The Improvised Expert Performing expert authority after Fukushima (2011-2018) Makoto Takahashi Emmanuel College July 2019 This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The Improvised Expert: Performing expert authority after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster (2011–2018) Declaration This thesis is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my thesis has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. 2 The Improvised Expert: Performing expert authority after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster (2011–2018) Thesis Summary G.K. Chesterton famously claimed that ‘art, like morality, consists in drawing the line someplace’. So too does much of radiological protection. At every turn, those responding to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster can be found drawing lines, which determine: where people can live, what they can eat, and who receives additional protections (Potassium Iodide pills, for example). The essential questions of radiological protection pertain to how these lines are drawn. Questions regarding who has the authority to draw these lines, where, and on what basis are well recognised by scholars in this field. But those who advise on such issues in Japan today face an additional complication, in that the disaster has dramatically damaged the public’s confidence in experts. My interest lies in how actors interpret and narrate this political situation, and how expert bodies adapt to these conditions by improvising new performances of their credibility. This thesis examines how claims to expert authority are made in conditions of low public trust; focusing on the debates surrounding civilian radiation exposure in Japan. In so doing, it contributes to the disciplines of Political Geography and Science and Technology Studies (STS), as well as scholarship on nuclear politics and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster, specifically. As the most severe radiological event since Chernobyl, this disaster has been selected for study on the basis of both its historic quality and its effect on the public perception of experts. Over four substantive chapters, this thesis uses the idiom of ‘improvisation’ to evoke the ‘performed resourcefulness’ of its actors; moving from an examination of actors’ competing efforts to ‘set the scene’ through their narrations of their disaster, to an ethnographic focus on how the prosaic performance of expert authority is adapted to reflect and influence these broader narratives. This thesis is organised thematically. Chapter Two outlines the methodological approach of the text, which draws on interviews, textual analysis, and participant observation, conducted over 11 months of residential fieldwork. Chapter Three examines the spatial metaphors actors use to frame the nuclear disaster, thereby framing the experience of radiation exposure. Chapter Four builds on the preceding chapter, exploring how the role of experts has been narrated in relation to the disaster’s imagined geographies. In particular, I examine how the common notion of Japan’s public debate as a battle against the irrational fear of radiation – to be fought by experts, who are to teach the public to “fear correctly” (tadashiku kowagaru) – is imbricated in the imagination of Fukushima as a national crisis. Moving from the macrosocial to the microsocial, Chapters Five and Six provide ethnographic accounts of expert workshops staged in Fukushima by two authoritative bodies: the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Both, I contend, are not only understudied organisations, but provide case studies in improvisation: the constitution of their workshop spaces being altered to reflect the organiser’s understandings of the disaster and the broader political situation. 3 The Improvised Expert: Performing expert authority after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster (2011–2018) For my grandparents. Rosina Horner (1936 – 2001) Thomas Victor Horner (1935 – 2008) Akira Takahashi (1934 – 2012) & Junko Takahashi (1937 – ) 4 The Improvised Expert: Performing expert authority after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster (2011–2018) CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 13 1.1. PERFORMING EXPERT AUTHORITY 17 1.1.1. THE JAPANESE CONTEXT AND CONDITIONS OF LOW PUBLIC TRUST 21 1.1.2. NUCLEAR GEOGRAPHIES 24 1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 28 1.3. THESIS STRUCTURE 29 CHAPTER TWO: METHODS 33 2.1. THE GLASS CEILING 34 2.1.1. OBSTRUCTED ETHNOGRAPHIES 36 2.2. METHODS 38 2.3. DOING RESEARCH: POSITIONALITY, NOTE-MAKING, AND LINGUISTICS 45 2.3.1. STUDYING UP: A WOULD-BE EXPERT STUDIES EXPERTISE 46 2.3.2. