Redemption and Nutopia: The Scope of Nuclear Critique in International Studies

Abstract

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. AbstractWhat should the scope of nuclear critique within international studies be? This article addresses that question by making two interrelated arguments. First that political programmes of international nuclear order are crucially underpinned by what is termed here as 'nutopianism': a mode of understanding nuclear power that is imbued with a spirit of technological optimism in relation to 'peaceful' nuclear power, but simultaneously qualified by an awareness of the destructive uses and catastrophic potentialities of nuclear weapons. Second, that such nutopianism is in turn predicated on the 'saving power' of 'the atom': the assumption that nuclear power has redeeming features crucial to human progress and economic prosperity, the development of which should be facilitated within the structures of international order. The article makes the case that critical thought within international studies focuses on nuclear weapons with international order, but has tended to remain largely silent on the issue of 'civil' nuclear power beyond nuclear weapons and the complex imbrications between the two. On that basis the article considers whether a more holistic and expansive form of nuclear critique is both possible and necessary.

Nuclear governmentality: Governing nuclear security and radiation risk in post-Fukushima Japan

“…Nuclear governmentality is a logic of government that demands the elicitation of atomic energies known to be hazardous for biological life, but promises to domesticate dangerousness with utopian applications (Peoples, 2016) and command and control protocols. Nuclear governmentality promises multi-layered state security while acknowledging the potential for catastrophic risks, which are rendered actionable through bureaucratic administration, emergency planning, and radiation protection.…”

Narrative and nuclear weapons politics: the entelechial force of the nuclear origin myth

“…IR literature has engaged with narrative as inter alia a means of understanding causality, notably in the causes of war, 17 a means through which to establish national identity and 14 Burke 2016. 15 Works include but are not limited to Abraham 2006;Biswas 2014;Booth 2007;Burke 2009;Considine 2017;Cooper 2006;Egeland 2021;Fishel, 2015;Pelopidas 2016Pelopidas , 2011Peoples 2016;Ritchie 2014Ritchie , 2013. 16 Hagström and Gustafsson 2019.…”

“…26 The purpose of the narrative ordering of events in time provides one answer to Shepherd's question of 'what does narrative do, analytically' in contrast to 'discourse' or 'ideas'. 27 15 Studies include but are not limited to Booth 1999;Abraham 2006;Burke 2016;Biswas 2014;Ritchie 2014Ritchie , 2013Fishel, 2015;Pelopidas 2016Pelopidas , 2011Peoples 2016;Considine 2017;Egeland 2021. 16 Hagström and Gustafsson 2019.…”

Nuclear Weapons Scholarship as a Case of Self-Censorship in Security Studies

“…Explicitly reflexive security studies scholars have not sustainably addressed nuclear weapons issues in spite of moments of engagement-that is, the post-Cold War, the Obama administration following the 2009 Prague speech, and the humanitarian impact initiative (Booth and Wheeler 1992;Burke 2009;Masco 2015;Peoples 2016;Ritchie 2012Ritchie , 2013. As a consequence, Buzan and Hansen's (2009, 21) remark that "the majority of writings in ISS [International Security Studies] do not go to great length to discuss their analytical, normative, and epistemological assumptions" also applies to nuclear studies.…”