Turning a Disaster into Regenerative Strength: Hiroshima’s Strategy for Societal Peace in the Anthropocene

Abstract

This interdisciplinary study demonstrates how an anthropogenic narrative emerged in the immediate aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and how it became a strategic tool to drive Hiroshima’s reconstruction processes, ascribing a new identity to the devastated city as a global advocate for peace. The atomic bomb survivors’ nascent anthropogenic discourse emerged as hearsay partially based on scientific news but primarily reflecting the survivors’ immediate and visceral observation of life at ground zero. The discourse evolved in synergy with the annual Peace Declarations and other public discourses, mobilising the hibakusha and changing their outlook. The study reveals, through a hybrid method of quantitative and qualitative analyses of over 20,000 testimonies from a-bomb survivors, the power of the anthropogenic discourse from ground zero in turning ad hoc disaster recovery efforts into the sustainable development of the city while fostering community consciousness for societal and global peace.

Keywords:

• atomic bomb
• discourse manipulation
• identity
• mobilisation

Today, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are associated with a three-fold identity of war and peace: living witnesses of the atrocity of nuclear weapons, examples of remarkable post-war urban reconstruction, and symbols of aspiration for universal peace through the abolition of nuclear weapons. The first of these images echoes an eschatological discourse that spread among the survivors shortly after the atomic catastrophe. Popular phrases characterising the discourse include ‘Kono yo no owari’ (the end of this world),¹ ‘shikabane no machi’ (city of corpses)² and ‘Nanajū-gonen wa kusaki mo haenu’, literally, ‘no grass or tree will grow there for the next seventy-five years’ (seventy-five-year barrenness).³ These phrases depicted the survivors’ visceral accounts of the world they witnessed in the aftermath. When people without external injuries began to succumb to hitherto unknown illnesses, the survivors blamed the atomic bombs intuitively. Fear of the unknown underpinned the discourse of seventy-five-year doom, expressing the survivors’ first-hand observation of their ‘entirely altered world’ by the man-made destructive power.⁴ Hence, the phrase ‘seventy-five-year barrenness’ came to represent the atomic bomb survivors’ nascent anthropogenic discourse,⁵ pushing the scientists to uncover the full extent of a-bomb induced damage in the decades to come. The discourse has developed ever since, reinterpreted in different contexts, and acquired new socio-political roles to drive the post-war recovery, mobilising the citizens to develop a new identity of Hiroshima as a city of peace. As the discourse evolved, its associated messages shifted from eschatology to a success story of overcoming a past disaster and then to a warning against future nuclear destruction. Despite its social importance, studies on the subject remain scarce. Therefore, I have examined the unique characteristics of the atomic bomb survivors’ anthropogenic discourse, and the circumstances, conditions, and processes in which the discourse played a role in Hiroshima’s post-war reconstruction, identity transformation, local communities’ regeneration and beyond.

To achieve these goals, an interdisciplinary approach is employed, combining historical review and empirical analysis of primary data. Firstly, the emergence of the discourse of seventy-five-year barrenness⁶ and the transitions of its associated messages are historically contextualised. Secondly, I demonstrate how the original anthropogenic discourse was popularised and gained a wider international audience – having been quoted variously in the mayors’ annual peace declarations – and how the associated messages have changed over time. Thirdly, I analyse the atomic bomb survivors’ oral and written testimonies from the 1940s, 1950s, 1980s, millennium and the past five years quantitatively and qualitatively. Using a process-oriented hybrid framework of text mining and critical discourse analysis (CDA) I examine the textual features to reveal changes in the meanings associated with the survivors’ anthropogenic discourse in the last seven decades.⁷ I explore the connections between the historical events, the discourse of the atomic bomb survivors, and the discourse of peace declarations to reveal the mutual influence between the survivors’ discourse and that of local government, and how this synergy has contributed to the reconstruction of the city and regeneration of the local communities.

The science of anthropogenic discourse and popular interpretations

The source of the atomic bomb survivors’ anthropogenic discourse can be partially traced back to scientific discourse. The Anthropocene is an unofficial geological time unit first proposed by Crutzen and Stroemer, who tentatively set the beginning of the era around the Industrial Revolution when ‘human-induced stresses’ started to impact the ecosystem on a global scale.⁸ Crutzen, who had long been concerned with the geological impact of the atomic age and had studied the potential long-term and global adverse effects of a nuclear explosion on ecosystems, considered the Manhattan Project as an alternative starting point.⁹ This sense of urgency informed Crutzen’s later work in developing the concept of ‘nuclear Anthropocene’. Contemporary nuclear scientists have considered the possibility of nuclear fallout as a geological marker.¹⁰ Geologist Zalasiewicz and his team studied the stratigraphic presence of radioactive elements from nuclear explosions, proposing the ‘Trinity’ nuclear testing of 16 July 1945 in Alamogordo, New Mexico, as the beginning of the Anthropocene.¹¹ On a more popular level, Enola Gay’s navigator, Captain Theodore Jerome van Kirk, said in 2007 that many people believe that the crew of Enola Gay ‘inaugurated the atomic age’ by dropping the bomb over Hiroshima. In his opinion, however, the atomic age ‘was born on the day of Manhattan’.¹²

Another version of anthropogenic discourse emerged among those at ground zero who survived the carnage. An ominous prophecy of the ‘seventy-five-years barrenness’ circulated among the survivors in the immediate aftermath. The source of the rumour can be traced to Harold Jakobson, a former member of the Manhattan Project, who said, ‘The radiation … will not be dissipated for approximately 70 years. Hence, Hiroshima will be a devastated area, not unlike our conception of the moon for nearly three-quarters of a century’.¹³ Hastily, J. Robert Oppenheimer refuted Jakobson’s claim the next day: ‘There was no appreciable radioactivity on the ground at Hiroshima, and what little there was decayed very rapidly’.¹⁴ Nevertheless, the rumour of the seventy-five-year barrenness echoed the survivors’ descriptions of their changed world: they witnessed ‘Ikijigoku’ (living hell)¹⁵ and a dawn of new era towards ‘Jinrui no Hametsu’ (human extinction) by ‘Ningen no Shiwaza’ (human design).¹⁶The survivors were not informed of the radioactive hazard initially, yet they recognised the unprecedented impact of the human-induced disaster on their habitat, which they thought was irreversible.

