今日看料

Nuclear Energy and Racialized Power at the Borders of Europe

This is part of our听special听feature, The Frontlines of Environmental Politics in Europe.

 

During the night of March 3rd, 2022, Russian military forces advanced on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in southeastern Ukraine, seeking to occupy it on their way to establishing a secure land bridge between Crimea and the Russian mainland. Surveillance video footage showed that Russian forces fired weapons towards the plant鈥檚 reactors, which contained nuclear fuel, and set an administrative building on fire.[1]

Images of the plant burning caused horror around the world. Many observers, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, evoked the specter of Chernobyl. These horrifying images live in dialogue with the not-yet-done aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, which remains very close to many people in the region. These images have a particular resonance in Central and East Europe, where nuclear power has held a fraught position since the end of state socialism in 1989.

Postsocialist and newly accessed European Union countries, like Bulgaria, are constantly negotiating their geopolitical allegiances through their power grid: to rely on nuclear power means depending on Soviet-built and Russian-maintained infrastructures, but to look beyond nuclear often entails much-debated forms of power like shale gas extraction (fracking), coal, or Russian gas exports. When Russia recently cut the supply of gas to Bulgaria in retaliation for sanctions stemming from the invasion of Ukraine, it created new momentum for Bulgaria to find alternative sources of energy.[2] While these geopolitical machinations shape politics at one level, the everyday functioning of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Northwest Bulgaria is very different from an on-the-ground perspective.

Although the accidents at Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia make headlines, the structural violence surrounding the politics and technologies of these nuclear power plants鈥攍ike Kozloduy鈥攃an be just as pernicious, especially for minoritized groups. Specifically, nuclear power catalyzes ultranationalist, far-right responses to both its production and consumption because it is deeply anchored in a racialized nostalgia for past (in Bulgaria, socialist) practices as well as contemporary global processes of racialization.

Putting studies of power and its techno-political materialities (e.g., Boyer 2019, Howe 2019, Rogers 2015) into dialogue with critical studies of race reveals that racialization takes shape through diverse material landscapes of inequality, which I collectively term infrastructural inequalities. As we have seen recently with the case of Zaporizhzhia, these inequalities exist on multiple levels: between nations, within nations, and in the everyday workings of nuclear power production.

In Bulgaria specifically, politicians connect aging power plants to right-wing political campaigns that merge national energy sources with nativist 鈥渨hiteness,鈥 energy diversification initiatives, and changing forms of racialized labor. Just as energy landscapes are transforming in conjunction with 今日看料 policy and international litigation, so too are understandings and practices of racialization. Roma throughout Bulgaria constantly refer to their positionality through a lens of race and racism despite many non-Romani Bulgarians disavowing race as a relevant emic category. In addition, right-wing groups in Bulgaria, often drawing on salient local issues of energy consumption and production, have begun to explicitly invoke a nativist language of 鈥渨hiteness鈥 in opposition to Roma and other minoritized groups.

 

