Public technology: nuclear energy in Europe

ABSTRACT

The concept of ‘public science’ has been fruitfully used to indicate the intricate interrelatedness of science and society. In studies of knowledge and its publics, however, technology has been routinely subsumed under science and the distinctive nature of technical knowledge neglected. We are aiming in this article at conceptualizing the public nature of technologies. First, we start with surveying the literature on public science. Second, we scrutinize various conceptual approaches to better understand the social and cultural factors embedded in technologies. In so doing, we reflect upon the twentieth-century history of technologies as public things. Third, we focus on nuclear energy in Europe as an exemplary case of a large-scale technology which has been shaped as part of public culture. We suggest that the specificities of the nuclear as a publicly shaped societal entity can be understood as an example of the wider category we propose to call ‘public technologies’.

KEYWORDS:

• Public technology
• nuclear energy
• exhibitions
• public protest
• Europe

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was generously funded by the Euratom research and training programme 2014–2018 under Grant number 662268. – We are very grateful to our colleagues from the European collaborative project HoNESt (History of Nuclear Energy and Society), in particular to Arne Kaijser, as well as to Martin Collins, Alexander Gall, Christian Götter, and Astrid Kirchhof and to the journal’s editors Tiago Saraiva and Amy Slaton for their invaluable inputs.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. See for instance Bensaude-Vincent, “Historical Perspective”; Nieto-Galan, Science in the Public Sphere.

2. Bensaude-Vincent and Blondel, Science and Spectacle; Hochadel, “A Shock to the Public”; Hochadel, Öffentliche Wissenschaft; Cooter and Pumfrey, “Separate Spheres and Public Places.”

3. Golinski, Science as Public Culture.

4. See e.g. Harris, Cultural Excursions, which highlights the coincidence of the maturation of the department store, the world’s fair and the museum at the end of the nineteenth century to ‘fuse American narratives regarding technology, consumption, and modernity’, quoted from Mechling and Mechling, “The Atom,” 438. Before him of course classically Walter Benjamin, see Benjamin, Arcades Project.

5. Rödder, Franzen and Weingart, Sciences’ Media Connection; Weingart, Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit; Schirrmacher, “Popular Science as Cultural Dispositif”; Nieto-Galan, Science in the Public Sphere; Bowler, Science for All.

6. On mode 2 see Gibbons et al., New Production of Knowledge, and the criticial evaluation of the concept by Shinn, “Triple Helix,” which points to the long-standing continuities rather than sudden ruptures in the cultures of Knowledge production. On mode 3 see Carayannis and Campbell, “Mode 3”, and Carayannis, Campbell and Rehman, “Mode 3 knowledge.”

7. Philips, Acolytes of Nature; Clark, Schaffer and Golinski, The Sciences in Enlightened Europe.

8. On nineteenth-century concepts of the enthusiast members of the public as scientists see Morrell and Thackray, Gentlemen of Science. On the emergence of contemporary concepts see Stilgoe, Lock, and Wilsdon, “Why Should We Promote Public Engagement with Science?”.

9. See for example Blume, Immunization; Bud, Penicillin.

10. See for instance Bensaude-Vincent et al., “Matters of Interest” and Nordmann, Science versus Technoscience, who Nordmann has defined Technoscience as ‘the knowledge-production of homo faber that often uses scientific representations (e.g. theories, models, diagrams) to make things work.’ “Science vs Technoscience.”

11. On the concept of a technology as a brand see Bud, “Science, Brands and the Museum.” It should be pointed out that the particularities of technical work – the machines, skills and systems – involved in the practice of science have also been, historically, overlooked.

12. Randall, “Reinterpreting ‘Luddism’.”

13. For the complex meaning and history of the word ‘technology’, see Schatzberg, Technology.

14. Staudenmaier, Technology’s Storytellers.

15. Alder, “Focus Thick Things,” 80. The papers published in the Forum introduced by Alder each deal with technological things: bombs and polygraphs (Alder), mined uranium (Hecht), dams (Bijker), “technical entities” (Latour) and ‘technological world pictures’ (Tresch). Similiarly Latour and Weibel, Making Things Public, and Saraiva, Fascist Pigs.

16. Oldenziel and Hård, Consumers, Tinkerers, Rebels.

17. Edgerton, Shock of the Old, 212.

18. See e.g. Russell and Vinsell, “Let’s Get Excited about Maintenance.”

19. Jasanoff, “Future Imperfect,” 4.

20. Grunwald, “Techno-visionary Sciences,” 26; see also Grunwald, “Energy futures”; and Grunwald, Technikzukünfte als Medium.

21. Fraunholz, Hänseroth and Woschech, “Hochmoderne Visionen und Utopien”; More general, Scott, Seeing like a State. This can also be compared with the „sociology of expectations,“ developed by Harro van Lente and other colleagues; see for instance, Lente, “Navigating Foresight”; Borup et al., “Sociology of Expectations.”