The Anthropocene as perceived by the atomic bomb survivors

The survivors faced the harsh reality of life in the aftermath of the bombings, physically, psychologically, and materially. Memories of the carnage haunted them. Food was scarce, they suffered from external and internal injuries, and their livelihoods were lost. The symptoms of acute and long-term radiation effects had yet to be scientifically explained, but the survivors acutely felt and observed the effects of radioactive exposure. They witnessed their peers, who had been spared from external injuries, dying of ‘mysterious diseases’¹⁷ or the ‘Poison of PIKA’, a vernacular for ‘poison from the atomic bomb’.¹⁸ Cases of neonates’ microcephaly and perinatal complications added to the public’s anxiety about the uncertain future of the survivors, and consequentially, multiple social discriminations arose.¹⁹ In fear of the unknown the public sought explanations in the anthropogenic discourse.

Survivors of the bomb, known as hibakusha, recall the indescribable devastation as follows:²⁰

They said man poisoned the land. There was no food, and nothing would grow in Hiroshima. I had no choice: I’d go down to the river when the tide is low, push away rubble and… scrape algae on the rocks… to feed my family… (Mr H.N.)

There were rumours that nothing would grow in Hiroshima for the next seventy-five years, with people suddenly dropping dead. (Ms K.K.)

Healthy people suddenly lost their hair and died. Every morning when I woke up, I touched my hair in fear. Feeling my hair reassured me: I would live for another day. (Ms. C.K.)

Others’ concerns involved daily survival and health.²¹ Their version of the anthropogenic doomsday discourse contrasts sharply with the recent version that emphasises Hiroshima’s successful reconstruction against obstacles while warning for the threat of nuclear weapons. This discourse shift is better explained by considering its historical context.

In the aftermath of the bomb, the survivors witnessed the human-induced catastrophic impact on their environment and became resigned to their fate. In contrast, today’s hibakusha advocate universal peace through the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Although their image as testimony-givers seems prominent nowadays, it was not until the mid-1980s that the city of Hiroshima established an organised story-telling scheme. Before then, hibakusha rarely discussed their traumatic memories publicly due to fear of discrimination, a desire to forget, or for other reasons. Activism to claim their right to compensation and participation in society, led by the Japan Confederation of A– and H–Bomb Sufferers (Hidankyō), among other organisations, empowered hibakusha. Schools invited them to peace education programs, and the local newspaper Chūgoku-Shimbun spearheaded reporting on their plight and activism.²² A catalyst that helped hibakusha to open up and disclose their memories was a pair of national surveys conducted in 1985–6. One of the surveys was conducted by the Ministry of Health of Japan and another by Hidankyō led by researchers Tadashi Ishida and Masahiro Hamatani of Hitotsubashi University, whose group aimed to shed light ‘not on the characterisation of a specific group category’ but on the ‘individuals placed in the extremity of circumstances brought about by the atomic bombings’.²³ For the first time since the bombing, many hibakusha recorded the intimate memories of their lives in detail.

Meanwhile, the annual peace ceremonies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have changed dramatically over the past seventy-seven years in response to significant historical events. For example, ‘radiation effects’ entered the general Japanese lexicon in 1954 with the Lucky Dragon No. 5 crew’s exposure to nuclear fallout from the Bikini Atoll nuclear test.²⁴ The following year, the First World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs was held in Hiroshima, where they urged survivors and the public to face the realities of atomic bomb damage, still raw years after the nuclear attacks. The conference reminded the public of the immediacy of the nuclear threat, popularising the anthropogenic discourse.²⁵ The event coincided with the Korean War (1950–3), which began during the Allied occupation of Japan (1945–52). Due to the war, the city of Hiroshima refrained from holding its annual peace ceremony, which had begun in 1947, and the cancellation raised public awareness of the international relevance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While news on the atomic bomb damage was censored during the occupation,²⁶ after the 1952 San Francisco Treaty, media information about Hiroshima and Nagasaki began to surge, giving the hibakusha, peace activists, researchers, and other concerned parties access to information. As the citizens’ awareness of Hiroshima’s international relevance increased, so did public support for the democracy and activism of the hibakusha and the anti-war sentiments they signified.

The city of Hiroshima responded to public sentiment by mentioning their support for hibakusha in the Hiroshima Peace Declarations as an urgent issue vis-a-vis current world issues, such as the Vietnam War (1954–75), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the 2023 G7 in Hiroshima, and the ongoing Ukrainian War. As public awareness of the adverse effects of nuclear weapons increased, supporting the above claims for compensation and health care, the government responded by expanding the scope of its support, starting with the 1957 Atomic Bomb Medical Act, which went through several revisions culminating in the 1995 Atomic Bomb Survivors’ Support Law. Thus, recognising the survivors’ right to social security gave them legal and medico-scientific status, assigning them the new group identity, ‘hibakusha’.²⁷ Hence, the term hibakusha is, strictly speaking, reserved for those officially recognised on scientific and circumstantial grounds as having been exposed to the atomic bomb and thus entitled to support under the law.

Establishing this new ‘hibakusha’ identity was intertwined with efforts to memorialise the atrocity of the atomic bombing to avoid repeating the tragedy and risking the extinction of life on earth by human design. This revamped anthropogenic discourse with a proactive message was the driving force behind the citizen-initiated municipality-level campaign to preserve the iconic Atomic Bomb Dome. Its 1996 registration as a World Heritage Site – the Hiroshima Peace Memorial – marked another turning point in the internationalisation of Hiroshima’s atomic bomb memory combined with the anthropogenic discourse characterised by the abolition of nuclear weapons.²⁸ Then US President Obama’s visit in 2016 and the 2023 G7 Summit in Hiroshima stirred recurring debates on Japan’s position in the nuclear deterrence and security alliance system, with the mayor, hibakusha, and the media reviving the anthropogenic discourse. As such, current issues and historical events have been constantly measured and incorporated into the ever-evolving anthropogenic discourse, and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, established in 1955, has been a guardian of facts and records of the atomic bomb experience to ensure the accuracy of the discourse.