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN JAPAN AS A ‘HALF’ 47 2.3.3. SHIFTING POSITIONALITIES 49 2.3.4. OBSERVATION 49 2.3.5. THE FIELD JOURNAL 50 2.3.7. TRANSCRIPTION 56 CHAPTER THREE: NARRATIVES OF RADIATION EXPOSURE: RECONSTRUCTION, SACRIFICE, AND THE NUCLEAR VILLAGE 58 3.1. RECONSTRUCTION AND REBIRTH 60 3.1.1. STATUS QUO ANTE: FUKUSHIMA AS GRANARY 64 3.2. SACRIFICE ZONES AND JAPAN’S INTERNAL COLONY 70 3.2.1 SACRIFICE ZONE 75 3.3.1 THE VILLAGE’S STRUCTURE 79 3.4 CONCLUSION 83 CHAPTER FOUR: SMILING RADIATION AWAY: THE ROLE OF ‘RADIOPHOBIA’ IN JAPAN’S PUBLIC DEBATE 84 4.1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF RADIOPHOBIA 85 4.1.1. HISTORICAL CONTESTATIONS OF THE TERM 86 4.2. RADIOPHOBIA IN THE CONTEXT OF RECONSTRUCTION (FUKKŌ) 88 4.2.1. FUKUSHIMA HEALTH MANAGEMENT SURVEY 90 4.3. ORDERING FEAR AND ORDERING SOCIETY 92 4.4. THE FORTUITOUS OBSTACLE 94 4.5. CONCLUSION 96 CHAPTER FIVE: STAGING AUTHORITY AT AN OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY WORKSHOP IN FUKUSHIMA 98 5 The Improvised Expert: Performing expert authority after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster (2011–2018) 5.1. FEARING FOOD FROM FUKUSHIMA 99 5.2. DRAMATURGICAL PERFORMANCE AND IMPROVISATION 101 5.2.1. IMPROVISATION 102 5.3. METHODOLOGY 104 5.3.1. OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY 104 5.3.2. WORKSHOP ON POST-ACCIDENT FOOD SAFETY SCIENCE 105 5.3.3. DATA COLLECTION 106 5.4. THE WORKSHOP’S ARCHITECTURE OF AUTHORITY 107 5.4.1. PERSUASIVE RHETORIC 107 5.4.2. VOUCHING 109 5.4.3. FORGING A SINGLE VOICE 110 5.4.4. STAGE MANAGEMENT 110 5.5. AN IMPROVISED WORKSHOP 113 5.5.1. PERFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL 114 5.5.2. THE AUTHORITY OF WITNESSING 116 5.5.3. THE EXPERT’S BODIES AS EVIDENCE 118 5.6. CONCLUSION 119 CHAPTER SIX: CO-EXPERTISE AS THERAPY: THE ICRP’S PARTICIPATORY DIALOGUES IN FUKUSHIMA (2011–2018) 121 6.1. JUSTIFICATION 123 6.1.1. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 123 6.1.2. THE ICRP DIALOGUES AND FUKUSHIMA DIALOGUES 125 6.2. LITERATURE REVIEW 126 6.2.1. CRITIQUES OF THE DIALOGUES AND ITS PREDECESSORS 126 6.2.2. CRITICAL ERRORS 127 6.2.3. DESCRIPTION AND THE LIMITS OF CRITIQUE 128 6.3. METHODS 129 6.4. CO-EXPERTISE: AN IMPROVISED AND IMPROVISATIONAL CONCEPT 130 6.5. CO-EXPERTISE: WHO PARTICIPATES AND ON WHAT TERMS? 134 6.5.1. ETIC AND EMIC ANALYSES OF THE DIALOGUE SESSIONS 135 6.5.2. STRUCTURED DIALOGUES’ CATEGORISATION OF PARTICIPANTS 137 6.5.3. LOCAL PEOPLE 138 6.6. THE PURPOSE OF DIALOGUE: TO LEARN AND TO EMPOWER 141 6.6.1. INSTITUTIONAL LEARNING 141 6.6.2. EMPOWERING PARTICIPANTS 141 6.6.3. EMPOWERMENT AS FEELING ABLE TO MAKE CHOICES 142 6.7. CONCLUSION 145 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION 146 7.1. THESIS SUMMARY 147 7.2. KEY FINDINGS AND DEVELOPMENTS 148 7.3. EPILOGUE: WRITING IN A TIME OF ‘POST-TRUTH’ POLITICS 154 BIBLIOGRAPHY 158 6 The Improvised Expert: Performing expert authority after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster (2011–2018) List of Figures Chapter One Figure 1.1 Anti-nuclear protest outside the Prime Minister’s Office Figure 1.2. Self-reported numbers of protestors at MCAN protests Chapter Two Figure 2.1. Storage of irradiated materials on Mount Shinobu Figure 2.2. Sign asking onlookers to refrain from photography Figure 2.3. Additional steps taken by GoTranscript to enforce confidentiality Chapter Four Figure 4.1. Pages from ‘Nasubi asks questions’ Figure 4.2. Banner image of the FGMSC homepage Figure 4.3. Organisational diagram of FGMSC Chapter Five Figure 5.1. National affiliation of presenters by session Chapter Six Figure 6.1. ICRP Dialogue Participants visit Hachioji Shrine Figure 6.2. The basis for and use of ICRP recommendations Figure 6.3. Seminar Four Figure 6.4. Seminar Five Figure 6.5. Seminar Six Figure 6.6. Seminar Seven Figure 6.7. Seminar Eight Figure 6.8. Seminar Twelve Chapter Seven Figure 7.1. Japanese Twitter campaign (Ōtemachi Station, April 2017) List of Tables Chapter One Table 1.1. Self-reported number of protestors at MCAN protests Chapter Two Table 2.1. List of interviews Table 2.2. Observed demonstrations Table 2.3. Observed seminars 7 The Improvised Expert: Performing expert authority after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster (2011–2018) Chapter Five Table 5.1. Japanese radiological criteria Table 5.2. International radiological criteria Table 5.3. Organisations listed on the Workshop Agenda Table 5.1. National affiliations of presenters Chapter Six Table 6.1.