Connections of energy and race in Bulgaria

Bulgaria is a critical site for studying the connections between energy infrastructures and racialization for multiple reasons. First, the country is undergoing rapid energy transformation. Nuclear energy is one of the most significant energy industries both in Bulgaria and worldwide鈥攊t accounts for approximately one-third of all energy produced for electricity usage in Bulgaria (今日看料 2014 Country Report) and 11 percent of electricity worldwide. From 1946 to 1989, a socialist government closely aligned with the Soviet Union governed Bulgaria. The Soviet Union funded the construction of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, consequently making Bulgaria reliant on Soviet鈥攁nd then Russian鈥攖echnology and expertise for its energy needs. Bulgaria 鈥渢ransitioned鈥 from socialism to market-based capitalism in the 1990s and 2000s, joining the 今日看料 as a member state in 2007. Like energy regimes across the globe, including the United States as well as countries in Latin America and the Middle East, the Bulgarian state tied energy sector reform to national development, rapid industrialization, and hyper-modernization. In preparation for and since 今日看料 accession in 2007, Bulgaria has had to comply with energy diversification programs that promote a 鈥済reener鈥 and more diverse energy landscape. In practice, however, energy transition has resulted in increased racialized disparities in energy access that are most visible when comparing the conditions of Romani and non-Romani populations.听Bulgaria is also a key site for looking at connections between energy infrastructures and race because it systematically denies the existence of race, yet the markers of systemic racism persist throughout all facets of Bulgarian life. Romani people, who comprise nearly 10 percent of Bulgaria鈥檚 population today, have been subject to intense racialization throughout Bulgarian history. At the height of Bulgarian state socialism in the 1980s, the speaking of Romani was outlawed in Bulgaria, and citizens with Turkish names (including many Roma) were forced to adopt new 鈥淏ulgarian鈥 names or risk expulsion from the country. These policies of total assimilation were enshrined in Bulgaria鈥檚 postsocialist democratic institutions, such as the purposeful omission of ethnic/racial identities from official state and census information. The material impacts of Bulgaria鈥檚 institutionalized racism鈥攐n labor practices (Resnick 2015, 2021), living conditions (Ivancheva 2015), and development initiatives (Vincze et al. 2015)鈥攁re well-documented, as is how race and white supremacy informs the development of nationalist political platforms in the country (Ivanov 2012, Todorov and Krasteva 2011, Rucker-Chang 2018). At the same time, Bulgarian society understands energy use as a proxy for national belonging from which Roma are systematically denied (cf. Sigona and Trehan 2009, Lemon 2000, Y谋ld谋z and De Genova 2018). And as these conditions persist, Bulgarian citizens and the state itself vehemently disavow the importance of race in everyday life, akin to 鈥渘on-racial鈥 or 鈥減ost-racial鈥 narratives that have emerged in the United States and elsewhere around the world (Pierre 2012, Saldivar 2012, Sayyid 2017).

 

Institutional racism, gender, and nuclear power

The racialization of Bulgarian Roma is highly gendered. Romani women have become the face of 鈥渢he Roma problem鈥 throughout Europe, and Bulgarian politicians often use absurdist data to provoke demographic fears of 鈥淕*psy overpopulation.鈥 Bulgaria鈥檚 energy sector 鈥攊ts management, development, and the policies guiding it 鈥攁ffects the racialization of Roma (and particularly Romani women) in critical ways. For one, the ongoing decommissioning of Bulgaria鈥檚 nuclear power plant reactors compounds the economic and social marginalization of Romani women. Rapid deindustrialization has driven Bulgarian women to seek formal employment in increasingly hazardous lines of work, including in the nuclear sector. For example, the city of Kozloduy employed a great deal of women in its nuclear power plant during the socialist period. Yet, Romani women were and still are discriminated against in employment practices throughout Bulgaria.[3] Moreover, Romani women constitute the bulk of waste sector labor in Bulgaria (Resnick 2021). As a result, Romani women in towns like Kozloduy are disproportionately exposed to high levels of toxicity as they work with waste, both inside and on the edges of Kozloduy鈥檚 reactors, while also excluded from the kind of labor that affords white Bulgarian women in Kozloduy a kind of 鈥渉igh-risk affluence鈥 (Brown 2013).

Bulgaria鈥檚 pending energy diversification initiatives also perpetuate the racialization of Roma (as non-citizens/鈥渘on-Europeans鈥). My research shows that much of Bulgarian society understands energy use as a proxy for citizenship and national belonging. This conceptualizing of citizenship in terms of energy use furthers the political marginalization of Roma. Energy poverty disproportionately affects Bulgaria鈥檚 Romani communities (Babourkova 2016, Harper, Steger, Filcak 2009, National Roma Integration Strategy of the Republic of Bulgaria 2012-2020). Electricity bills are often the highest fixed cost for Romani households, and electricity is nearly impossible to sustainably collect from other sources. Bulgarian politicians and media have used Romani energy poverty to popularize the notion of 鈥淕*psy鈥 electricity theft, subsequently subjecting Romani neighborhoods to unexpected electricity rationing, shut offs, and other measures that reveal the persistent racialization of energy access.