Efforts to turn the negative discourse began not long after it had emerged when the mayors of Hiroshima disseminated the message of ‘peace’ and led the reconstruction of war-torn communities. Hamai Shinsō (aka Shinzō),²⁹ the first democratically elected mayor of Hiroshima, wrote in his memoirs that his administration ‘felt the need to change the eschatological outlook’,³⁰ a reference to the anthropogenic discourse, pushing the post-bomb Hiroshima to rebuild the city. The mayor used to say, ‘From the despair and devastation in the midst of the rubble, where people say no grass or trees can grow for the next seventy-five years, we must bring Hiroshima back to life at any cost’.³¹

Hamai’s wish to reverse citizens’ eschatological outlook led the discourse to acquire an enduring new meaning. Over the next eight decades, the phrase ‘seventy-five-year barrenness’ appeared repeatedly in public discourse, notably in the mayors’ annual Peace Declarations. For example, the current mayor, Matsui, alluded to the original anthropogenic discourse in his 2020 Peace Declaration, noting that the discourse spurred citizens to unite in solidarity to rebuild Hiroshima. Here, the discourse of ‘seventy-five-year barrenness’, a doomsday narrative, has been transformed into a political instrument to seal Hiroshima’s identity as a reborn city of peace with an anti-nuclear mission. We call this phenomenon a ‘discourse shift’.

Theoretical framework: Shifting discourse of Hiroshima’s Anthropocene

Based on the historical observation so far, and in the conceptual framework of interlocutors’ deictic interpretation of the world introduced by Charles Filmore,³² I will attempt to explain the shifts in the survivors’ Anthropogenic discourse in terms of spatial, temporal, and interpersonal or agency shifts whereby ‘shifts’ occur with the viewpoints projected by the speaker/writer of discourse.³³ The hypothesis consists of the following five steps:

1. The early anthropogenic discourse emerged among the survivors as hearsay, partly based on rumours and incomplete scientific information gathered in the media combined with the survivors’ observations of life in the atomic-bombed cities.

2. The local administration, however, used the discourse for public mobilisation in the reconstruction of post-war Hiroshima (agency and spatial shifts), whereby

3. Annual Peace Declarations served as a tool for communicating the administration’s vision for rebuilding the city and people’s lives (agency, spatial, and temporal shifts), and

4. Citizens’ perceptions and the administration’s vision of Hiroshima gradually converged over time, a process facilitated by the shared notions of urgency and challenge embodied in the anthropogenic discourse (agency and temporal shifts).

5. The concept of peace to which the atomic-bombed cities aspired evolved over the years from a traditional ‘negative’ sense of peace (i.e., absence of war, as in Hobbes) to a ‘positive’ peace against structural and cultural violence (as in Galtung)³⁴, emphasising the regenerative strength of the people and the city as their shared identity in the collective post-war memory (assimilation of viewpoints among the discourse participants).³⁵

The above process of transition in the survivors’ anthropogenic discourse can be described as a case of ‘narrative transformation’.³⁶ The focus of the story shifted from the devastation of the nuclear attack to the city’s reconstruction, turning the memory of Hiroshima into a slogan, allowing the city to foster a new self-identity as the advocate of peace. With this theoretical framework, this study traces the process of narrative transformation of the survivors’ anthropogenic discourse in its historical context, followed by quantitative and qualitative data analyses. I will bring together the findings in discussion to identify the process of discourse transformation and how it contributed to turning disaster into regenerative strength.

Datasets and methods

A hybrid analytical method was employed to elucidate the synergetic relationship between the historical events, the official and collective narratives, and the survivors’ anthropogenic discourse. A historical literature review provides the context for interpreting the results of the quantitative data analyses.

The datasets comprise the texts of the annual Hiroshima Peace Declarations (1947–2021) and a pair of large-scale hibakusha surveys conducted by Hidankyō in 1985–6³⁷ and Asahi Shinbun in 2005³⁸ (on the 40th and 60th^h atomic bomb memorial anniversaries). Additionally, data collected from hibakushas’ written testimonies and oral interviews from the 1950s to 2022 provide a window into the changing discourse patterns.

The Hiroshima Peace Declaration is the mayor’s speech given during the annual Peace Ceremony on the sixth of August to commemorate the atomic bombing of the city. The mayor delivered the first commemoration speech during the citizen-led Peace Festival in 1946, a predecessor to the official Peace Ceremony. It was, therefore, not regarded as the city’s official peace declaration. Also, during the Korean War, the 1950 declaration was cancelled, and the 1951 declaration was called the ‘mayor’s speech’ rather than a ‘peace declaration’ out of respect: Japan was still under the occupation of Allied Forces (1945–52). Hence, the data excludes the years 1946, 1950 and 1951, leaving seventy-three declarations for the analysis. Table 1 lists the mayors, their years in office and the number of peace declarations each one gave.³⁹

Table 1. Mayors of Hiroshima, their terms in office and number of Peace Declarations.

Years in Office (Gregorian)	Years in Office (Japanese Imperial)	Mayor’s Name	No. of P.D.* Delivered
1947 – 1955	Showa22 - Showa 30	HAMAI Shinzo	6
1955 – 1959	Showa 30 - Showa 34	WATANABE Tadao	4
1959 – 1967	Showa 34 - Showa 42	HAMAI Shinzo	9
1967 – 1975	Showa 42 - Showa 50	YAMADA Setsuo	8
1975 – 1991	Showa 50 - Heisei 3	ARAKI Takeshi	16
1991 – 1999	Heisei 3 - Heisei 11	HIRAOKA Takashi	8
1999- 2011	Heisei 11 - Heisei 23	AKIBA Tadatoshi	12
2011 - Present	Heisei 23 - Present	MATSUI Kazumi	12 (by 2021)

The second set of data, detailed in Table 2, consists of free-composition texts extracted from the aforementioned nationwide hibakusha surveys conducted in 1985 and 2005. The respondents were members of Hidankyō, offering a window into the survivors’ voluntary, spontaneous self-expression. Given the twenty-year gap between the two surveys, not all respondents participated in both questionnaires. Still, as the study seeks to compare the patterns of collective discourse rather than a longitudinal study of the individuals, the data is appropriate for this research.

