Minerva

, 47:119 | Cite as

Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea

Article

Abstract

STS research has devoted relatively little attention to the promotion and reception of science and technology by non-scientific actors and institutions. One consequence is that the relationship of science and technology to political power has tended to remain undertheorized. This article aims to fill that gap by introducing the concept of “sociotechnical imaginaries.” Through a comparative examination of the development and regulation of nuclear power in the US and South Korea, the article demonstrates the analytic potential of the imaginaries concept. Although nuclear power and nationhood have long been imagined together in both countries, the nature of those imaginations has remained strikingly different. In the US, the state’s central move was to present itself as a responsible regulator of a potentially runaway technology that demands effective “containment.” In South Korea, the dominant imaginary was of “atoms for development” which the state not only imported but incorporated into its scientific, technological and political practices. In turn, these disparate imaginaries have underwritten very different responses to a variety of nuclear shocks and challenges, such as Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and the spread of the anti-nuclear movement.

Keywords

Sociotechnical imaginary Nuclear power Science and technology policy Comparative policy US South Korea 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF Award No. SES-0724133) for the research on which this paper is based. The paper has benefited from comments on an earlier draft by two anonymous reviewers and by Peter Weingart, editor of Minerva.

References

  1. Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, revised ed. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1968. Long-term plan of research, development and use of nuclear energy. Seoul: AEC (in Korean).Google Scholar
  4. Bijker, W.E., T. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.). 1987. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borup, M., N. Brown, K. Konrad, and H. Van Lente. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18 (3/4): 285–298.Google Scholar
  6. Bowker, G.C., and S.L. Star. 2000. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brickman, R., S. Jasanoff, and T. Ilgen. 1985. Controlling chemicals: The politics of regulation in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Castoriadis, C. 1987. The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cumings, B. 1998. On the strategy and morality of American nuclear policy in Korea, 1950 to the present. Social Science Japan Journal 1 (1): 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DOE/WIPP. 2004. Permanent markers implementation plan: Waste isolation pilot plant, Carlsbad, New Mexico, DOE/WIPP 04–2301. Carlsbad: DOE Carlsbad Field Office.Google Scholar
  12. Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 2000. Litigation life: Law-science knowledge construction in (Bendectin) mass toxic tort litigation. Social Studies of Science 30 (2): 265–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenhower, D.D. 1953 (December 8). Atoms for peace. Address to 470th Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.Google Scholar
  14. Elam, M. 1997. National imaginations and systems of innovation. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 157–173. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. El-Haj, N.A. 2001. Facts on the ground: Archaeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ezrahi, Y. 1990. The descent of Icarus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fortun, K., and M. Fortun. 2005. Scientific imaginaries and ethical plateaus in contemporary U.S. toxicology. American Anthropologist 107 (1): 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  19. Freudenburg, W.R., and T.R. Jones. 1991. Attitudes and stress in the presence of technological risk: A test of the supreme court hypothesis. Social Forces 69 (4): 1143–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fujimura, J. 2003. Future imaginaries: Genome scientists as sociocultural entrepreneurs. In Genetic nature/culture: Anthropology and science between the two-culture divide, eds. A.H. Goodman, D. Heath, and M.S. Lindee, 176–199. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gallup Korea. 1986. A national public opinion survey on nuclear power. Seoul: Gallup Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  22. Gamson, W.A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ha, Y.-S. 1982. Republic of (South) Korea. In Nuclear power in developing countries: An analysis of decisionmaking, eds. J.E. Katz, and O. Marwah, 221–244. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  24. Hayes, P., and T. Shorrock. 1982a. Dumping reactors in Asia: The U.S. Export–Import Bank and nuclear power in South Korea (1). Japan-Asia Quarterly 14 (1): 30–35.Google Scholar
  25. Hayes, P., and T. Shorrock. 1982b. Dumping reactors in Asia: The U.S. Export–Import Bank and nuclear power in South Korea (2). Japan-Asia Quarterly 14 (2): 16–23.Google Scholar
