‘A body of water: water’s body that seems to have a mind
(and change it: isn’t that what makes a mind, its changing?)’
From Philip Gross, Betweenland 1, The Water Table
It’s been a truly painful week for the people of Japan and all of us watching their tragedy unfold. Only a few hours after the horrific tsunami we heard that the Fukushima reactors were in trouble and straightaway there began a tense debate about nuclear power across the media. By ‘tense debate’ I mean that the discourse was quickly more agonistic than usual. Agonism is dominant in our political culture. It assumes conflict is inherent and enduring in politics, that harmonious agreement is a myth and that the object of politics is to win. Agonistic debate tactics include:
- Perceiving and portraying another as an opponent rather than as a partner in truth-seeking
- Only responding to points you disagree with, not acknowledging points of concurrence or mutual interest
- Characterising your opponent’s view as more extreme than it is, or focusing on the most contentious aspect of their position
- Making predictions about a scenario that don’t take into account all the influencing factors, focusing on certain factors in order to make a point. For example, taking what your opponent proposes and predicting that it will lead to negative outcomes.
- Accusing opponents of being ‘blinkered’ or ‘having an agenda’ as a bluff to conceal the partisan nature of your own position.
- Characterising opponents as typical of a certain group, and making ad hominen attacks.
It is very easy to get sucked in to using these tactics because they are the acceptable norm, there is little critic awareness of them and we are not taught alternatives in education or by example. The less I know about a subject and the more I feel my position is attacked the more likely it is I will succumb to agonistic tactics. I found I was arguing too much about nuclear power on Twitter, so I took a step away and decided to reflect by writing this post.
I’ve wavered on nuclear power and my current position is not fiercely against it but neither am I for it. I wore the yellow No Thanks badge in the 80’s but then came to acquiesce, thinking the threat of climate change requires a diversity of solutions including nuclear. But in recent years I started to question nuclear as I considered how climate change impacts (rising seas and storms, as well as more conflict and terrorism) might threaten its security.
In acknowledging views of those who promote nuclear, I accept the following:
- That there have been advances in nuclear safety
- That the Japanese scenario is exceptional (the megaquake and the ageing reactors) so this shouldn’t be the only indicator for global decision-making
- That we shouldn’t let fears about nuclear allow ageing reactors to continue in service while we delay decisions about next steps (but I differ in that I think we should now invest in renewables not new nuclear stations)
My concerns about nuclear power are not only about the risk of radiation from accidents. They are:
- The slow timescale of planning and building power stations is not rapid enough to tackle global warming
- When nuclear power stations are damaged through accidents, natural disasters or potential terrorist/wartime attack, they are damaged expensively and even catastrophically
- Peak uranium
- The long-term dangers of radioactive waste disposal.
For a very convincing round up of the arguments against nuclear read this post by Thomas Bjelkeman (the founder of Akvo).
One accusatory tactic of the pro-nuclear camp is that anti-nuclear campaigners are opportunistically using the Japanese tragedy to push their agenda. I do feel that the focus on Fukushima in the media is overshadowing the humanitarian crisis. But it is true that crises like these are powerful stimulants for public discussion and education, especially if we avoid shutting down debate through agonistic tactics. The media (in the broadest sense, including publishers, educators and museums) must seek to raise the bar in educating for a world of complexity. This means promoting ecological literacy as the most essential competency. For example, on BBC Question Time, Dimbleby allowed a panellist and questioner to get away with a conflation of green energy solutions with windpower. High profile events like this, which are amplified by social media and BBC web resources, should be opportunities to underpin simplistic debate with deeper information, for example outlining the following solutions:
- Drastically reduce energy consumption, for example through efficiency measures and incentives that favour sustainable local food, industry and transport. (This above all is the priority.)
- Aquamarine: Investment in wave and tidal power
- Wind: Investment in 4,000 new turbines, half at sea (UK has 40% of all Europe’s wind resources)
- Sun: Investment in solar, in particular supporting microgeneration
- Creative solutions such as Biogas (poo!), Motion power (e.g. powering devices while you walk or cycle) and smart solar materials
- Geothermal (e.g. piping geothermal power from Iceland)
- Biomass gasification
- Hydroelectric power
- Clean coal and gas (including coal capture and storage)
The lazy assumption that nuclear is the best alternative to fossil fuels, which seems the cheapest because of its public subsidy, prevents us from exploring this range of safer alternatives. There is a conundrum here: that the climate crisis sharpens our knives rather than our wits as it should. We need to put down our knives and focus our collective wits on the problem.
My interest in overcoming this knives-out agonism came from a phase of reading Hans Gadamer, when I applied his ideas to develop more dialogic forms of interpretation in museums and galleries. I do believe that cultural organisations and practitioners have a special role to play in nurturing skills in dialogue in order to help us all address these big problems in more diplomatic and pragmatic ways.
Do please take me up on this article, though maybe without using any of those unhelpful tactics.