Revis(it)ing nuclear history: narrative conflict at the bradbury science museum^∗

^∗This manuscript was originally presented in different form to the 1993 Speech Communication Association convention at Miami Beach. Research presented here was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation, #SBE-9207843. The author wishes to thank Michael Flaherty for his comments on an earlier draft.

Abstract

Nuclear criticism theorizes culture as the site of struggle between ideological narratives seeking authority over the meaning of nuclear symbols. Following the end of the cold war, various groups have conducted this struggle through public discourse about U.S. nuclear weapons organizations. This paper examines symbolic conflict over the history and future of one such organization, the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This conflict was conducted between pro-nuclear Laboratory officials and employees of its Bradbury Science Museum, and local anti-nuclear activists. The conflict centered around the activists' construction of an alternative exhibit that was placed in the Museum, and that challenged its dominant narrative of nuclear history. Analysis reveals that the identities and activities of these two groups can be distinguished by three sets of opposing constructs: nuclearism/pacifism; monologue/dialogue, and fact/narrative. These frames guided the groups' interpretive practices, and heuristically condense the heteroglossia of post-cold war debate about nuclear history. They clarify, in turn, the process by which cultural memory is constructed and transformed to serve nuclear-ideological interests.

^∗This manuscript was originally presented in different form to the 1993 Speech Communication Association convention at Miami Beach. Research presented here was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation, #SBE-9207843. The author wishes to thank Michael Flaherty for his comments on an earlier draft.

^∗This manuscript was originally presented in different form to the 1993 Speech Communication Association convention at Miami Beach. Research presented here was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation, #SBE-9207843. The author wishes to thank Michael Flaherty for his comments on an earlier draft.

Notes

^∗This manuscript was originally presented in different form to the 1993 Speech Communication Association convention at Miami Beach. Research presented here was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation, #SBE-9207843. The author wishes to thank Michael Flaherty for his comments on an earlier draft.