  26. Hecht, G. 1998. The radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after World War II. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hedgecoe, A., and P. Martin. 2003. Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 327–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hilgartner, S. 2000. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hwang, B.-J. 2004. Dominant discourse of the Park Chung Hee regime and the nationalization of the masses. In Mass dictatorship 1: Between coercion and consent, eds. J.-H. Lim, and Y.-W. Kim, 475–517. Seoul: Chaeksesang (in Korean).Google Scholar
  30. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2008. Nuclear technology review. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
  31. Jang, M.-S., and S.R. Lee (eds.). 2006. Reading dictatorship at the border of modernity: Mass dictatorship and the Park Chung Hee regime. Seoul: Green-bi (in Korean).Google Scholar
  32. Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jasanoff, S. 1995. Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology, ed. M. Bauer, 311–331. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jasanoff, S. (ed.). 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jasanoff, S. 2006. Technology as a site and object of politics. In Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis, eds. C. Tilly, and R. Goodin, 745–763. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Jasanoff, S., G. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch (eds.). 1995. Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Jo, H.S. 1989. Controversy over the safety of nuclear power plants-11 and -12: Korean nuclear power at the crossroads. Donga Science 45: 36–42 (in Korean).Google Scholar
  39. Kim, B.H. 2003. Sasanggye’s theory of economic development, how different was it from that of the Park Chung-Hee regime?: Developmentalism against developmentalism. Political Critique 10: 345–380 (in Korean).Google Scholar
  40. Kim, H.-A. 2004. Korea’s development under Park Chung Hee: Rapid industrialization, 1961–1979. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, S.-J. 2005 (April 28). Two American scientific reports on Korean atomic energy in the late 1950s. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Korean History of Science Society, Seoul, South Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  42. Kim, B.H. 2006. Economic development under the Park Chung Hee regime: Nationalism and development. Seoul: Galmuri Publishing House (in Korean).Google Scholar
  43. Kim, C.-K., and S.-I. Cho. 2004. The structure and dynamics of social conflict around nuclear waste facility: Focusing on Buan struggle. Economy and Society 63: 12–39 (in Korean).Google Scholar
  44. Kim, Y.-W., and J.-H. Lim (eds.). 2005. Mass dictatorship 2: Political religion and hegemony. Seoul: Chaeksesang (in Korean).Google Scholar
  45. Kinsella, W.J. 2001. Nuclear boundaries: Material and discursive containment at the Hanford nuclear reservation. Science as Culture 10 (2): 163–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koh, D.S. 1992. The establishment of the Korea atomic institute and its background. Journal of the Korean History of Science Society 14 (1): 62–87 (in Korean).Google Scholar
  47. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). 1979. Twenty-year history of Korean atomic energy. Daejeon: KAERI (in Korean).Google Scholar
  48. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). 1990. Thirty-year history of Korean atomic energy: 1959–1989. Daejeon: KAERI (in Korean).Google Scholar
  49. Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. (KHNP). 2009. White paper on nuclear power. Seoul: Ministry of Knowledge Economy (in Korean).Google Scholar
  50. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS). 1998. White paper on nuclear safety. Seoul: Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST).Google Scholar
  51. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS). 2000. Ten-year history of the Korea institute of nuclear safety. Daejeon: KINS (in Korean).Google Scholar
  52. Korea Nuclear Society (KNS). 1994. A study on the formulation of long-term nuclear energy policy directions for Korea. Seoul: MOST (in Korean).Google Scholar
  53. Korea Pollution Research Institute (KPRI). 1987. Pollution research No. 16: Nuclear power and the Korean peninsula. Seoul: KPRI (in Korean).Google Scholar
  54. Korea Power Engineering Company Inc. (KOPEC). 1984. Design studies on the standardization of nuclear power plants. Seoul: MOST (in Korean).Google Scholar
  55. Ku, D.-W. 1996. Sociology of Korea’s environmental movements. Seoul: Moonji Publishing Co. (in Korean).Google Scholar
  56. Latour, B. 1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Shaping technology/building society, eds. W.E. Bijker, and J. Law, 225–258. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. MacFarlane, A. 2003. Underlying Yucca mountain: The interplay of geology and policy in nuclear waste disposal. Social Studies of Science 33 (5): 783–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. MacKenzie, D. 1990. Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. MacKenzie, D. 1996. Knowing machines: Essays on technical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Marcus, G.E. (ed.). 1995. Technoscientific imaginaries: Conversations, profiles, and memoirs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Ministry of Unification (MOU). 1996. White paper on Korean unification. Seoul: MOU.Google Scholar
  62. Mora, C.J. 1999. Sandia and the waste isolation pilot plant, 1974–1999, SAND99–1482. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories.Google Scholar
