International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In Mass dictatorship 1: Between coercion and consent, eds. Dominant discourse of the Park Chung Hee regime and the nationalization of the masses. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. The radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after World War II. Export–Import Bank and nuclear power in South Korea (2). Export–Import Bank and nuclear power in South Korea (1). In Nuclear power in developing countries: An analysis of decisionmaking, eds. American Journal of Sociology 95 (1): 1–37. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. A national public opinion survey on nuclear power. Berkeley: University of California Press. In Genetic nature/culture: Anthropology and science between the two-culture divide, eds. Future imaginaries: Genome scientists as sociocultural entrepreneurs. Attitudes and stress in the presence of technological risk: A test of the supreme court hypothesis. New York: Vintage.įreudenburg, W.R., and T.R. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. American Anthropologist 107 (1): 43–54.įoucault, M. Scientific imaginaries and ethical plateaus in contemporary U.S. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.įortun, K., and M. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Įzrahi, Y.
Facts on the ground: Archaeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations, ed. National imaginations and systems of innovation. Address to 470th Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.Įlam, M. Social Studies of Science 30 (2): 265–316.Įisenhower, D.D. Litigation life: Law-science knowledge construction in (Bendectin) mass toxic tort litigation. Carlsbad: DOE Carlsbad Field Office.Įdmond, G., and D. Permanent markers implementation plan: Waste isolation pilot plant, Carlsbad, New Mexico, DOE/WIPP 04–2301. Social Science Japan Journal 1 (1): 57–70.ĭOE/WIPP. On the strategy and morality of American nuclear policy in Korea, 1950 to the present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Ĭumings, B. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Ĭastoriadis, C. Controlling chemicals: The politics of regulation in Europe and the United States. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18 (3/4): 285–298.īowker, G.C., and S.L. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Long-term plan of research, development and use of nuclear energy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Ītomic Energy Commission (AEC). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, revised ed. In turn, these disparate imaginaries have underwritten very different responses to a variety of nuclear shocks and challenges, such as Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and the spread of the anti-nuclear movement.Īnderson, B. In the US, the state’s central move was to present itself as a responsible regulator of a potentially runaway technology that demands effective “containment.” In South Korea, the dominant imaginary was of “atoms for development” which the state not only imported but incorporated into its scientific, technological and political practices. Although nuclear power and nationhood have long been imagined together in both countries, the nature of those imaginations has remained strikingly different. This article aims to fill that gap by introducing the concept of “sociotechnical imaginaries.” Through a comparative examination of the development and regulation of nuclear power in the US and South Korea, the article demonstrates the analytic potential of the imaginaries concept. One consequence is that the relationship of science and technology to political power has tended to remain undertheorized. STS research has devoted relatively little attention to the promotion and reception of science and technology by non-scientific actors and institutions.
0 kommentar(er)