Table 2. Nationwide hibakusha survey database 1985 and 2005. 

	1985 Atomic Bomb Victims survey (1985 Survey)	The 60th Atomic Bomb Anniversary Survey (2005 Survey)
Conducted by	Japan Confederation of A-and H-bomb Sufferers (Hidankyō) Organization Survey Committee	Asahi Shimbun, Hiroshima and Nagasaki Universities
Survey Period	Nov. 1985 to Mar. 1986	Mar. 2005 to May 2005
Target Respondents	Atomic bomb victims throughout Japan
Survey Method	Self-administered questionnaire sent by Hidankyō’s regional offices to their members.	Self-administered questionnaire sent by Hidankyō’s regional offices to their members.
No. of Respondents	13,168	13,204
Free text answers returned	8,268	6,671

Both datasets were morphologically analysed and the content morphemes were extracted. Correspondence and co-occurrence network analyses were performed using KH Coder.⁴⁰ To ensure an in-depth analysis, this study focuses mainly on Hiroshima but also refers to Nagasaki where appropriate.

The history of survivors’ discourse of 75-year-barrenness

The discourse of seventy-five-year barrenness signified the destruction of habitat for the survivors. Many survivors were permanently displaced, but others returned shortly after the bombing,⁴¹ facing food and housing shortages and ongoing rumours that Hiroshima was uninhabitable. Dissatisfaction and desperation led to societal unrest. To counter the mounting issues, the Urban Planning Department of the Hiroshima Prefectural Government announced the 1945 Hiroshima Risaichi Fukkyū Hōshin (Policy for the Reconstruction of Hiroshima Disaster-Affected Areas) on 3 September 1945 while tacitly overlooking the construction of temporary shelters to address population regrowth. Amid persisting health concerns fuelling the hibakusha’s anthropogenic discourse, Professor Masao Tsuzuki of Tokyo University announced during a press conference in Hiroshima on 3 September 1945: ‘There is no harm in living in Hiroshima … although the place is too unhygienic for those recovering’.⁴² His comment was amplified and reinterpreted as an authoritative opinion, denying the residual radioactive effects on residents. Thus, the anthropogenic eschatological discourse condensed in the phrase ‘seventy-five-year barrenness’ was first associated with a fear of health damage, then with a fear of the radiation effects. Specialists denying the harm, however, supported the official initiatives to rehome the survivors back in Hiroshima. Thus, the anthropogenic discourse gradually became associated with a concerted effort to drive the city’s successful recovery.

Initially, reports on the scale of the human cost were generally censored or downplayed,⁴³ and scientific investigations were hurried. On 14 September 1945, the Special Committee for Investigation of the Atomic Bomb Disaster, National Research Council of the Ministry of Education, was established. The first meeting adopted the reports of Professor Yoshio Nishina, who claimed that the residual radiation observed was insignificant and that agricultural products could be grown in Hiroshima.⁴⁴ Once again, the eschatological discourse was refuted, promising an early recovery and rebirth of the bombed area. But living conditions remained harsh. Black markets flourished at the Hiroshima Railway Station.⁴⁵ Citizens began to protest the lack of official support. Trade union strikes intensified, and the general security situation deteriorated.⁴⁶ Deprivation led to violence in which both the perpetrators and the victims were war-afflicted,⁴⁷ and orphans roamed the streets.⁴⁸ At this point, a coalition of citizens’ associations, with the support of the city of Hiroshima, decided to counter the doomsday discourse with a new slogan, ‘Fukkō’ (lit. re-rise, revival or regeneration). They held the ‘Hiroshima Citizens’ Peace Regeneration Festival’ from 5 to 7 August 1946, the anniversary of the bombing. Under Allied occupation, using the word ‘Fukkō’ was critical in indicating that this large gathering of more than 7,000 citizens was not a revival of the militarism and supranationalism of late Imperial Japan but rather an event to revive the city’s economy.⁴⁹ The city and its local businesses attempted a more upbeat festival the following year. Its primary purpose was to mourn the dead and acknowledge the devastation through a mass memorial. It also aimed to celebrate life and mobilise citizens – through commercial and artistic events – to pledge their concerted efforts to survive and rebuild their lives.⁵⁰ It represented an attempt to assuage the ‘burning rage’ they felt buried under their feet,⁵¹ the shallow mass grave that later became the Peace Memorial Park.⁵²

Although the survivors were deeply offended by the apparent lack of respect for the victims in this celebration, the change in tone from mourning to a celebration of the rebuilding of Hiroshima pleased General MacArthur, who contributed a personally-penned message in support of the event.⁵³ This paved the way for the Hiroshima Peace City Construction Law of 1949 that enabled the city to receive financial, administrative and political support from the General Headquarters, Supreme Commanders for the Allied Powers (GHQ/SCAP),⁵⁴ but not without controversy.⁵⁵ The law expressed an unwavering commitment to peace through nuclear disarmament, respect for the victims, and welfare measures.⁵⁶

Peace disclosure statement and the changing doomsday discourse

Mayor Hamai explained in an interview how Hiroshima’s citizens, deep in despair, began to ‘awaken from oblivion’ around 1947. They called for a ‘festival for peace’ to regenerate their lives and ‘tell the world about their experiences so that the atrocity will never be repeated’.⁵⁷ An atomic bomb survivor himself and a Hiroshima City government civil servant responsible for distributing food rations, Hamai witnessed the citizens’ daily survival and experiences. Aware of the lack of financial resources, he continued his predecessor’s efforts to apply for financial support from the national government and land grants for former military reservations, but to no avail. He then devised a two-pronged strategy by mobilising GHQ/SCAP and citizens under the new ‘Peace City’ identity. At the first Peace Festival in 1947, Hamai mourned the tremendous loss of civilian life and encouraged the survivors, saying:

Because … the use of atomic energy in a global war will mean the end of our civilization and the extinction of mankind. This revolution in thinking should be the basis for absolute peace and signify the birth of a new life and a new world.⁵⁸

Here, Hamai manipulates the anthropogenic discourse, emphasising weapons so powerful that they can wipe out humans, recalling the need to avoid conflict with the superpowers, and presenting an alternative to make Hiroshima a ‘harbinger’ of peace. This ‘revolution of thought’, as he puts it, is an example of using the anthropogenic discourse to mobilise the public for a positive action to save the planet, in this case by supporting the construction of a Peace City.

