Vor wenigen Tagen ist der umfangreiche Band (501 S.) zur Literatur nach Fukushima, d.h. zur sogenannten shinsaigo bungaku erschienen!
Das Buch behandelt wichtige Autoren / Autorinnen und Texte auf diesem Feld und dient mit einer ausführlichen Bibliographie sowie detaillierten Indices (Namensindex, Sachindex) auch als Handbuch und Stichwortgeber. So finden sich im Sachindex z.B. Einträge zu Themen wie Biopolitik, dark tourism, environmental humanities, kankyô bungaku, Multispezies-Roman und Post-Fukushima-Animismus.
Unter den untersuchten Literaten sind u.a. Tsushima Yûko, Kawakami Hiromi, Tawada Yôko, Kirino Natsuo, Murata Sayaka, Yoshimura Manʼichi, Isaka Kôtarô, Itô Seikô, Kobayashi Erika, Onda Riku, Genʼyû Sôkyû und Kimura Yûsuke.
Leitfrage der Textexegesen ist, inwieweit und auf welche Art die literarische Repräsentation von „3.11“ eine – in Abgrenzung zum offiziellen Narrativ der Katastrophe durch Regierung und Medien – alternative oder subversive Deutung der Geschehnisse bietet.
Übersichten und Tabellen (Themen der Literatur nach 3.11 / Leitmotive / "Fukushima-Literatur ohne Fukushima" / Sonderausgaben Magazine 2011-2012 / Post-Fukushima-Essays) erleichtern zudem den Überblick über den Stoff und die Einordnung der Texte.
Links: https://www.academia.edu/44973145/Japanische_Literatur_nach_Fukushima_Sieben_Exkursionen_2021_
English Abstract
The study Japanische Literatur nach Fukushima. Sieben Exkursionen / Japanese literature after Fukushima. Seven excursions discusses what is called shinsaigo bungaku or 3.11 literature. It covers texts that address key topics such as nature and the nuclear, nuclear catastrophe, “polluted atmospheres”, life in a “toxic continuum” and “the post-anthropocene: the earth without us”. Among the authors discussed are well-known names – Tsushima Yûko, Kawakami Hiromi, Tawada Yôko, Kirino Natsuo and Murata Sayaka – but also representatives of the literary scene who have so far only been read in Japan, such as Yoshimura Manʼichi, Isaka Kôtarô, Itô Seikô, Kobayashi Erika and Onda Riku. Writers from the region hardest hit by the triple disaster, e.g. Genʼyû Sôkyû and Kimura Yûsuke, receive special attention. This also applies to an older generation of authors who, with their literary commentaries, criticize the balance of power in the “nuclear state” (Jungk) and recall the fundamentals of an understanding of democracy that shaped the post-war era. The key question of the study is to what extent and in what way literary representations of “3.11” offer an alternative or subversive interpretation of the events – as opposed to the narrative of the catastrophe by the government and the media. Quite a few contributions to “Fukushima” refer to a tradition of literary commentary on contemporary history: In these cases, the question must be asked how authors understand the connections between literature and politics. Some texts showed with remarkable clarity how catastrophes can implement new normative structures and biopolitical orders – especially those that open up future perspectives in the form of mirai shôsetsu. Literature thus shows itself as a linguistic antidote to PR and rhetorics of authority. Other Post-Fukushima adaptations correspond to the state directed mandate of an artistic crisis intervention and seek harmony with the official framing; they favor the path of “consensus art” in order to avoid confronting changes in social reality, e.g. the consequences of a nuclear accident. Their authors often focus on the concept of trauma to those affected and the possibility of „healing“, acting in conformity with the system. “Safe narrations” of “Fukushima” transform the events into a state-conforming culture of memory. In this context, the role of literary scholars and Japanologists must also be examined: Are they part of the socio-media entourage that prepares 3.11 and offers globalized, streamlined consensus research? Or do they search for a more complete picture of multidisciplinary, philosophical-political orientation – under aspects such as „post-democracy“ (Crouch), „surveillance capitalism“ (Zuboff), „focusing events“ (Birkland) and „political economy of consent“ (Ribault)?
