My volunteer experience

In the start of June, I signed up for the JAR's volunteer program, and thus went up to Iwate and the city of Rikuzentakata to take part in the relief aid that is being given there. I was only able to go up there for two days, but I am very happy to have done it, and to have been able to go up there and help in what little way I could.

Even though they had gotten a far way cleaning up the destruction caused by the tsunami, the city was still pretty much in ruins and we were in for two days of hard work. The first thing that struck me when we entered the city on the first day was that I had never seen anything that had ever come close to the level of destruction that the city had been struck by. Most of the city was not even there anymore, and scattered, desolate buildings among barren fields were the only evidence of the dwellings that had once been there. Piles of junk and stacks of car wrecks marred the scene.

Another feeling hit me when we got to our destination and started working. Here we came into contact with the human side of all this - in the debris and junk we would clean up, we would find evidence of human life - a teddy-bear, a diary, toys etc. And it was a special feeling of reality that washed in over me as we would unearth half-drunk cans of soda and coffee, and find half written diaries with personal dedications and hello's in them.

The normal and busy life of Tokyo and all the problems and worries one had there could not seem further away from me at that point, and not at any time did I feel the need or wish to go back to that reality. In fact, I wish I had the strength or courage to drop everything I have right now, every commitment and deadline, just to go back up and help people, because that was one of the most rewarding feelings I have ever felt.

Change in Japanese national identity?

My initial problem with receiving this blog assignment was that I did not know much about Japanese national identity before the disaster. I have thus chosen to write about an article portraying an aspect of this change, rather than myself choose an article that I think is a symbol of change in national identity.

The article I have chosen is this one, and it is discussing whether one might expect to see a change in this national identity, with special focus on Japan as a peace-state, in the aftermath of the 3.11 disaster.

I find it very interesting how the article theorizes that several effects of the 3.11 disaster might lead to Japan taking a more militaristic turn in the near future. I find it especially interesting, due to the fact that my own thoughts and experiences with Japan so far has been that of an astonishment of how "undemocratic" a democratic country can be. What I mean by this is the fact that save the formal democratic systems of elections, parliamentarism etc., one really does not see any large degree of popular participation in this system. The lack of transparency, and the uncanny tendency of people to have an almost blind trust in how the political elite go about solving the countries day to day problems can really be considered undemocratic. Added to this, the homogeneity of the Japanese society also imposes a strict set of norms to the Japanese people, further imposing on democratic plurality.

In this particular case, the article therefore makes an extra strong argument in it's theorizing about militarization, as disasters of these calibers often provide a further excuse for governments to infringe upon democratic rights and freedom. One saw it in Japan in the 20s, and also in America after 9.11, so with previous statements from Japanese politicians regarding becoming more powerful in East Asia and also in the world, the future development of Japanese national identity will be interesting to follow.

Comment on norwegian news article

The article I have chosen to focus on in this blog assignment is an article that was posted in the Norwegian online newspaper "Aftenposten" (the evening post). It was first published the 12th of March, just one day after the disaster, and was written by the national Norwegian news bureau (NTB). The newspaper in focus is considered one of Norway's more serious newspapers, despite it's tabloid format.

The reason I chose this article is mainly because it is not one of the countless fear mongering worst case scenario news articles that emerged in the aftermath of this disaster, but rather an article that focuses on a rational view towards the whole incident, and warns about comparing the Fukushima nuclear disaster with Chernobyl.

The article is partly an interview with the Norwegian prime minister, and starts out with him comparing the initial scenes of the tsunami with the 2004 Christmas disaster of south east Asia. Further on he ensures the Norwegian contribution to humanitarian and rebuilding aid, and that they will assess the dangers of Norwegians currently residing in Japan. He then moves on to pointing out that there is no reason for panic, and warns against fear mongering and calling this disaster a "new Chernobyl".

As mentioned, this particular article does not correspond well to the general trend of news reports in the aftermath of the 3/11 disaster, in the way it takes a rational, calm and considered approach to the situation. In general Norwegian news in the aftermath of this disaster, fear mongering was running rampant, and you almost got the idea that Japan was about to sink into the sea at any point.