Meanwhile, Nitoguri Tsukasa, a member of the city council, enlisted the support of Matsumoto Takizō, a member of the House of Representatives, to approach Justin Williams, chief of the GHQ/SCAP Legislative Division during the occupation of Japan. Matsumoto, a Harvard graduate, was well-acquainted with the staff of GHQ/SCAP. He explained the vision of a Peace City to Williams, convincing him that Hamai’s plan was free of aggressive ambitions and in line with SCAP’s mission to democratise and demilitarise Japan. Williams’ reaction was ‘surprisingly positive’.⁵⁹ The Peace Memorial City Construction Bill passed the Diet on 11 May 1949, and a local referendum on 7 July 1949 indicated overwhelming public support. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial City Construction Law was enacted on 6 August 1949. As we have seen, the local administration used the early anthropogenic discourse to mobilise the public for the reconstruction and development of post-war Hiroshima.

Annual Peace Disclosure statement as a vehicle for building a ‘Peace city’ identity with regenerative power

The city continued to utilise the annual Peace Declarations to embody the anthropogenic discourse and establish its ‘Peace City’ identity but with linguistic variations. Table 3 summarises how three mayors, in their 1958, 2004 and 2020 declarations, mentioned the anthropogenic phrase of apocalyptic, total eradication of ‘kusaki’ (flora) in categorically different ways.

Table 3. Mayors’ Usage of kusaki (flora / vegetation).

Year	Mayor	Use of kusaki	Message	Category
1958	Watanabe	Leafy, growing	Revived City, New Life	Environment
2004	Akiba	Nothing grows	Abolish Nuclear Weapons	Nuclear
2015	Taue	Nothing grows	Leafy, Growing City	Environment
2020	Matsui	Nothing grows	Fukko, symbol of peace and regenerative strength	Identity of Resilience

The phrase appeared first in the 1958 declaration, when Mayor Watanabe said, ‘Today, green grasses and trees are flourishing’,⁶⁰ emphasising how rich Hiroshima’s flora had become, transforming the narrative of doom into a celebration of rebirth. Nearly five decades later, in 2004, Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba revived the anthropogenic language, recalling the scale of devastation in contrast to Hiroshima’s remarkable reconstruction. He declared:

‘Nothing will grow for 75 years.’ Fifty-nine years have passed since 6 August, when Hiroshima was so thoroughly obliterated that many succumbed to such doom… Our goal is to grow a beautiful ‘flower’ for the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings, namely, the total elimination of all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth by 2020. Only then will we have truly revived hope for life here.⁶¹

He thus linked the anthropogenic discourse with Hiroshima’s identity as a peaceful city through its commitment and mission to abolish nuclear weapons. The revival of the word ‘Fukkō’ in conjunction with the anthropogenic discourse coincides with the establishment of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) in Hiroshima. The organisation’s senior advisor, Takeshi Inoue, wrote:

Hiroshima has come to symbolise the destructive power of nuclear weapons that mankind now possesses and is capable of using against itself at any time: Hiroshima confronts the world with a question of what we are going to do with our creation.⁶²

Here, Inoue shifts the temporal focus of the Anthropogenic discourse from past event to future actions. In a similar tone, Mayor Kazumi Matsui said in his 2020 declaration:

Rumour at the time had it that ‘nothing will grow here for 75 years’. However, Hiroshima recovered and became a symbol of peace, visited by millions from around the world. Humanity is currently struggling with a new threat: the novel coronavirus. However, with what we learned from past tragedies, we should be able to overcome this threat.

Matsui recalls the seventy-five-year curse narrative and contrasts it with a city symbolising peace that has been ‘Fukkō’ (revived). He then draws a comparison with the threat of the ‘novel coronavirus’, claiming that the atrocious past can teach the citizens to overcome trying times.

The Peace Declarations reflect local government policies on peace and hibakusha welfare. Thus, hibakusha and their associations – such as Hidankyō – have closely examined the declarations and negotiated their needs to reflect them. Survivors once comprised a significant portion of voters in Hiroshima, and the discourse of the Peace Declarations echoed their needs and conviction of peace at a measure. The top-down (municipal Peace Declaration) and bottom-up (hibakusha’s voices) discourses collided and became assimilated, evolving into a new, shared anthropogenic discourse.

Peace declarations and the voices of Hibakusha

Previous research has shown that the municipality’s discourse, expressed through the annual Peace Declarations, has three main components: paying respect to victims and promising efforts to alleviate their suffering through social security measures; renewing the promise to oppose all forms of nuclear weapons; and promising to offer a more robust welfare system to alleviate survivors’ physical, social and psychological damage.⁶³ Nevertheless, the combinatorial balance of these core components and the mayors’ political priorities have produced Peace Declarations with varying content over the last seventy-seven years, as visualised by correspondence analysis.

Figure 1 includes four aggregates and one neutral aggregate near the origin. Historical changes in the contents of the declarations can be traced by reading the content words clockwise, starting from the bottom left. The discourse of the first three mayors (Hamai, Watanabe and Yamada) focuses on the cruelty and unknown dangers of radioactive substances. From 1947 to 1975, the power and physical effects of the bombs on the human body were discovered gradually over many years, reflected in terms such as atomic energy, radioactivity or radiation, atomic and hydrogen. Moving up to the aggregate at the top, the perception of the threat of nuclear effects is heightened (calamities, condolences, instantly wiped off the face of the earth/world), and fear leads to political action against the nuclear threat (appeal, humanity, states, survival, nuclear balance, superpowers, tests).

Figure 1. Peace Declarations: Shifting emphasis on the mayors’ core commitments.

