Recent research into revivalist movements in Finland

The introductory essay contrasts the violent 1968 uprisings in Paris, Berlin, New York and other cities with the comparatively low‐key ways of the revolt or radicalization in the Scandinavian countries, brought about by the attitude of radicals and authorities alike. It is argued that whereas the level of violence was low in Scandinavia, the effects of ‘1968’ have been at least as far‐reaching as in other Western countries, where sixties radicals were less easily co‐opted into mainstream society and polity. Another distinguishing trait of the Scandinavian ‘1968’ is the role of socialism, and especially Leninism. The essay summarizes the content of the articles in the Special Issue. On the basis of the four country overviews it is noticed that there is still some way to go before the movement from memory to history is completed. The articles in this Special Issue are evidence of the progress, however, and represent a milestone on the road to maturity of research on the sixties radicalization in Scandinavia.     

Preparing for change: acid rain,climate change,and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1972–1990s

Abstract

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) was created in 1972 as a nonprofit research organization, funded primarily by the US electric power industry. Managing a broad public-private collaborative research program, EPRI was to prepare the industry for change by addressing major issues related to electric power production. Among other things, EPRI initiated an ambitious environmental research program in relation to acid rain and, later, climate change. Partly in consequence of the lessons learned in acid rain research, EPRI’s Environment Division around 1990 developed grand plans to show industry leadership on how to address climate change. However, as this article shows, EPRI gradually realized that natural science research alone was not an adequate response to environmental and social changes. Two vocabularies for change resulted: one in which change would be addressed by means of assessments in which future developments in the nature-society-technology system could be delineated, predicted, and ameliorated, and one in which change was essentially unpredictable and potentially dangerous.     

Book reviews

D. J. Shepherd: Funerary Ritual and Symbolism. An Interdisciplinary Interpretation of Burial Practices in Late Iron Age Finland. BAR International Series 808. Oxford. 1999. ISBN 1 84171 113 6. 133 pages, 19 maps.

Vladimir N. Bulatov, Russkij Sever, Vols. 1–3. Archangel 1997–99. Izdatel'stvo Pomorskogo Universiteta. 352+352+336 pages.     

“Hungry for Knowledge”: Towards a Meso‐History of the Environmental Sciences

In recent years, cultural studies and cultural theory have experienced a new wave of ecological thought. Despite the engagement with the Anthropocene the history of ecology and the environmental sciences has remained somewhat of a puzzle. This goes especially for the 20^th century, a period when the sciences of the environment came to matter on a broader scale. Why do we actually know so little about the environmental sciences in the 20^th century? And what could a history of the environmental sciences in that period look like? This article answers these questions with two interrelated arguments. First, by reflecting on different approaches to write the history of ecology since the 1970s, it uncovers crucial entanglements between the history of science and ecological thought that created blind spots regarding the environmental sciences in the 20^th century. Second, it argues for a shift in scales of analysis—towards meso‐scales. With a more regional approach historians can engage with the often‐neglected aspects of the political and economic history of the environmental sciences in the 20th century and thereby also reveal their fundamental infrastructural dimension. Because at its core, the article claims, the environmental sciences were and are essentially infrastructural sciences.     

Shared rivers and interstate conflict

“The previous war in the Middle East was about oil, the next war will be about water.” Such predictions have been made regularly, and particularly with reference to the possibility of upstream–downstream conflicts in major rivers which cross interstate boundaries. A good case can be made that competition over water resources may exacerbate conflict and contribute to interstate violence. More than 200 river systems are shared by two or more countries. Many rivers run between countries with a history of conflict, where water plays an important part in the economic life of the country. The dramatic statements about ‘water wars’, however, have a weaker foundation. As resource optimists have pointed out, there is an abundance of water where it is not subject to wasteful uses, human ingenuity can overcome water shortages, and nations can cooperate rather than fight to resolve international water issues. This study is built on newly generated data on boundary-crossing rivers, which have been added to the Correlates of War contiguity dataset. Our results indicate that a joint river does indeed increase the probability of militarized disputes and armed conflict over and above mere contiguity. This risk factor is comparable in size to standard control variables, but much smaller than the effect of contiguity itself. Water scarcity is also associated with conflict, and the upstream/downstream relationship appears to be the form of shared river most frequently associated with conflict. But these results are not very strong and we do not have any systematic data on the issues involved in the shared-river conflicts.