22. McCray, Visioneers, 14. See also Nordmann, “Visioneering Assessment.”

23. Mody, The Long Arm of Moore’s Law.

24. Callon, Lascoumes and Barthe, Acting in an Uncertain World. Particularly in France the book has been under attack for being politically naïve. See for instance Fuller, “The New Behemoth,” which claims that the concept of the public as a free entity independent of stakeholders in new technologies is naïve.

25. Welsh, “Anti-Nuclear Movements.”

26. See for example, Bauer, Biotechnology; Langford, Timothy and Timothy, “Public Reactions”; Horlick-Jones and Prades, “On Interpretative Risk;” Walls et al., “Critical Trust”; See also Markovits and Deutsch, Fear of Science-Trust; Weingart and Guenther, “Science Communication”; and the response by Gregory, “Price of Trust”; and Irwin and Horst, “Communicating Trust”.

27. This was the theme of the volumes which so far constitute the Making Europe: Technology: Technology and Transformations 1850–2000 book series: Oldenziel and Hård, Consumers, Tinkerers, Rebels; Kohlrausch and Trischler, Building Europe on Expertise; Kaiser and Shot, Writing the Rules; Högselius, Kaijser and van der Vleuten, Europe’s Infrastructure Transition; Diogo and van Laak, Europeans Globalizing.

28. For a detailed study of this process, see Schatzberg, Technology.

29. See for instance Greenhalgh, Modern Ideal; Kittler, Gramophone.

30. Rieger, Technology and the Culture of Modernity; Fraunholz and Woschech, Technology Fiction; Russell, “Picturing the Imperator”; In a broad perspective, Herbert, “Europe in High Modernity”; see also Bud, Greenhalgh and Shiach, Being Modern; and for the US the classic study by Nye, American Technological Sublime.

31. Schirrmacher, “Kosmos, Koralle und Kultur-Milieu”; Gall, “Wunder der Technik”; See also the case study by Belgum, Popularizing the Nation.

32. Neufeld, “Weimar Culture.”

33. Geppert, “European Astrofuturism,” 8; see also Geppert, “Rethinking the Space Age.”

34. Siddiqui, The Red Rockets’Glare.

35. On the modernity of the bicycle see Oldenziel, “Whose Modernism”; see also Oldenziel and de la Bruhèze, “Contested Spaces.”

36. The literature on the car in prewar life is of course enormous. See for instance, O’Connell, Car and British Society; Rieger, People’s Car; Kline and Pinch, “Users as Agents of Technological Change”; on the role of tacit knowledge and tinkering in early automotive cultures see Möser, “Driver in the Machine.” The motor cycle too repays attention, see for example Koerner, “British Motor-Cycle Industry.” For the bicycle see the classic study by Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs; and recently Oldenziel et al., Cycling Cities.

37. As was shown in 2016 in the excellent exhibition ‘Radio Contact: Tuning in to Politics, Technology, and Culture’ at The Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments of Harvard University. See also Haring, Ham Radio’s Technical Culture and Keith, Radio Cultures.

38. Floyd Gibbons, first broadcast 1929, in Adventures in Science, General Electric program outline for broadcasts, 2 November 1929 to 10 October 1931. Over NBC – WEAF, 9:30–10:30 PM, Fogler library, University of Maine.

39. Syon, Zeppelin.

40. Heyer, Titanic Century.

41. The crash of the Hindenburg is one of the key themes in the opera ‘Three Tales’ by Steve Reich and Beryl Korot See http://www.stevereich.com/threetales_lib.html and http://www.stevereich.com/threetales_info.html (accessed 5 March 2018).

42. Fahlenbrach, “Ikonen in der Geschichte.”

43. Perrow, Normal Accidents; See also Burnham, Accident Prone; and Boudia and Jas, “Risk and Risk Society.” For a treatment of the concept of the risk society originally developed by Ulrich Beck, see Adam, Beck and Joost Van Loon, Risk Society and Beyond.

44. Cronon, “A Place for Stories.” See also the recent boom of studies in Ecocriticism, e.g. Limmer, Umwelt im Roman.

45. Ceadel, “Popular Fiction”; Moskowitz, “Atom Smashers”; Brian, Nuclear Holocausts.

46. The entire film is available on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atwfWEKz00U (accessed 6 March 2018). About the film see Frayling, Things to Come; Richards, “Things to Come.”

47. Kaiser, “The Atomic Secret”; Press Schwartz, Making of the History; Kaiser, “History.” These historians point out that the public emphasis on the science behind the bomb was part of an intentional campaign to obscure how much technical detail was not being released and expertise not being revealed.

48. Cook, “Against God-Inspired”; Girard, Strange and Formidable Weapon; Lepick, Grande Guerre Chimique; Onghena, “Survival of 19th-Century”; Hahn, “Erfinder als Erlöser.”