Mayor Araki’s (1975–1990) aggregate contains words of international appeal for peace (public opinion, international disarmament measures, heads of state, United Nations). In 1985, he launched a new global initiative to seal Hiroshima’s identity as a City of Peace. The first World Conference of Mayors for Peace through Inter-City Solidarity was held in Hiroshima and has continued ever since, gaining the support of 8,065 member cities from 166 countries and regions.⁶⁴ Aware of the anthropogenic discourse, Mayor Araki began a project to plant trees on the streets of Hiroshima, supported by local communities. Citizens affectionately nicknamed him ‘Ueki-shichō’ (Mr Mayor Planting Tree) instead of ‘Araki-shichō’ (Mr Mayor Wild Tree), showing appreciation and sense of achievement that they turned the barren, scorched land into a city of lush greenery. Araki was the first mayor to speak at the United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament, giving voice to the hibakusha across borders and drew international attention to their struggles.⁶⁵ Takashi Hiraoka (1991–1998) became a leading proponent of expanding support for hibakusha of non-Japanese lineage and those residing outside Japan, placing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a global historical context Mayor Hiraoka’s administration emphasised international perspectives, placing Hiroshima and Japan on the global political map.⁶⁶ Tadatoshi Akiba (1999–2010) further internalised the City of Peace idea and strengthened the Mayors for Peace network, frequently using the keywords ‘dedication’, ‘efforts’, ‘overseas’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘affiliation/belonging’. The current mayor, Kazumi Matsui (2011–present), hosted the 2014 ministerial meeting of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) in Hiroshima, where the Hiroshima Declaration was adopted. In 2016, Mayor Matsui hosted then-US President Obama, the first US head of state to visit Hiroshima, and the following year, the UN General Assembly adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). As above, spatial, temporal and agency shifts were observed in synergising the peace declarations and the survivors’ discourse.

The gradual internationalisation of the anthropogenic discourse of Hiroshima’s atomic bomb experience and the increasingly important role of the hibakusha as witnesses mutually influenced each other. In the process, the municipal narrative of Hiroshima Peace City’s ‘Fukkō’ was elaborated, transforming the hibakusha’s anthropogenic discourse. As Zweigenberg noted, ‘the tragedy became a touchstone for national reinvention, and… the survivors were an essential part of this process’.⁶⁷ I note that the deeper involvement of the hibakusha gave credibility to the ‘Fukkō’ narrative, denoting that Hiroshima and its citizens had arisen from the ashes.

The multiple meanings of Fukkō and its mobilising power

The term ‘Fukkō’ was heavily used by Mayor Hamai at the 1947 Peace Festival, particularly in conjunction with the 1949 Hiroshima Peace Memorial City Construction Law. It became a slogan for the mobilisation of the city’s infrastructural development. Slums remained, and illegal construction continued, with hotspots of social unrest,⁶⁸ with the ‘atomic-bomb slum’, located roughly 1 kilometre northwest of the hypocentre, counting over 3,000 illegal constructions. When evicting war victims from illegally constructed shacks, the mantra of ‘Fukkō’ gave social legitimacy to the administration, helping ease the process.

By contrast, one hibakusha said during an interview: ‘We, hibakusha, support the reconstruction of cityscape and infrastructure, but that’s not our ‘Fukkō’… Our ‘Fukkō’ is about restoring peoples’ lives…’.⁶⁹ This conceptual discrepancy surrounding the phraseology requires explanation.

As summarised in Figure 2, the English equivalents for ‘Fukkō’ vary. They include recovery, reconstruction, revitalisation, regeneration and many more. The material-oriented meanings ascribed to the policies of ‘Fukkō’ contrast with the survivors’ pleas for attention to their inner needs. To borrow the hibakusha’s words, a holistic recovery of livelihood or restoration of the person has not yet been achieved. The Peace Declarations suggest that ‘Fukkō’ was achieved by 1958, as retrospectively celebrated starting in 2004. But a question remains if the term ‘Fukkō’ gained importance during that interim period. To answer this, I analysed the nationwide survey of the hibakusha conducted in 1985, the earliest available survey of this kind, and another one performed in 2005, to uncover shifts in the discourse.

Figure 2. The myriad of meanings ascribed to ‘Fukkō’.

The survivors’ Anthropocene and regenerative strength

In the 1985 survey, four respondents mentioned ‘Fukkō’, while in 2005, twenty-two out of 6558 used this term. In 1985, only one example matched the municipality’s usage, referring to infrastructure development.⁷⁰

Hiroshima was entirely burned down, and the Ujina port was visible wherever you stood. After 40 years, the city has been reconstructed (Fukkō), and those who have not experienced the atomic bomb will never be able to imagine the difference.

Others referred to opening a school, saving a factory and providing emergency medical support, restoring livelihoods and assuring basic survival needs. The scarce use of ‘Fukkō’ in hibakusha responses points to paraphrasing the term by a selection of semantically-associated words. Among the top 150 most frequently used words in hibakusha’s texts, several are associated with the word ‘Fukkō’, depicting anthropogenic concepts. These are life/livelihood (seikatsu), humanity (jinrui) and ‘never again’(nidoto). The usage of each word is discussed next.

Livelihood (seikatsu)

The correspondence network graph in Figure 3 shows the semantically and syntactically linked words. The links between words are unique to the texts and created by the way the authors used them in writing their texts.

Figure 3. ‘Daily life’ as depicted in hibakusha’s discourse in 1985.

In the 1986 survey, the survivors discussed their ‘life/livelihood’ as being closely connected with ‘the atomic bomb’, their status as ‘hibakusha’, and the loss of lives from the bombing. Their struggle to ‘live’ in the ‘inner city’ after the ‘war’ is another featured message. These semantic associations have, however, changed in the 2005 data. The hibakusha’s lives are still closely intertwined with the bomb, and the loss of friends and family remains an essential part of their discourse. A new concept, ‘world peace’, has entered the discourse of hibakusha’s ‘life’. This noticeable shift appears to be linked with what ‘people can’ do. The capability of achieving world peace became associated with hibakusha’s lives by 2005.

