History, Power, and Narrative: Chernobyl is Still There
/
This is the sixth of a series of perspectives on HBO’s Chernobyl
History, power, and narrative. Chernobyl is still there
Federico Montanari
(University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy)
The title of this contribution is alluding to the relationship between history and fiction, in Chernobyl tv series. On the one hand, the Chernobyl series challenges the so-called connection between fiction and nonfiction. It takes up the narration of the events in a rather precise way; but, at the same time, it works on memory and narrative, on the construction of personal experience and testimony, as well as on perception – and therefore on the plastic (that is, aesthetic-perceptual) and visual/figurative dimension. On the other hand, the question is: how the process of contextualization is staged? Context, today, has resurfaced as a topic of discussion among scholars in the humanities and social sciences, as well as in neuroscience and cognitive science (from classical Lotman’s analysis in cultural semiotic studies, to Grusin’s works on “hypermediation”; up to researches on “limited”, or “bounded rationality”, on “decisions” and “choices architecture”: e.g., with neuroscientists such as Albert Moukheiber, as well as in connection with models of “enactment”, “embodied”, “grounded”, “extended” or “ecological” mind, with scholars such as Thomas Fuchs or Andy Clark).
In this sense, we should wonder how the scene, or context, of the Cold War is re-presented, rather translated, with its internal power relations; how it is recalled and evoked, both in the Media, in history, as well as in situations narrated by this tv series. And that is also the case with regard to the external links: to the surrounding political, hence discursive and value-based cultural “semio-sphere”; as well as to the filmic representation of various political and geopolitical actors of that time, such as other States (Germany, Europe), or about the role of the media. But it is also important, given our current situation, either from a “mediascape” point of view, as well as political situation (as regards the current Ukraine war) to reflect on the re-emergence – even in other recent, valuable and successful series, such as Stranger Things, or The Americans – of the issue of the Cold War: as a kind of “Future Past” (cf., Koselleck) that does not seem to pass. A kind of a historical “return of the Repressed” in its relations to conflict. Therefore, Chernobyl must be not only seen as an event, but also as a symbol and condensate: the point of fall and fracture of a political regime, but, at the same time, of a narrative and a mythology. A future/past that rebounds in its various themes and figures: not only concerning the issue of the nuclear accident, but also with the possible global environmental catastrophe, as well as epitome of a world global war.
Concerning the first point (the link between “history and fiction”), as anticipated, Chernobyl series poses some problems regarding the fiction/nonfiction relationship, from a semiotic and socio-cultural point of view. More specifically, it deals not only with “the making of true”, but also with the “making as it seems true” (Or “real”). How does this Hbo mini-series claim to tell a historical truth as dramatic as the Chernobyl catastrophe? Thus, to a second level, it deals with a “modal question”. What does this idea of “modal” mean, from the perspective of sense construction and narrative? By this narrative-semiotic concept of modality we want to emphasise the internal mechanism of this narrative: capable of producing something that convinces us that it must be true. To convince us, as viewers, that the truth is being told, and well narrated, and that is useful and important for us. We are facing a kind of Pedagogic narrativization (cf., Laugier), as well as “fictionalisation” of truth. Let us think, by contrast, to another, very recent, case of an Italian mini TV series, of great quality, made by an important film director like Marco Bellocchio, such as “Esterno notte” (Night Exterior) (2022): in which the story of the 1978 kidnapping, by the revolutionary group of the Red Brigades, of the important italian statesman Aldo Moro, is narrated. Here we will find (admittedly, with great differences from the Chernobyl series), another way of “fictionalising” the history. In his latter case, and in a more radical way, the fictionalisation is constructed through the proposal of “alternative endings”, and a mixing of (hoped-for) dreams and harsh reality. But, again, we will be dealing with different forms of fictionalisation that work on the intensification of events.
So, what is fictionalisation? It’s, first of all, again a narrative-modal procedure. Also, obviously, related to the “putting into perspective” (thus turned in discourse): creating, “from a truth, a new narrative” (Larousse, Webster; see, also, Marion Colas-Blaise, Mode d’existence, modalité et modalisation : les apports de la sémiotique, Signata, 13, 2022, resuming semioticians like Bertrand, Fontanille, Zilberberg, but also philosophers such as Latour, or Souriau). But, again, it needs also, secondly, an intensification (namely, an emotional accentuation (see, about emotions in seriality, also Garcia, in this panel on Chernobyl series) of certain points of a narrative. Fiction should be seen as another “mode of existence”? Thanks to an incessant dynamic between the different modes of existence, fiction could be a “form of modulation or deep modality”. That is to say, a production of a new reality through modal and intensive transformation, to quote again Colas-Blaise (ib., p. 14): “indeed, rather than directing the attention towards the “illusion” and the “false”, the notion of fiction must direct us towards the consideration of the “produced”, the “consistent”, the “real””.
