In this article, the author examines an exemplary part of the Soviet media discussion following the Chernobyl disaster. She traces transformations in this discourse affecting the concepts of risk and uncertainty and indicates their relevance for the reconfiguration of the relationships between the state, scientific experts, and the public. Chernobyl occurred during a period of unprecedented potential for change: in the wake of Gorbachev’s perestroika, newly emerging environmental groups gradually managed to gain access to a previously closed forum, the national print media. During the ensuing public debates between environmentalists and energy officials, nuclear risks or uncertainties were used as powerful, yet flexible, rhetorical tools for articulating political positions, for assigning or denying authority and legitimacy, and for reconceptualizing “the public.” The shorthand “Chernobyl” came to be deployed strategically to solicit change, to challenge old practices, and to legitimize the continuation and extension of these practices.
Aleksandrov, A. P.1990. Izmeniat’, chto izmenit’eshche vozmozhno... [To Change, What Still Can Be Changed...]. Ogonyok35 (August): 6-10.
2.
Anderson, B.1983. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
3.
Babcock, G. A. 1997. The role of public interest groups in democratization. Soviet environmental groups and energy policy-making, 1985-1991. Dissertation, Public Policy Analysis, RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, CA.
4.
Bar’iakhtar, V. G.
, ed. 1995. Chernobyl’skaia katastrofa [The Chernobyl Catastrophe]. Kiev, Ukraine: Naukova dumka.
5.
Bergel’son, B.
, and I. Chuvilo. 1991. Plata za samoobman[The Price for Self-Deception]. Nauka i Zhizn’11:54-60.
6.
Brooks, J.2000. Thank you, Comrade Stalin! Soviet public culture from revolution to cold war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
Bunce, V.1999. Subversive institutions: The design and the destruction of socialism and the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Dawson, J. I.1996. Eco-nationalism: Antinuclear activism and national identity in Russia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
9.
DeBardeleben, J.1985. The environment and Marxism-Leninism: The Soviet and East German experience. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
Ezrahi, Y.1990. The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
Fairclough, N.
, and R. Wodak. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In Discourse as social interaction, ed. T. v. Dijk, 258-283. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Fischhoff, B.1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis15 (2): 137-145.
13.
Gilbert, G. N.
, and M. Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goshchinsky, N.1987a. Upala zvezda polyn’... [It Fell the Star Wormwood...]. Ogonyok3 (September): 25-28.
17.
Goshchinsky, N.1987b. Upala zvezda polyn’... (konets) [It Fell the Star Wormwood... (End)]. Ogonyok39 (September): 18-20.
18.
Graham, L. R.1972. Science and philosophy in the Soviet Union. New York: Knopf.
19.
Graham, L. R.1993. The ghost of the executed engineer: Technology and the fall of the Soviet Union. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Gregory, J.
, and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
21.
Gross, A. G.1990. The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Gross, A. G.1994. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science3:3-23.
23.
Gross, A. G.
, and W. M. Keith, eds. 1997. Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the age of science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
Gusev, O.1986. Muzhestvo i vyderzhka[Courage and Endurance]. Ogonyok21(May):30-31.
25.
Hilgartner, S.2000. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
Hollander, G. D.1972. Soviet political indoctrination: Developments in mass media and propaganda since Stalin. New York: Praeger.
27.
Holloway, D.1994. Stalin and the bomb: The Soviet Union and atomic energy, 1939-1956. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
Informatsiia ob avarii na Chernobyl’skoi AES i ee posledstviiakh, podgotovlennaia dlia MAGATE [Report to the IAEA on the Accident in the Chernobyl NPP and Its Consequences]
. 1986. Atomnaia Energiia61:301-320.
29.
Inkeles, A.1968. Social change in Soviet Russia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
International Atomic Energy Agency
. 1996. One decade after Chernobyl. Summing up the consequences of the accident: Proceedings of an International Conference in Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency.
31.
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Josephson, P. R.1996. Atomic-powered communism: Nuclear culture in the postwar USSR. Slavic Review55 (2): 297-324.
33.
Kalinichev, S.1986. Surovye budni Chernobylia [Hard Days at Chernobyl]. Ogonyok22 (May/June): 0-3.
34.
Knorre, H.1992. “The star called Wormwood”: The cause and effect of the Chernobyl catastrophe. Public Understanding of Science1:241-249.
35.
Korolev, B.1986. Radiatsiia i kapusta [Radiation and Cabbage]. Ogonyok22 (May/June): 7.