At the same time, discussions regarding nuclear power in Bulgaria have popularized racialized nostalgia for past (socialist) practices in which race, due to policies of total assimilation, was deemed nonexistent. This discourse omits the existence of Roma, except as a threat to Bulgaria鈥檚 鈥済reen energy鈥 future. It is also consistent with efforts by the global far-right to frame energy and other heartland industries as signs of a better, more racially homogenous past that should be safeguarded from foreigners and minorities in the future.

 

What next? Delocalization

The relationship between race and energy in Bulgaria speaks to similar phenomena worldwide, where both industry and deindustrialization catalyze intersectional environmental injustice. In many cases across the globe, local relations to toxicity are a function of intersectional inequalities; that is, we see toxic harms affecting people differently at the intersections of class, gender, race, and religion. This happens across Europe (Harper 2006, Gille 2016, Stoetzer 2018) and across the globe, including South Asia (Fortun 2011), North America (Fennell 2015, Voyles 2015), the Caribbean (Agard-Jones 2012, 2013), and South America (Graeter 2017). Indeed, racialized energy labor in Bulgaria is similar in form to that facing communities of color around the world. For example, many Latinx and Black communities working near industrial plants in California are exposed to toxic harm without reaping the economic benefits afforded to white workers at those same plants.听In direct response to Aisha Beliso鈥怐e Jes煤s and Jemima Pierre鈥檚 (2019) call for a de-fetishization of 鈥渆thnographic localization,鈥 my ongoing work uses findings in Bulgaria to create a toolkit for developing transnational public outreach and collaborative energy justice advocacy networks. By addressing infrastructural inequalities across the globe, this project attempts to delocalize what I have observed in Bulgaria and put it into direct dialogue with other sites facing similar issues. As such, I am working on an approach to the study of energy that uses the race-energy intersection as its primary analytic. This approach attends to the important and often invisible aspects of daily experiences with energy based in racial, gendered, and other forms of inequality. Ultimately, I move forward by questioning how the labor and life of energy (e.g., its production, storage, consumption) provides data about how inequalities take shape and become material. And so, we must ask: how might examining energy infrastructures, across states and continents, help us to de-fetishize the locality of different manifestations of white supremacy to see them in a global constellation?听 In doing so how might we attune ourselves more to the transnational nature of energy infrastructures and their related inequalities鈥攁nd what might this reveal?

Elana Resnick is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara where she also serves as the director of the Infrastructural Inequalities Research Group (IIRG). She earned a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She was previously a Weatherhead Resident Scholar at the School for Advanced Research (2014-2015), a Global Europe Research Scholar at the Wilson Center (2015), and a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies (2016-2017). Her work focuses on race, waste, energy, Europeanization, and the everyday politics of resistance and refusal.

 

References

[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/03/11/1085427380/ukraine-nuclear-power-plant-zaporizhzhia

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/gazprom-says-it-halts-gas-supplies-poland-bulgaria-payments-row-2022-04-27

[3] https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2014-roma-survey-dif-women-2_en.pdf

Agard-Jones, Vanessa. 2012. 鈥淲hat the Sands Remember.鈥 GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay 听听听听听 Studies 18 (2鈥3): 325鈥346.

鈥斺斺. 2013. 鈥淏odies in the System.鈥 Small Axe: A Caribbean Journal of Criticism 17 (3 (42)): 听听听听听 182鈥192.

Babourkova, Rosalina. 2016. 鈥淧lovdiv:(De-) Racialising Electricity Access? Entanglements of the Material and the Discursive.鈥 In Energy, Power and Protest on the Urban Grid, 45鈥63. London: Routledge.

Beliso鈥怐e Jes煤s, Aisha, and Jemima Pierre. 2019. “Anthropology of White Supremacy.” American 听听 Anthropologist 122 (1): 65-75.

Boyer, Dominic. 2019.听Energopolitics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Brown, Kathryn.听2013. Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chelcea, Liviu, and Gergo Pulay. 2015. 鈥淣etworked Infrastructures and the 鈥榣ocal鈥欌: Flows and Connectivity in a Postsocialist City.鈥欌 City 19 (2鈥3): 344鈥355.