Figure 4 shows that the hibakusha’s concept of ‘daily life’ evolved between 1985 and 2005. What remained unchanged is that their daily lives are intertwined with their memories of deceased family and friends. In this context, a new concept entered their discourse, linking ‘people can’ and ‘world peace’ and denoting proactive, global concepts. The tone of the anthropogenic discourse shifted from victimhood to hibakusha’s proactive outlook involving the responsibility to promote peace. The results also indicate that ‘people’ are central concerns in the hibakusha’s discourse. Their gaze shifted from self to global during the two decades, aligning with their respective mayors’ speeches (Araki, 1975–91, and Akiba, 1999–2011, via the period of Hiraoka, 1991–99). These mayors’ declarations similarly changed from a domestic to an international focus. Here, again, deictic discourse shifts in spatial, temporal and agency were observed.

Figure 4. ‘Livelihood / daily life’ as depicted in hibakusha’s discourse in 2005.

Awareness of the nuclear threat to humanity (jinrui-metsubō)

Given the shift in discourse from the inner circle to more global human relations, I next examined the concept of ‘humanity’ (jinrui). In the 1986 hibakusha survey, thirteen survivors associated the word ‘humanity’ (jinrui) with ‘extinction’ (metsubō), and eighty-nine did so in 2005. Table 4 shows the results of a collocation analysis demonstrating how the hibakusha collocated the words ‘humanity’ and ‘extinction’ in 1985.

Table 4. Collocation of the words ‘Jinrui (human race, humanity, humans, life)’ and ‘metsubō (extinction / demise)’ in the 1985 Survey. 

1. I have a feeling that one day humanity will become extinct. War is tragic. 2. I pray that humanity will not become extinct by such suffering and terrible wars. I try to live a little longer for those who died. 3. After that, there must be no more nuclear wars that would lead to the extinction of humanity, not even small-scale wars in which a nuclear bomb is used. 4. Atomic bomb means the extinction of human race. 5. If it was used, humanity will become extinct. 6. If there is another nuclear war, human race will become extinct. Science has developed, but there is no way to reverse it. The atomic bomb is an explosion … 7. It ought to be made very clear that the use of atomic bombs, not to speak of war, would lead to the extinction of human race. I was a junior army medical officer at the time … 8. I believe that if the great powers go to war in the future, human race will surely become extinct. 9. I believe that a nuclear war would lead to the extinction of humanrace. 10. I had a feeling that if such bombs were dropped elsewhere in Japan, every living thing in the whole nation would become extinct. There was nothing I could do as I watched the tragic situation unfold. 11. War is nothing but the extinction of human race. 12. The new bombs of the time made me angry and afraid as a human being, with their power to signal the extinction of humanity in a single flash of light. 13. We have had enough of this suffering, and we don’t wish it on others. To save the world from human extinction, we long for the abolition of nuclear weapons and a true peace without war.

Compared to 1985, the collocation of ‘extinction’ with ‘humanity’ became stronger in 2005, when survivors also collocated these terms with ‘atomic/nuclear’ (genbaku/kaku), as shown in Table 5. Notably, all occurrences of the ‘extinction of humanity’ (jinrui-metsubō) are associated with the nuclear threat, the abuse of science, and human behaviour. This strong correlation suggests the establishment of a newly evolved anthropogenic discourse, which contains the projection of humankind’s future threatened by the abuse of nuclear power.

Table 5. Collocation of the words ‘Jinrui (human race, humanity, humans, life)’ and ‘metsubō (extinction, demise, wipe out, destroy)’, the planet Earth) or ‘chikyū’ or ‘sekai’ (world, globe, planet, earth) , and ‘kaku’, ‘kakuheiki’, or ‘genbaku’ (nuclear, nuclear weapons, atomic bomb) in the 2005 Survey.

In particular, using nuclear weapons would be extreme]y catastrophic and lead to the extinction of the human race. War is about people killing each other, and I believe that if there is a nuclear war, the human race will become extinct. Nothing short of the planet’s destruction and extinction of the human race. For generations to come, nuclear war will cause many times the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading to human extinction. I wish the world to be at peace. I want to appeal to the world nuclear will lead to human extinction. The production and use of atomic bombs, if considered, would result in the extinction of the human race if the world’ s people were to fight an all-out nuclear war. No matter what happens, we must not give up defending our country nor fighting against the possibility of human extinction. We should strive for a conflict-free world peace based on reconciliation among ethnic groups. The use of nuclear weapons is a matter of human extinction. You must know it is your demise (i.e. extinction in Japanese). I will survive for myself and for my friend who died to tell the truth about the atomic bombings, and I will continue to work for peace to abolish nuclear weapons that would destroy the human race. I believe that the very existence of nuclear weapons will lead to the extinction of the human race. We hope that the tragedy of the atomic bombing and its potential to wipe out humanity will be remembered and passed on to future generations in order to achieve lasting peace in the world. It means the extinction of human race. The catastrophic consequences of a nuclear bomb, which could be a scenario of human extinction, are clear from the situation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Furthermore, I examined the collocation pattern of ‘extinct’ for a quick concordance of the eighty-nine relevant examples from the 2005 survey, revealing a semantic network associated with extinction. Notably, extinction collocates with ‘humanity’ fifty-eight times (65.9%); in seventeen per cent of cases, it collocates with ‘earth’ and in seven per cent with ‘world’. These results contrast with the zero per cent observed in 1985, suggesting a change in the hibakusha’s perceptions, from local to global, as they considered the urgency of nuclear threats. One of the most symbolic messages of Hiroshima as a Peace City is inscribed on the Cenotaph of the Memorial Monument of Hiroshima in the Peace Memorial Park. Designed in 1952 by Kenzō Tange, the monument carries a message: ‘Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evil’. The conviction to maintain peace by never repeating war is often associated with the word ‘nidoto’ (never again), as examined in the following section.

Never again (nidoto)

Over time, the hibakusha translated their awareness of the nuclear threat to the survival of humanity into a conviction not to repeat the atrocity. This becomes apparent when contrasting the hibakusha’s discourses of 1985 and 2005. In the 1985 discourse, ‘never again’ is linked to the ‘thoughts’ of what the ‘a-bombed’ survivor ‘saw’ after the atomic bombing. Some concerns about world peace appear in the background, as observed in Figure 5a.