36.
Kotkin, S.1995. Magnetic mountain: Stalinismas a civilization. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
Kotkin, S.2001. Armageddon averted: The Soviet collapse, 1970-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
Krementsov, N. L.1997. Stalinist science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Kuleba, V.1995. Chernobyl’: esli povezet, vtorogo vzryva ne budet [Chernobyl: If We Are Lucky, There Will Be No Second Explosion]. Ogonyok19 (May): 74.
40.
Kuznetsova, Z.1986. Zapishite menia dobrovol’tsem... [Enroll Me as Volunteer...]. Ogonyok24 (June): 4-5.
41.
Lagovsky, I.1990. Bezopasnost’ prezhde vsego [Safety above All]. Nauka i Zhizn’4:65-73.
42.
Marples, D. R.1986. Chernobyl and nuclear power in the USSR. New York: St. Martin’s.
43.
Marples, D. R.1988. The social impact of the Chernobyl disaster. London: Macmillan.
44.
Matouschek, B.
, R. Wodak, and F. Januschek. 1995. Notwendige Maßnahmen gegen Fremde? Genese und Formen von rassistischen Diskurse der Differenz. Wien, Austria: Passagen.
45.
Medvedev, G.1989. The truth about Chernobyl. New York: Basic Books.
46.
Mickiewicz, E.1981. Media and the Russian public. New York: Praeger.
47.
Mickiewicz, E.1988. Split signals: Television and politics in the Soviet Union. New York: Oxford University Press.
48.
Mickiewicz, E.1997. Changing channels: Television and the struggle for power in Russia. New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
Paine, R.1992. Chernobyl’ reaches Norway: The accident, science, and the threat to cultural knowledge. Public Understanding of Science1:261-280.
50.
Perrow, C.1984. Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.
51.
Pinch, T. J.
, and W. E. Bijker. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts, or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit from each other. In The social construction of technological systems, ed. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, 17-50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
Pomagaet vsia strana [The Entire Country Is Helping]
. 1986. Ogonyok22 (May/June): 4-5.
53.
Shapin, S.1995. Cordelia’s love: Credibility and the social studies of science. Perspectives on Science3 (3): 255-275.
54.
Shcherbakov, A.1986. My odoleem bedu [We Will Overcome This Crisis]. Ogonyok23 (June): 4-5.
55.
Shteinberg, N. A.1991. O prichinakh i obstoiatel’stvakh avarii na 4-m bloke Chernobyl’skoi AES 26 aprelia 1986 g. Doklad. Moscow: Komissiia Gospromatomnadzora SSSR.
56.
Slovic, P.1990. What should we know about making risk comparisons?Risk Analysis10 (3) 389-392.
57.
Slovic, P.1992. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Social theories of risk, ed. S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 117-152. Westport, CT: Praeger.
58.
Sopel’niak, B.1986a. Chernobyl’ boretsia, Chernobyl’ pobedit! [Chernobyl Is Fighting, Chernobyl Will Win!]. Ogonyok25 (June): 4-6.
59.
Sopel’niak, B.1986b. Chernobyl’ boretsia, Chernobyl’ pobedit! [Chernobyl Is Fighting, Chernobyl Will Win!]. Ogonyok26 (June/July): 4-7.
60.
Stern, P. C.1991. Learning through conflict. A realistic strategy for risk communication. Policy Sciences24:99-119.
61.
Weiner, D. R.1988. Models of nature: Ecology, conservation, and cultural revolution in Soviet Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
62.
Weiner, D. R.1999. A little corner of freedom: Russian nature protection from Stalin to Gorbachëv. Berkeley: University of California Press.
63.
Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, K. Blüml, and E. Andraschko. 1989. Sprache und Macht—Sprache und Politik. Wien, Austria: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.
64.
Wodak, R., P. Nowak, J. Pelikan, H. Gruber, R. de Cillia, and R. Mitten. 1990. “Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter!” Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
65.
Wynne, B.1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, T. Pinch, and J. Petersen, 361-388. London: Sage.
66.
Wynne, B.1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the lay-expert divide. In Risk, environment, and modernity, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44-83. London: Sage.
67.
Yaroshinskaya, A.1995. Chernobyl, the forbidden truth. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
68.
Young, M. J.
, and M. K. Launer. 1991. Redefining glasnost in the Soviet media: The recontextualization of Chernobyl. Journal of Communication41 (2): 102-125.
