Mobilizing against Nuclear Energy: A Comparison of Germany and the United States by Christian Joppke

Abstract

TECHNOLOGYAND CULTURE Book Reviews 885 genetic engineering has achieved wide significance. Hence the func­ tions Kay associates with the science of molecular biology are important to the history of technology. She suggests that however much the romance of molecular biology appears to be the story of a pure science coming to be applied, we are “really” confronted with enduring practical motivations. These were expressed through a science whose practical outcomes, realized as early as the 1960s, would bear the stamp of the original motives. It is a tribute to Kay’s work that she raises the important questions of the degree to which a technocratic worldview can be the principal sustaining force for science and the degree to which the appeal to technology is better understood as one of several weapons in the scientist’s armory of selfjustification. Robert Bud Dr. Bud is head of research (collections) at the Science Museum in London and the author of The Uses of Life: A History of Biotechnology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Mobilizing against Nuclear Energy: A Comparison of Germany and the United States. By Christian Joppke. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993. Pp. xv+307; tables, notes, appendixes, bibliog­ raphy, index. $40.00. Mobilizing against Nuclear Energy, a revision of Christian Joppke’s doctoral dissertation in sociology, is a valuable study of antinuclear activism in both the United States and Germany during the 1970s and 1980s. Joppke applies what he calls a “historical strategy” (p. 190) to examine the political context of social movements. He argues that sociological analyses often ignore the changes that occur over time in the political dynamics of social protests. Whether or not his efforts to correct ahistorical approaches impress his colleagues in the field of sociology, they have produced information and insights that are very useful to historians. Joppke shows how differences in political systems and structures in the United States and Germany led to different strategies by nuclear opponents. In the United States, the antinuclear movement generally remained moderate in tactics and in objectives because ample oppor­ tunities existed for participants to voice their opinions through expert dissent, licensing proceedings, and legal intervention. In Germany, antinuclear activism was more radical, because the government ofWest Germany in the 1970s viewed the growth ofnuclear power as essential to national prosperity and allowed nuclear opponents fewer opportunities to make their case through legal recourse. Since they remained outside of the established political system, nuclear protesters were more in­ clined than their American counterparts to take an anti-institutional position that questioned the very legitimacy of the state. 886 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGYAND CULTURE Joppke argues that the decline of public support for nuclear power in both the United States and Germany was a result more of the economic woes of the industry and the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl than of antinuclear activism. Nevertheless, he suggests that the nuclear opposition played a major role in accomplishing its goals by creating a political atmosphere that was increasingly unreceptive to nuclear expansion. Joppke presents a thoughtful and well-reasoned account ofcomplex political and social issues. His analysis ofantinuclear motives and tactics is the best published to date. The book is not flawless, however. Although Joppke generally avoids using jargon, he occasionally slips into the habit of adding “-ize” to nouns to make them into verbs. The result is the creation of nonwords such as “contextualize” (p. 12), “temporalize” (p. 12), and “problematize ” (p. 19). More seriously, despite his recognition of the value of a “historical strategy,” his account is marred by factual errors. He is wrong, for example, to assert that the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy wanted a state-owned nuclear industry, that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) left safety issues “to the complete discretion of the nuclear industry” (p. 26), that the AEC “silendy” (p. 28) revised reactor design objectives for radiation emissions in the 1970s, and that reactor experts had never anticipated the formation of a gas bubble following an accident such as occurred at Three Mile Island. Despite those shortcomings,Joppke has made a substantial contribu­ tion to the literature of the nuclear controversy. As he notes, the “bitterness and vehemence” of...