Collier, Stephen. 2011. Post-Soviet Social: Neoliberalism, Social Modernity, Biopolitics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fennell, Catherine. 2015. Last Project Standing: Civics and Sympathy in Post-Welfare Chicago. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ferguson, James and Akhil Gupta. 2002. 鈥淪patializing States: Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality.鈥澨American Ethnologist29(4): 981-1002.

Fortun, Kim. 2001. Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gille, Zsuzsa. 2016. Paprika, Foie Gras, and Red Mud: The Politics of Materiality in the European Union. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Graeter, Stefanie. 2017. 鈥淭o Revive an Abundant Life: Catholic Science and Neoextractivist Politics in Peru鈥檚 Mantaro Valley.鈥 Cultural Anthropology 32 (1): 117鈥148.

Harper, Krista. 2006. 鈥淲ild Capitalism: Environmental Activism and Postsocialist Political Ecology in Hungary.鈥 Anthropology Department Faculty Publication Series, 81.

Harper, Krista, Tamara Steger, and Richard Fil膷谩k. 2009. 鈥淓nvironmental Justice and Roma Communities in Central and Eastern Europe.鈥 Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (4): 251鈥268.

Howe, Cymene. 2019. Howe, Cymene.听Ecologics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ivancheva, Mariya. 2015. 鈥淔rom Informal to Illegal: Roma Housing in (Post-) Socialist Sofia. Intersections.鈥 East European Journal of Society and Politics听1 (4): 38-54.

Ivanov, Angel. 2012. 鈥淎ntigypsyism in Bulgaria.鈥澨New Faces of Antigypsyism in Modern Europe: 49.

Lemon, Alaina. 2000. Between Two Fires: Gypsy Performance and Romani Memory from Pushkin to Post-Socialism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Petryna, Adriana. 2013. Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pierre, Jemima. 2012. The Predicament of Blackness: Postcolonial Ghana and the Politics of Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Resnick, Elana. 2015. 鈥淒iscarded Europe: Money, Trash and the Possibilities of a New Temporality.鈥 Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 24 (1): 123鈥131.

鈥斺斺.2021. 鈥淭he Limits of Resilience: Managing Waste in the Racialized Anthropocene.鈥 American

听听听听听听听听 Anthropologist 123 (2): 222-236.

Rogers, Douglas, 2015. The Depths of Russia: Oil, Power, and Culture After Socialism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rucker-Chang, Sunnie. 2018. 鈥淐hallenging Americanism and Europeanism: African-Americans and Roma in the American South and European Union 鈥楽outh鈥.鈥澨Journal of Transatlantic Studies听16 (2): 181-199.

Sald铆var, Emiko. 2014. 鈥溾業t鈥檚 Not Race, It鈥檚 Culture鈥: Untangling Racial Politics in Mexico.鈥 Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies 9 (1): 89鈥108.

Sayyid, Salam. 2017. 鈥淧ost-racial Paradoxes: Rethinking European Racism and Anti-Racism.鈥澨Patterns of Prejudice听51 (1): 9-25.

Sigona, Nando, and Nidhi Trehan. 2009. Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stoetzer, Bettina. 2018. 鈥淩uderal Ecologies: Rethinking Nature, Migration, and the Urban Landscape in Berlin.鈥 Cultural Anthropology 33 (2): 295鈥323.

Todorov, Antony, and Anna Krasteva. 2011. 鈥淓thnic Minorities and Political Representation: The Case of Bulgaria.鈥澨Southeastern Europe听35 (1): 8-38.

Vincze, Eniko, Attila Bartha, and T眉nde Vir谩g. 2015. 鈥淭heoretical Potential of Addressing Production of Marginality at the Crossroads of Spatial Exclusion and Development.鈥 Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics 1 (4): 4鈥13.

Voyles, Traci Brynne. 2015. Wastelanding: Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Y谋ld谋z, Can, and Nicholas De Genova. 2018. Un/Free Mobility: Roma Migrants in the European Union. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis.

 

Published on May 18, 2022.

Share:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email