  63. Mukerji, C. 1989. A fragile power: Scientists and the state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Nadel, A. 1995. Containment culture: American narratives, postmodernism and the atomic age. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  65. O, W.C. 1994. Nuclear development in Korea in the 1970s. Pacific Research 7 (4): 11–18.Google Scholar
  66. Park, C.H. 1966 (May 19). Address to the First National Congress of Scientists and Technologists, Seoul, South Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  67. Park, C.H. 1967 (September 6). A prospectus for the Korea Science and Technology Supporters’ Association, Seoul, South Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  68. Park, C.-T. 1992. The experience of nuclear power development in the Republic of Korea: Growth and future challenge. Energy Policy 20 (8): 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Park, J.-M. 1995. Locally based anti-nuclear movements and citizen’s participation: A comparative analysis on four cases of anti-nuclear facilities movements. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, Seoul National University (in Korean).Google Scholar
  70. Park, H.-H. 1998. Political opportunity structure and political Protest: A case study of protest against the nuclear waste siting policy at Koolup island. M.A. Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Seoul National University (in Korean).Google Scholar
  71. Park, I.-S. 1999a. The hidden history of Korean atomic energy. Seoul: Kwahak Munhwa Sa (in Korean).Google Scholar
  72. Park, I.K. 1999b. A Study on the conflicts over the implementation of national policy projects: The case of the construction of Younggwang nuclear power plants. M.A. Dissertation, Department of Environmental Planning, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University (in Korean).Google Scholar
  73. Rhee, S. 1956 (September 17). Address to the Atoms for Peace Exhibition, Seoul, South Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  74. Said, E.W. 1978. Imaginative geography and its representations: Orientalizing the oriental. In Orientalism, 49–73. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  75. Sarewitz, D. 1996. Frontiers of illusion: Science, technology, and the politics of progress. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Scott, J.C. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Sharp, T., and E. Poff. 2008. Understanding and preventing nuclear terrorism. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearterrorism/articles/111408_understanding_preventing_nuclear_terrorism/ (visited December 2008).
  78. Shin, G.W. 1995. Marxism, anti-Americanism and democracy in South Korea: An examination of nationalist intellectual discourse. Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 3 (2): 508–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shorrock, T. 1982. How the South Korean energy program has been saving the U.S. nuclear industry: U.S. taxpayers have paid, through the Eximbank, $2.5 billion for Westinghouse sales. Multinational Monitor 3(3), http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1982/03/southkorea.html (visited May 2008).
  80. Shorrock, T. 1983. Nuclear dangers in South Korea: World Bank document reveals serious safety problems. Multinational Monitor 4(2), http://www.multinationalmonitor.com/hyper/issues/1983/02/shorrock-nuclear.html (visited May 2008).
  81. Siegel, A.D. 1987. The aftermath of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v. NRDC: A broader notion of judicial deference to agency expertise. Harvard Environmental Law Review 11: 331–380.Google Scholar
  82. Slovic, P. 2000. The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  83. Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis 2 (2): 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sunder Rajan, K. 2005. Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Sung, C.S., and S.K. Hong. 1999. Development process of nuclear power industry in a developing country: Korean experience and implications. Technovation 19 (5): 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sunstein, C. 2005. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Taylor, C. 2004. Modern social imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Tong, K.W. 1991. Korea’s forgotten atomic bomb victims. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 23: 31–37.Google Scholar
  89. Weart, S.R. 1988. Nuclear fear: A history of images. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Willens, H. 1984. The trimtab factor: How business executives can help solve the nuclear weapons crisis. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  91. Winner, L. 1986. Do artifacts have politics? In The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology, 19–39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  92. Wynne, B. 1982. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain. Chalfont St. Giles: British Society for the History of Science.Google Scholar
  93. Wynne, B. 1987. Risk management and hazardous waste: Implementation and the dialectics of credibility. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  94. Wynne, B. 2005. Reflexing complexity: Post-genomic knowledge and reductionist returns in public science. Theory Culture & Society 22 (5): 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Yun, S.-J. 2006. Looking at the selection process of low and medium level radioactive waste disposal site from an environmental justice perspective. ECO 10 (1): 7–42 (in Korean).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations