Here is a supplement for Masco's work on visual culture and the normalization process of nuclear warfare during the Cold War as the state is capitalizing on the Americans' "nuclear fear" and acceptability of a nuclear war. It permeates their quotidian lives (in this case middle-class Americans) and induces them to accept and believe that there is this imminent threat of an "atomic warfare," thereby, producing a form of consent on their part for the state to act on their behalf. Masco's "be afraid but do not panic!" section talks about this more.
6 comments:
I was just about to post this... Probably one of the craziest things I have seen in a while.
When watching the Operation Cue video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nop3tfseBqU&feature=related
I'm confronted with how the deep irrationality of international relations is shrunken into the common, expected, in-short, rational, fact of a nuclear explosion on a civilian population.
The spectacle of a nuclear explosion is horrifying (proving the necessity of militarization) while simultaneously common place, understandable, capable of being rationally absorbed by society(proving the safety of norm, the importance of continuing on one's usual consumer-life-style). 9/11 was used to incite fear, but it too, this vision of potential horror also needed to negotiate with capitalism; as Bush famously urged the masses: the most patriotic thing you could do after 9/11 was to get out your credit card and shop.
I was also struck by a comment made by Derrida in the article about Nuclear blasts being very "textual" in the sense that they can only be talked about, and once it happens it obliterates human discourse and therefore destroys the text. It's kind of an interesting way of framing it, to the extent that its 'textual' (not that I really understand what he means by that) it also obscenely non-textual, in that it is the obliteration of lives and the sickly crawl of radiative death entering into the bodies of the people: a sort of confrontation of man with the truth of his actions beyond words, the inarticulatable horror of reality. ... thoughts...
I found it interesting how he pointed out in the article that after the test ban treaty, the state was no longer concerned about rationalizing its production nor the related health concerns of surrounding the bomb. So it too went underground and out of public eye and accountability. However even though documented public visual images were gone, the set of ideas and discourse continued over and over in main stream media with purported realistic accounts of anticipated nuclear or apocalyptic ends. I think textual turn easily into visual images that entertain mass audience while conveying the discourses and ideas that have been conditioned in our culture. Since we wont know the end til it is the end, then we are subject to the set of ideas that are promoted though the national programs and entertainment industry that are both created by a pre-conditioned set of notions that incites both normalization and fear. Fear illicit the need for safety and is what allows states to increase spending on military complex.
Here is a clip from the The Day After. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2H1E02iMHg
Gabe, i know me too. i was reading the article last night, and watched the video afterwards..it is crazy really and for them to think that it is okay to do it at that time (maybe still today, though in different means) is most troubling...like what we had in class earlier about the clips on hiroshima and the trinity test, for a group of a few physicists, scientists, and policy-makers to decide that it is okay and acceptable, at the expense of the many, (like what klutz writes about) is also at the core of this..the drive behind this and the lack of consideration of lives, the act of making this decision is problematic and indeed a question of how democracy is truly effective (like what Butler writes about on Guantanamo). Like what you said, what allows such acts to be committed is this notion of and politics of fear that the state and other institutions or actors reproduce and capitalize on..Oh yes, with Derrida! i am not as well-versed wiht derrida's works, but i know that being 'textual' is one of the rudiments of his work. I find that part a little too ambiguous and bothering as well because it's not just about language and the act of naming or talking about it. i feel like once that argument is used the possibility of it as becoming a reality is put aside. the tangible effects, like what you said in the last part of your comment, is blurred because of such textual analysis that derrida argues. (i could be wrong in here, but this is just my take on it) you are right when you say that "it is also obscenely non-textual!"
Jessica, i agree with you that the discourse, language, or representation still exist today in various forms, especially through the media. that clip has that symbolic "mushroom cloud" that we associate with a "nuclear" attack or whatever some may call it..thanks for sharing this clip! I agree with you; fear is embedded in this moral or emotional economy of warfare and heavy militarization..
Thanks Jessica and Gabe for sharing your thoughts!
This is a classic example of the government using fear tactics to manipulate the points of view of average Americans. By showing the "scientific evidence" and telling Americans to prepare for something that could very possibly hit close to home, Americans are made to feel responsible for making decisions that effect the security of our country. Thirty million niave Americans viewed this nuclear experiment and trusted their government. Regardless if the "scientific evidence" is true or not, any study can be swayed by the government and create any desired result. How unfortunate that we live in a country where we cant trust the democratic powers that were put together to protect us.. and need to think twice after viewing information.
The thing that stood out to me about the reading and this video is that the main focus is on the survival of material things, infrastructure...forget what happens to humans! Their survival pre and post-bomb is largely dependent on these products. Proper materials or adequate infrastructure - things they are encouraged to invest in - will determine their fate. Whether they'll survive, have food, water, etc. to keep them alive...
There's no mention or study done on the immediate effects of radiation on humans or the long-term effects because the latency period makes it extremely difficult to connect cause and effect. My first thought when I saw the pictures of Hiroshima & Nagasaki in class was, that's what was missing from Operation Cue - living people. It seems that portion of the test was reserved for others.
I was particularly struck by the subtle rhetorical devices used in these films to convince the American Public that living with the threat of the bomb was possible, and that these tests were helpful tools for that purpose.
In the beginning of the Operation Doorstep video, the narrator describes the location of the test as "Yucca Flat, a barren area of desert, sage brush, and joshua trees [that] now suddenly comes to life with activity." The land that they have chosen to expose to the bomb is already "barren" filled with seemingly useless plantlife such as "sage brush and joshua trees." If the land is called barren, then it seems like no harm can possibly be done by testing the bomb there. Neither of the plants mentioned are known for supporting civilization or helping out the average American of the 1950s in any way, so they also seem superfluous. Through these words, the land is devalued and therefore easily seen as a good place to test the bombs.
This desert is "brought to life" by the activity of the scientists and other participants of the test. If this activity brings the desert to life, then the land is already dead, meaning that no further harm can come to it despite the blast of megatons of nuclear radiation. It is a perfect sacrifice zone. Furthermore, the thought that the test is bringing the desert to life makes it seem like the test is actually benefiting the desert. Not only can the land not get "more dead" by the bomb, but the land is actually being "brought to life" by this human activity. It is this type of rhetoric that devalues the land and makes it a product for us to use in our military goals.
Post a Comment