“灾难之源:后3.11日本认识新视角圆桌讨论”评注

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
Gregory Clancey
{"title":"“灾难之源:后3.11日本认识新视角圆桌讨论”评注","authors":"Gregory Clancey","doi":"10.1080/18752160.2021.2000206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The roundtable on 3.11 had the ambitious goal of tracing how the so-called triple disaster in Japan “changed our ways of knowing the world.” The variety of concerns, methodologies, and research sites brought into this discussion demonstrates how difficult that is to fully discern, even a decade later. This would be true of any largescale disaster, but particularly one in which a nuclear meltdown is nested within a “thousand-year” tsunami, and with the added circumstance of having been witnessed globally in real-time. “Sources,” to use a keyword from the roundtable, expand and amplify quickly following any large disaster, and the ripples of opinion widen far beyond the experts and officials who the day before had been quietly managing the condition of normality. Historians and social scientists are attracted to disaster sites for this very reason: the proliferation of voices, images, and texts, and the ways they overlay and conflict as they compete to define what happened and why. Disasters scale up preexisting controversies, create new ones, and influence how we frame the ones that follow. And just as the “return to normal” never really happens, arriving at postdisaster lessons is an ongoing political process and not just an observational or interpretive one. Scholars like myself and those who have participated in the roundtable can be drawn into disaster recovery as observers, interpreters, and chroniclers, but there remain limits to our influence on what is remembered, forgotten, planned, and implemented in the aftermath. We can certainly apply our skills and talents, however, as many of the participants have done here, to analyzing the complicated process of lesson-making: what has been taught and learned, by whom, and toward what purpose. Any short-list of how 3.11 changed the world would have to include the following: an increase in preexisting suspicions about nuclear power; a humbling of scientific and engineering communities involved with earthquake prediction and anti-seismic design; a deepened appreciation of the speed and scale at which even well-fortified","PeriodicalId":45255,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal","volume":"47 1","pages":"497 - 500"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary on “Sources of Disaster: A Roundtable Discussion on New Epistemic Perspectives in Post-3.11 Japan”\",\"authors\":\"Gregory Clancey\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/18752160.2021.2000206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The roundtable on 3.11 had the ambitious goal of tracing how the so-called triple disaster in Japan “changed our ways of knowing the world.” The variety of concerns, methodologies, and research sites brought into this discussion demonstrates how difficult that is to fully discern, even a decade later. This would be true of any largescale disaster, but particularly one in which a nuclear meltdown is nested within a “thousand-year” tsunami, and with the added circumstance of having been witnessed globally in real-time. “Sources,” to use a keyword from the roundtable, expand and amplify quickly following any large disaster, and the ripples of opinion widen far beyond the experts and officials who the day before had been quietly managing the condition of normality. Historians and social scientists are attracted to disaster sites for this very reason: the proliferation of voices, images, and texts, and the ways they overlay and conflict as they compete to define what happened and why. Disasters scale up preexisting controversies, create new ones, and influence how we frame the ones that follow. And just as the “return to normal” never really happens, arriving at postdisaster lessons is an ongoing political process and not just an observational or interpretive one. Scholars like myself and those who have participated in the roundtable can be drawn into disaster recovery as observers, interpreters, and chroniclers, but there remain limits to our influence on what is remembered, forgotten, planned, and implemented in the aftermath. We can certainly apply our skills and talents, however, as many of the participants have done here, to analyzing the complicated process of lesson-making: what has been taught and learned, by whom, and toward what purpose. Any short-list of how 3.11 changed the world would have to include the following: an increase in preexisting suspicions about nuclear power; a humbling of scientific and engineering communities involved with earthquake prediction and anti-seismic design; a deepened appreciation of the speed and scale at which even well-fortified\",\"PeriodicalId\":45255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"497 - 500\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2021.2000206\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2021.2000206","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

11月3日的圆桌会议有一个雄心勃勃的目标,即追踪所谓的日本三重灾难如何“改变了我们认识世界的方式”。讨论中涉及的各种关注点、方法和研究地点表明,即使在十年之后,也很难完全辨别出来。任何大规模的灾难都是如此,尤其是在一场“千年一遇”的海啸中嵌套着一场核熔毁,而且全球都能实时目睹这种情况。用圆桌会议上的一个关键词来说,“消息来源”在任何重大灾难发生后都会迅速扩大和放大,而舆论的涟漪远远超出了前一天还在悄悄地维持正常状态的专家和官员。历史学家和社会科学家之所以被灾难现场所吸引,正是因为这个原因:声音、图像和文本的激增,以及它们相互重叠和冲突的方式,因为它们竞相定义发生了什么以及为什么发生。灾难扩大了先前存在的争议,创造了新的争议,并影响了我们如何构建接下来的争议。正如“回归正常”从未真正发生过一样,吸取灾后教训是一个持续的政治过程,而不仅仅是一个观察或解释的过程。像我这样的学者和那些参加圆桌会议的人可以作为观察员、解释者和编年史者参与灾难恢复,但我们对灾后记忆、遗忘、计划和实施的影响仍然有限。我们当然可以运用我们的技能和才能,然而,正如这里的许多参与者所做的那样,分析复杂的课程制作过程:教了什么,学了什么,由谁教的,目的是什么。任何关于3.11如何改变世界的简短清单都必须包括以下几点:增加了对核能的先前存在的怀疑;使参与地震预测和抗震设计的科学和工程团体感到谦卑;加深了对速度和规模的认识,即使是防御严密的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Commentary on “Sources of Disaster: A Roundtable Discussion on New Epistemic Perspectives in Post-3.11 Japan”
The roundtable on 3.11 had the ambitious goal of tracing how the so-called triple disaster in Japan “changed our ways of knowing the world.” The variety of concerns, methodologies, and research sites brought into this discussion demonstrates how difficult that is to fully discern, even a decade later. This would be true of any largescale disaster, but particularly one in which a nuclear meltdown is nested within a “thousand-year” tsunami, and with the added circumstance of having been witnessed globally in real-time. “Sources,” to use a keyword from the roundtable, expand and amplify quickly following any large disaster, and the ripples of opinion widen far beyond the experts and officials who the day before had been quietly managing the condition of normality. Historians and social scientists are attracted to disaster sites for this very reason: the proliferation of voices, images, and texts, and the ways they overlay and conflict as they compete to define what happened and why. Disasters scale up preexisting controversies, create new ones, and influence how we frame the ones that follow. And just as the “return to normal” never really happens, arriving at postdisaster lessons is an ongoing political process and not just an observational or interpretive one. Scholars like myself and those who have participated in the roundtable can be drawn into disaster recovery as observers, interpreters, and chroniclers, but there remain limits to our influence on what is remembered, forgotten, planned, and implemented in the aftermath. We can certainly apply our skills and talents, however, as many of the participants have done here, to analyzing the complicated process of lesson-making: what has been taught and learned, by whom, and toward what purpose. Any short-list of how 3.11 changed the world would have to include the following: an increase in preexisting suspicions about nuclear power; a humbling of scientific and engineering communities involved with earthquake prediction and anti-seismic design; a deepened appreciation of the speed and scale at which even well-fortified
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信