Fictional beings populating narrative microcosms.
So, the problem now becomes how to rethink, in a not trivial way, this delicate frontier between “fiction” and “reality” (confronting, for instance, the logical-semantic theories of “possible Worlds”, from Lewis to Goodman, in which possible worlds are part of the “real” world, to Eco, up to Dolezel and the idea of “storyworld”, often taken up by N. Dusi from semiotics of culture and media (Torop)). As said, the main idea consists of moving from the false and illusion, to the “fabricated”, up to the “consistency” of the “real”. Thus, fictionalisation becomes an “over-modalization”. What does this mean? That this over-modalization is not just limited to the establishment of signifying “worlds”. But to enhance them, to reinvent them, to render them “consistent” (in a certain way, and from a certain perspective). In our case, of the Chernobyl series, this process is brought to light: it is exhibited, given to be seen (cf., again, Colas-Blaise, ib.).
More generally, in Chernobyl series (as well as in its whole intermedial dimension), we are dealing with a narration which is presented as true and credible; but, at the same time, it has to maintain itself in a struggle against a background of a non-truth: in this case, the falsity of the Soviet system (we should remember all the literature about it…concerning the “Homo sovieticus”, etc.). Again, in order not to fall into an ingenuous “ontologism”, it could be important to provide a description of these passages “to existence”. In this sense, Chernobyl series takes up the recounting of the events in a seemingly accurate manner; but, at the same time, it reworks memory, starting from the reconstruction of personal experience and testimony; as well as on perception of events. An important example on the visual level is the scene of the “radioactive snow” experience on the bridge near the nuclear power plant, where a crowd gathers, during the night of the explosion; and they will soon all die. But this scene is narrated with a lot of differences and different choices concerning the literary source of the series. In this regard, we should recall that the main source of the writing of the Chernobyl series is the book Chernobyl Prayer. Voices from Chernobyl. (A chronicle of the Future), by Svetlana Alexievich (2006); and in which the accounts – sometimes anonymous and plural, or voices, biographical, testimonial interviews, of victims, relatives, citizens, but also of doctors, scientists, politicians, intellectuals as well as common people – are collected and greatly emphasised.
This translation between book and TV series is also about the description of perceptions and sensations. For instance, it deals with certain smell or taste: what is the smell of a terribly strong radioactivity level, destined to destroy in a few hours the bodies? It’s a sort of Metallic taste in the mouth (and it is the only case reported in the series, taken from the source book: let’s refer to the scene of firemen trying to fight the impossible fire in the reactor core).
Or it deals with environmental transformations from other points of view and perspectives: “The animals can probably see it and hear it, but people can’t. But that’s not true! I saw it. This caesium was lying in my vegetable plot until it got wet in the rain. Sort of inky blue, it was. It lay there shimmering in these little lumps. I’d just run back from the collective-farm field and gone to my vegetable plot. And there it was, this blue lump, and a couple of hundred meters away, there was another, as big as the scarf on my head.” (a testimony, from Chernobyl book).
Contextualisation and political discourse of memory.
But let’s come back to the other question: about “contextualization”. (See also Rampazzo Gambarato, Heuman and Lindberg, “Streaming media and the dynamics of remembering and forgetting: The Chernobyl case”, Memory Studies, 2022, 15, (2)). And, more specifically, on the question concerning the link between memory and political discourse. There are, in this regard, a number of main points that can be posed even in a very synthetic way (quoting from Rampazzo, et al.). The main question is: what happens to cultural memory in a post-television age, concerning people’s active and passive memorization (cf., also Assman) and memorial layering? Some resuming points:
- A) we are facing not a “collapsing of memory”, rather a “retrospective” and reinvention with some “nostalgia effects” (typical of other “Cold-war issue” series, such as Stranger Things or The Americans).
- B) Importance of Inter-medial dimension (and transmedia effect). From book to the series, from series to tourism, up to other textual, cross and trans-medial experiences;
- C) Intra-medial dimension: Hero narrative (classical proppian moments, such as, departure, initiation, return...) and their myths in support of memory (with a general, ambiguous, but, at the same time, stereotypical role of these heroes);
- D) Pluri-medial dimension: “politicisation” (and, at the same time, de-politicization) of memory: Chernobyl as a “catalyst” (Ukraine, Belarus, Ussr and Russia heritage, e.g., Gorbachev and Putin as political heroes, or anti-heroes and villains).
