrative casts the toxic legacy of the radionuclides unleashed by the Chernobyl fire as a materialization of the toxic legacy of Soviet rule.…”

Between Communicative Interaction and Structures of Signification: Discourse Theory and Analysis in International Relations

“…Discourse analysis , then, examines what is achieved by using particular discursive repertoires and strategies and which dimensions of reality and options for political action are included and excluded by specific representations of reality. It is fundamentally concerned with the politics of representation, for example, the definition of and the answers given to particularly dramatic events in international politics, such as the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962 (Weldes and Saco ), an environmental catastrophe such as Chernobyl (Philipps ), or mass killings within an ethnic conflict such as those happening in Bosnia (Kent ) or in the Darfur region in Sudan since 2004 (Steele ). For all of these events, there is a range of possible interpretations, even though the material effects of these incidents appear to be overwhelmingly real at first.…”

From ontological security to cultural trauma

“…Our understanding of how Ukraine and Belarus, the societies most traumatised by Chernobyl, interpreted the Chernobyl reactor before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and how this interpretation changed over time remains limited. The existing Chernobyl literature mostly focuses on single-case research and there has never been any comparative analysis over time between Belarus (Kasperski, 2012; Kuchinskaya, 2014; Stsiapanau, 2010) and Ukraine (Petryna, 2002; Phillips, 2006; Wanner, 1998). Belarus had a three times greater percentage of its territory contaminated (23.5% versus 7%) and a five times greater percentage of its population affected (35% versus 7%) than Ukraine.…”