49. Ede, “Abraham Cressy Morrison”; Ede, “The Natural Defense”; Rhees, “Corporate Advertising”; Bennet, Science Service; Thackray et al., Chemistry in America.

50. Beard, Whither Mankind. It begins with Beard’s observation: “Anxiety about the values and future of civilization is real. It has crept out of the cloister and appears in the forum and market place.”

51. See the work of the research project “Material Cultures of Energy” led by Frank Trentmann, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/mce/ (accessed 5 March 2018). For a reflection on the contrasts between the political economics of coal and oil see Mitchell, Carbon Democracy.

52. Thorsheim, Inventing Pollution.

53. Boon, “The Smoke Menace.”

54. Gruenberg, Science and the Public; Kuznick, “Losing the World.” On world’s fairs on the eve of Second World War, see Kargon et al., eds. World’s Fairs. For an introduction to the literature more generally, see Greenhalgh, Ephemeral Vistas.

55. See Bud, “Museums Theme.”

56. Wisnioski: Engineers for Change. For a contemporary view, see the OECD report by Brooks, Science Growth and Society.

57. Irwin, “Risk, Technology, and Modernity.”

58. For a critical discussion on ‘nuclear exceptionalism’, see Kalmbach, “Revisiting the nuclear age.” – Energy historian Vaclav Smil goes so far as to qualify nuclear energy as the first truly radical technical innovation after the big spur of new technologies in the decades prior to First World War, see Smil, Creating the Twentieth Century.

59. See Weart, Nuclear Fear.

60. For the concept of nuclearity see Hecht, “Nuclear Ontologies.”

61. See Braun et al., Joseph Rotblat; Brown, Keeper of Nuclear; Laucht, “Atoms for the People.”

62. The 24 December attendance figures were given in the Dundee Courier 25 December 1947; the same paper had reported the speech by Norman Feather in ‘Atom Train in City Next Week‘, 18 December 1947 and the speech by the mayor at the opening in ‘Steam vies with Atom Train’, 23 December 1947; the popularity of different sections was reported in ‘Last Day of Atom Train Exhibition’, 24 December 1947.

63. Hahn, “Nutzbarmachung der Energie.”

64. Krige, American Hegemony; Krige, “Atoms for Peace;” Krige, “Building the Arsenal.”

65. Mechling and Mechling, “The Atom According to Disney.”

66. See Schroeder-Gudehus and Cloutier, “Popularizing Science.”

67. Merritt and Merritt, Public Opinion, 246–247.

68. Königsberger, Vernetztes System?, 247–251.

69. As Radkau argues for the German case; see Radkau, Aufstieg und Krise, 87. Interestingly a later edition was entitled, Aufstieg und Fall der deutschen Atomwirtschaft (2013).

70. Lente, Nuclear Age; see also O’Brian: Atomic Postcards; Weart: Nuclear Fear; Forgan: “Atoms in Wonderland;” Jolivette, British Art.

71. The “Material Cultures of Energy” project has explored the international experience of power cuts. See such outputs as Chappells and Trentmann, “Disruption in and across Time” and Shin and Trentmann, “The Material Politics of Energy Disruption.” See also Högselius et al., Making of Europe’s Critical Infrastructure.

72. Henriksen, Dr. Strangelove’s America.

73. Belot, L’atome et la France, and Hecht, Radiance of France.

74. Lorenz, Protest der Physiker.

75. Kölnische Rundschau, 7 August 1956, quoted after Rusinek: Forschungszentrum, 226.

76. Rough, “Policy Learning.” See also Parkhill et al., “From the Familiar.”

77. Carson, Heisenberg in the Atomic Age.

78. Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit.

79. On imagined publics, see Maranta et al., “Reality of Experts”; Burningham et al., “Industrial Constructions”; also Skjølsvold, “Publics_in_the_Pipeline”; Barnett et al., “Imagined Publics”; Wynne, “Science, Scientism”; Rommetveit and Wynne, “Technoscience.”

80. Gamson and Modigliani, “Media Discourse.” See also Joppke, Mobilizing Against Nuclear Energy.

81. Quoted after Kaijser, Sweden. Short Country Report, 12; see also Kaijser, “Redirecting Power.”

82. Forstner, Austria. Short Country Report; see also Fengler and Sachse, Kernforschung in Österreich.

83. Meyer, Denmark. Short Country Report; see also Nielsen and Knudsen, “Troublesome Life.”

84. Milder, “Thinking Globally”; Kirchhof and Meyer, “Global Protest”; For specific examples of transnational support and cooperation, see Kirchhof, “Spanning the Globe.”

85. Meyer,“Challenging the Atomic Community.”

86. In a forthcoming article, we argue, however, that in nuclear energy the shaping power of the public can be traced down to the level of concrete technical decisions in nuclear engineering; Efstathis Arapostathis, Robert Bud and Helmuth Trischler: “The Public Shaping of Nuclear Technology in Europe” (in preparation).