At the same time as the article is very rational, it is the representation of a subjective opinion, and not an analysis or discussion. It is written rather as a comment from an authoritative figure, and one might say it does not represent any general opinion or culture. In using the rationale of the required reading, on might even call it an action of calming down the population from the government, using the national newspapers as a means of communicating this message.

Volunteering

Before taking this class and especially before reading the required material the volunteer group assigned me, I had never given much thought to what the term volunteering actually implied. I have always associated volunteer working with going abroad, helping the less fortunate - but I realize now that the term is much broader than that.

As the assignment text also states, there is a line between volunteering and other sorts of work that one participates in without the idea of pay. I would perhaps draw this line and call volunteer work all work that is done on ones own volition (of course) and does not involve pay or other physical rewards. As I stated in the beginning, I used to consider volunteer working as work done towards people and situations one is not necessarily directly connected with, and I still hold that belief to some degree. Especially in the West, where the need for local volunteering is limited, it can be seen as a tendency to travel abroad and do volunteer working in places that one previously had no affiliation with.

As is the case after the 3.11 earthquake though, you clearly see people volunteer working within their own country, and I do not think the term volunteering holds that much of a different meaning in Japan than other places in the world, but the way Japan in a big degree is a homogeneous society may increase the willingness to help out a bit. One difference one might point out though is the way it is almost seen as a requirement for Japanese people with the capacity to help, to go and do volunteer work. I am not sure, but I believe that this notion would not be that strong if a disaster of the same magnitude happened in Europe.

Post disaster shock in a technoscientific society

At the same time as Japan is one of the most earthquake prone countries in the world, it is also one of the most technically advanced. When it comes to disaster preparation this combination produces a population that can be said to both be well prepared for a hypothetical disaster, but also very reliant and trusting in the ability of the government and the technology it possesses to protect it's citizens.

As we discussed in class, a deep belief in the safety and security of the institutions created to protect us from disaster can be a dangerous thing, if these institutions first fail. I can imagine that a somewhat dulled down (due to trust in safety measures) population will have potentially higher casualties if a really big disaster first strikes, than a population that has the mindset of self-reliability and preparedness.

In a country like Japan, the shock experienced in the aftermath of these kinds of disasters may be greater than in less developed countries, due to the fact that the people put a lot of trust into these safety institutions. In giving up our vigilance for safety provided by another actor, we have at the same time put ourselves in a very vulnerable position, and when we give these actors our blind trust and faith, the shock is even greater when we come to realize that they sometimes fail to protect us. Technoscience can therefore be a source of increased shock, when disaster first strikes. This shock is almost always coupled with the notion of blame in the aftermath of big catastrophes.

Blame cast in the aftermath of 3.11

Instead of focusing on a single case of post 3.11 blame, I will highlight a general trend of blaming met in a big majority of people trying to analyze what went wrong and what could have been done to avoid the nuclear disaster following the 3.11 earthquake.

This general trend I am talking about has to do with how people often follow the trail of money and the responsibilities (or rather the lack of) taken by people seen as in charge of the security and running of the affected nuclear power plants. Why did TEPCO ignore warnings of dangerously failing standards on their plants, and why did they not take into consideration the scientific reports saying that a tsunami wave bigger than five meters would cripple their generators? How can one in any case prioritize economical advantages over security?

In these cases, the accuracy of the claims may very well not be well documented, or true at all - this does not matter however, as their function is rather that of a highly effective fuel for the subconscious desire in humans to find some kind of scapegoat after a disaster that has ravaged the lives of so many. Instead of taking an introverted look on themselves and the the actions of the whole community before the disaster, these people rather demonize the people seen as in charge, asking themselves why they did not anticipate these events and take the necessary precautions.

In this particular case the people who are blamed will have a real hard time defending themselves, in much the same way as a security guard failing his duty will have a hard time defending himself. There is no denying what the job implied, or what should have been done in retrospect, but as is with these kinds of responsibilities, the magnitude of the "whats ifs" are not seen until the disaster has actually occurred, and one seldom gives any attention to the people in charge of these jobs until they fail to do their job. The big bosses and the people in charge of security at the plants may feel the blame directed at them to be unjust, as the discourse around nuclear security was limited at best before the accident, and the real attention was rather focused on the importance of saving money and giving a good public image. Although one was well aware of the dangers of nuclear energy, quick solutions to the increasing environmental problems were perhaps more important in the molding of public relations. When the general public, naturally followed by the government afterwards, demanded these peoples heads on a plate as a retribution for this "great injustice" done, it seemed fair, as these people clearly had neglected their responsibilities.