A final, critical point.
Concerning these analytical layers, there is a final, controversial, critical point that I would like to propose, for a possible discussion. Does the “platformization” of cultural production (as well as “Hbo-ization” of media) and, consequently, of cultural memory, such as in the case of Chernobyl, could provoke “the proliferation of the Same” as denounced by Han (quoted in Rampazzo, ib.)? That is to say, a “stereotypization” of narrative? And of discourses? “To give us the false impression of overall agreement with our own beliefs, due to the lack of exposure to different or conflicting content” (ib.).
In my opinion, even in a high-quality, esthetically excellent product like Chernobyl, we can find this risk. Particularly with regard to the fact that there would be a kind of “reduction” (“ad unum”) of the conflict as well as of collective dimension, often reduced to struggles of “isolated individual heroes.” Where collectives are crushed on this single dimension. (Although, in some moments, they are present, such as protesting mothers or wives, or miners and soldiers, condemned to the risk of radioactive death, but often in an almost caricatured form). This is not an ideological critique, but precisely it deals with the form of narrative values and of discursive organisations: concerning the semio-cultural dimension of the serial product; but also with regard to their ethical (Laugier) and socio-pedagogical dimensions.
References
Alexievich, S. (2006). Chernobyl Prayer. Voices from Chernobyl. (A chronicle of the Future). London: Penguin.
Beck, U. (1987). “The Anthropological Shock: Chernobyl And The Contours Of The Risk Society”, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. 32, pp. 153-165.
Boyd, B. (2009). On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Clark, A. (2016). Surfing Uncertainty. Prediction, Action and the Embodied Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colas-Blaise, M., (2022). “Modes, modalités et modalisations. La conceptualisation des modalités : statut et rôle épistémologique” Mode d’existence, modalité et modalisation : les apports de la sémiotique. Signata. Annales des sémiotiques / Annals of Semiotics, 13.
Dayan D., Katz E. (1992). Media Events. The live broadcasting of history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Fontanille, J. (2020). « L’instauration des mondes et la fabrique des vérités »,
Degrés, vol. 43, pp. d 1-d 29.
Fontanille, J., Zilberberg, Cl. (1998). Tension et signification, Liège: Pierre Mardaga.
Gessen, M. (2019). “What HBO Chernobyl got right, and what it got terribly wrong”.
The New Yorker, 4 June:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-hbos-chernobyl-got-right-andwhat-it-got-terribly-wrong (accessed October 2022).
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Grusin, R. (2015) “Radical Mediation”. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Autumn 2015), pp. 124-148. The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682998 (accessed October 2022).
Laugier, S. (2019a). Nos vies en séries. Paris: Flammarion.
Laugier, S. (2019b). ““Very bad trip” à Tchernobyl”. Libération, 20 June: https://www.liberation.fr/debats/2019/06/20/very-bad-trip-a-tchernobyl_1735148 (accessed 2 November 2022).
Koselleck, R. (1985). Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Rampazzo Gambarato, R., Heuman, J., Lindberg, Y., “Streaming media and the dynamics of remembering and forgetting: The Chernobyl case”, Memory Studies, 2022, 15, (2)).
Biography
Federico Montanari, PhD Semiotics, is Associate Professor of Sociology of Cultural and Communication Processes at the University of Modena Reggio Emilia (Italy), Department of Communication and Economics, where he teaches Visual and Media Studies, Theory of Communication, and Sociosemiotics; after having taught in several universities, such as Politecnico di Milano, Bologna, ISIA, Iulm Milano, and as visiting scholar at the University of California, San Diego. He works on socio-semiotic analysis of war and conflicts and political discourse; more recently on the study of urban spaces, ecological discourse, and technologies, also in relation to cultural studies, and visual and media representations. He also works on the philosophy of post-structuralism. He is participating in various research projects, and he has written several books and articles on these issues, including: “Contested novel ecosystems: Socio-ecological processes and evidence from Italy” (2021, with Bartoletti, R., Trentanovi, G., Zinzani, A.); La forma seriale e mediale del conflitto (2019); Immagini coinvolte (2016); Morphogenesis and Individuation (2014, with A. Sarti and F. Galofaro); Actants, Actors, and Combat Units, a semiocultural viewpoint (2012); Linguaggi della guerra (2004).
