This article applies the philosophical perspective of posthumanism to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. A posthumanist perspective attempts to break with the notion of human exceptionalism by recognising the performative agency of the non-human. It is maintained that such an approach is necessary to understanding how the disaster occurred in the first place, the calamitous initial responses the disaster, and its long-term consequence – including the environmental restoration that has occurred in the exclusion zone. Indeed, it is argued that much of the previous literature on the disaster takes the perspective of human exceptionalism, which has led to a failure to accurately interpret how the disaster unfolded and how it continues to emerge.
AsplenL.2008. “Going with the Flow: Living the Mangle in Environmental Management Practice”. Pp. 163–184 in The Mangle in Practice: Science, Society and Becoming, edited by PickeringA., GuzikK.. Durham: Duke University Press.
2.
BeckU.1987. “The Anthropological shock: Chernobyl and the Contours of Risk Society.” Berkley Journal of Sociology32: 153–165.
3.
BeckU.2012. Twenty Observations on a World in Turmoil.Polity Press: Cambridge.
4.
BloorD.1999. “Anti-Latour.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science.30(1): 88–112.
5.
BregadzeY.I., VinnikV.I., StepanovE.K., YarynaV.P.. 2011. “On the 25th Anniversary of the Disaster at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.” Measurement Techniques54(4): 3–5.
6.
Elder-VassD.2015. “Disassembling Actor-Network Theory.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences.45(1): 100–121
7.
FoucaultM.1984. ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’. Pp. 76–97. in The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault's Thought, edited by RainbowP.. London: Penguin.
HarawayD.1992. “The Promise of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others.” Pp. 295–337. in Cultural Studies, edited by GrossbergL., NelsonC., TreichlerP.A.. New York: Routledge.
10.
HarperK. M.2001. “Chernobyl Stories and Anthropological Shock in Hungary.” Anthropological Quarterly74(3): 114–123.
11.
HeideggerM.1977. “The Question Concerning Technology.” Pp. 3–35. in The Question Concerning Technology and other Essays. Edited by LovittM.. New York: Harper and Row.
12.
JaworowskiZ.2010. “Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT.” Dose Response8: 148–171.
13.
KortovV., and UstyantsevY.. 2013. “Chernobyl Accident: Causes, Consequences, and Problems of Ration Measurements.” Radiation Measurement55: 12–16.
14.
LatourB.1996. “On Actor-Network Theory: A few Clarifications.” Soziale Welt47(4): 369–381.
15.
LatourB.2003. “When Things Strike Back: A Possible Contribution of ‘Social Studies’ to the Social Sciences.” British Journal of Sociology51(1): 107–123.
16.
LatourB.2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LawJ., and SingletonV.. 2005. “Object Lessons.” Organization Articles.12(3): 331–335.
19.
L'HourA. M. Giorgio, BallM., KorneevA.. 2000. “Dust Control inside the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Shelter during Emergency Conditions.” WM ‘00 Conference. (http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2000/pdf/47/47-7.pdf) Accessed 23/08/2016
20.
MollerA.P., and MousseauT.A.. 2011. “Conservation Consequences of Chernobyl and Other Nuclear Accidents.” Biological Conservation144: 2787–2798.
21.
MollerA.P., BarnierF., MousseauT.A.. 2012. “Ecosystem Effects 25 years after Chernobyl: Pollinators, Fruit Set and Recruitment.” Oecolgia170: 1155–1165.
22.
NeisserF. N.2014. “‘Riskscapes’ and Risk Management–Review and Synthesis of an Actor-Network Theory Approach.” Risk Management16: 2: 88–120.
23.
PickeringA.1993. “The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science.” American Journal of Sociology99: 559–89.
24.
PickeringA.2005. “Asian Eels and Global Warming: A Posthumanist Perspective on Society and the Environment.” Epistemology and Environmental Philosophy, special issue of Ethics and the Environment10: 29–43.
25.
PickeringA.2008(a). “New Ontologies.” Pp. 1–16. In The Mangle in Practice: Science, Society and Becoming, edited by PickeringIn A., GuzikK.. Durham: Duke University Press.
26.
PickeringA. “Culture, Science Studies and Technoscience.” Pp. 291–307 In Handbook of Cultural Analysis, edited by BennettT., FrowJ.. London: SAGE.
27.
PickeringA.2009. “The Politics of Theory: Producing Another World, With Some Thoughts on Latour.” Journal of Cultural Economy2: 197–212.
PickeringA.2013(a). “Living in the Material World.” Pp. 2–16. in Materiality and Space: Organizations, Artefacts and Practices, edited by DevaujanyF., MitevN.. London: Macmillan.
30.
PickeringA.2013(b). “Being in an Environment: A Performative Perspective.” Natures Sciences Sociétés2: 77–83. Accessed 23/08/2016 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/nss/2013067)
31.
PickeringA. Forthcoming. “Neo-sigma: Art, Agency and Revolution.” in Cybernetics Revisited, special issue of Leonardo Electronic Almanac, edited by M. Søndergaard.
32.
RaeG.2014. “The Philosophical Roots of Donna Haraway's Cyborg Imagery: Descartes and Heidegger Through Latour, Derrida, and Agamben.” Human Studies37: 505–528.
33.
SayesE.2014. “Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Just What Does it Mean to Say That Nonhumans Have Agency?” Social Studies of Science44(1): 134–149.
34.
StephensS.1995. “The ‘Cultural Fallout’ of Chernobyl Radiation in Norwegian Sami Regions: Implication for Children”. Pp.? in Children and the Politics of Culture, edited by StephensS.. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
35.
SwantonD.2013. “The Steel Plant as Assemblage.” Geoforum44: 282–91.
36.
UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Environment”.2005. Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Ramifications: Twenty Years of Experience.IAEA: New York.
37.
ZharkikhT.L., and YasynetskaN.I.. 2008. “Demographic Parameters of a Przewalski Horse (Equus Przewalskii Polj. 1881) Population in the Exclusion Zone of the Chernobyl Power Plant.” Bulletin of Moscow Society of Naturalists'- Biological Series113: 5: 3–9.