The restitutions demanded in the aftermath has been many and has ranged from the dismissal of the government, the firing of the TEPCO leadership and a discontinuation of Japans whole nuclear energy program, to more meager demands, such as economical fines.

This post was more of a meditation than that of a summary, regarding blame cast in the aftermath of 3.11 and I hope it was not to unstructured for you to get something out of.

Webpages I am following

Below are a list with short comments on some of the websites that I am following in my work with the group project in ANT352.

General page dedicated to all things nuclear - especially interesting history section

General Japanese news site in English

Blog regarding renewable energy and its many facets - critical to the impact on Fukushima on futere discourse

Two twitter feeds on the topics of nuclear power and nuclear reactors

Another general news page in english

Two pages concerning general scientific topics, with some interesting articles on both nuclear energy and the Fukushima disaster:

http://fairewinds.com/

http://ucsusa.org/

Please comment if you have additional sites that may help me.

Idea for group/term project

In the last years, nuclear energy has gained prominence as a viable, although short term solution to our dire environmental problems. Although we know that nuclear energy is not sustainable in the long run, the need to address these environmental problems with a quick and already well developed solution have seemed greater than the risks posed by nuclear energy.

In the aftermath of the march 11th disaster however, how has this changed, and what specifically do the people in and from the affected areas think of the their own and the rest of the worlds future in solving our energy crisis?

My thoughts on the general trends seen in most of the blogs on the site

As I would suspect, many of the blog posts that have been uploaded so far dealing with the March 11th disaster, have focused the sudden shock, the feeling of helplessness and also the notion that you were taking part in a piece of history that will be remembered for a long time.

Especially the chaotic first hours can be a fascinating, but also scary, thing to read about - as the once so orderly human civilization stops to a halt, and descends into an uncertain stasis. The role of social media in this disaster is also unparalleled, and never before has people found so many different - and in a way anarchic - ways of communicating, across borders, timezones and other barriers. Definitely a positive result and a curious side effect to the debated globalisation issue.

If I was to sum up the general feeling of the blog posts in one sentence, it would have had to be; Being struck down to earth, once again in touch with ones mortality, and the sudden rush as the world in a fraction of a second turns just infinitely more big, wild and uncontrollable.

My personal experience with the March 11 disaster

Welcome to my new blog, relating to the Sophia University course Nature, Culture & Technology.

When the earthquake of march 11th hit Japan, I was at home in my bed in Oslo, Norway sleeping. I remember I woke up early in the morning when my father called me, asking if I had heard the news from Japan. My friends and family knew of course about my plans for going on a study exchange to Tokyo, and I was just going about my regular day to day business, waiting to finally take my leave. Then this happened. Not believing the sensationalist media back home, my first reaction was skepticism and calm - I simply did not think it was such a big deal. I was proven wrong however, and in the two weeks that followed my biggest concern was whether or not I was going to be allowed to leave for Japan or not. Being as far away and safe as I was, I could not simply grasp the severity of the situation, nor the horrible realities facing the people of Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunamies.

Things calmed down over the span of the next three weeks however, and when I finally got my good-to-go traveling confirmation I was relieved, but also filled with a kind of uncertain suspense that I had never felt before. I am not afraid of earthquakes, but the effects of nuclear spills on human beings is a fear deeply rooted in people today I think. Not knowing the realities of the actual situation, seeing as every different newspaper reported different things, also attributed to this uncertainty that I was feeling. Not uncertainty of coming here, but uncertainty of what was going to meet me.

What actually met me here surprised me a great deal, but in an unconditionally positive way. The people I met here were open, including and, it seemed, almost grateful to still have foreigners among their ranks. I do not know how the people of Japan were before the disaster, but what I discovered when I arrived was a warm sense of community and spirit.

These are just some of my thoughts on the events spanning the last month, and though I still can't begin to understand the scope of the disaster, or the tragedy of the Japanese people, I am truly honored to be a part of this very special time in Japanese history.