Figure 5. ‘Livelihood / daily life’ as depicted in hibakusha’s discourse in 2005.

In the 2005 survey responses, depicted in Figure 5b, however, concerns for ‘world peace’ and ‘anti-war’ sentiments have become firmly integrated into the hibakusha’s convictions: ‘Never again’ will we let the ‘atomic bomb’ ‘drop’ on ‘people’. As mentioned, the hibakusha began to take a more central stage in assuming responsibility for regenerating society and spreading anti-war discourse.

Discussion

This study has confirmed our step-wise discourse shifts in the narrative transformation of the survivors’ Anthropogenic discourse. The concept of peace evolved over the years from a traditional ‘negative’ sense of peace to a ‘positive’ peace against structural and cultural violence in the aftermath of the atomic bombing, and then to a ‘universal’ peace by proactively pre-empting nuclear war and the resulting destruction of lives and social systems.

Hiroshima’s journey since the atomic bombing has been closely intertwined with the anthropogenic discourse that emerged from the dramatic changes in the living environment because of human action and the continuing threat of the physical, social, and psychological effects of nuclear weapons. Local decision-makers and the public used the discourse, but with variable takes on word choices and meaning associations, reflecting their differential experiences, needs and commitments. The post-war local government emphasised rebuilding the city’s infrastructure and economy. At the same time, the public’s discourse initially centred on emergency rescue and relief, followed by concerns about long-term illness and living conditions in the immediate environment.⁷¹

The city’s ‘Fukkō’ narrative campaign to promote the 1949 Peace City Construction Law worked to counter the eschatology permeated in the post-atomic-bomb society. Once the initial stage of rebuilding the city came to fruition, mayors Araki, Hiraoka and Akiba focused on globalising the hibakusha’s standpoint on peace, elevating their role as ambassadors in the quest to abolish nuclear weapons. This, in turn, led to revisions of relief for the hibakusha. On the 50th anniversary of the atomic bomb, the 1995 Atomic Bomb Survivors Support Law was enacted after a tireless campaign that had begun in the 1950s. The hibakusha began to play a crucial role in the municipality’s global efforts in the international memorialisation and political activism, utilising the anthropogenic discourse. The discourse was constantly associated with new policies and concepts, such as Mayor Araki’s greener city, Mayor Hiraoka’s efforts towards reconciliation with people of former imperial colonies, Mayor Akiba’s message of responsibility for nuclear abolishment and so on. Hence, external factors facilitated the changes in discourse for both parties, bringing together top-down policies and bottom-up needs.

The discourse addressing nuclear Anthropocene and Fukkō proved an effective political tool. The balance between the agencies and the temporality and spatiality of issues was fine-tuned in the wording of the Peace Declarations through a shared discourse of the ‘seventy-five-year barrenness’, where citizens, municipality, state and occupation forces united to overcome the crises under the slogan. Meanwhile, the annual collective commemoration of victims provided shared sacred memories of the lost land.⁷² The municipality also used the ‘Fukkō’ slogan to justify and legitimise infrastructural development. Thus, violence and civil unrest surrounding land loss issues gave way to the city’s urbanisation as a legitimate goal.

In times of social instability, slogans can assist mobilisation. The Peace Declarations became the primary instrument for mobilising the public in the post-war recovery/rebuilding phases. They have acted as a spokesperson for the survivors and citizens in their need to verbalise their inconsolable pain and boiling anger, unending effects of the nuclear attack. The public condemnation of atomic weapons and their use against humanity, but not the wartime enemies, gave the victims a clear constructive aim, breaking the cycle of revenge. The official and solemn delivery of the declarations assured the victims that they could regain public respect and rebuild their place in society as survivors. As the annual Peace Declaration became established, the anthropogenic discourse constantly changed its semantic components, giving rise to new associations of meanings to adapt to the external environment. The citizens developed the capacity to accommodate the ‘revolution of thought’ advanced by Hamai, and their commitment has shifted from survival in extreme poverty to universal peace. The carefully choreographed annual ceremony gives the audience a sense of ‘unity’ through a shared memory of the venue, the sounds, the words uttered and the familiar rituals that define the audience as part of the resilient and regenerative community that has overcome devastation. Similar to Anderson’s imagined community,⁷³ the power of the ‘Fukkō’ discourse is generated by the believers.

Conclusion

This article has discussed how an anthropogenic discourse emerged locally after the 1945 atomic bombings, taking different forms when used by various agencies over the past seventy-seven years. Combined quantitative and qualitative analyses demonstrated that the anthropogenic discourse played a crucial role in turning an ad hoc disaster recovery into sustained development while fostering community consciousness for societal peace.

During the campaigns to advance Hiroshima’s structural, material and societal reconstruction processes, manipulating the anthropogenic discourse became an effective tool for raising awareness of the nuclear threat. It mitigated the post-war social divide and violence, encouraged victims to adopt new identities to sustain peace while adapting to the status quo, pacified anger against the occupying force, and mobilised citizens to rally behind the 1949 Peace City Construction Law campaign. The hibakusha’s anthropogenic discourse on nuclear threat has shifted its focus from the experience to the future threat (temporal shift), from the local atomic bomb experience to global nuclear war (spatial shift), and from a suppressed grudge against the perpetrators of the bombing of Hiroshima to the hibakusha themselves as responsible actors, to witness and warn the world (agency shift). Their commitments evolved from immediate, local post-disaster relief and recovery to nuclear disarmament and global peace. Aligning with these discourse shifts and globalising perspectives, the survivors gained a new position of respect in the community, albeit engineered by Peace Declarations, related peace events and the media. Some representative survivors discovered a mission to convey their atomic bomb experiences to the world to disseminate information about the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, aspiring to achieve universal peace. These survivors’ evolving commitments, in turn, consolidated Hiroshima’s ‘Peace City’ identity, facilitating societal stability. Thus, manipulating the anthropogenic discourse into the Peace City’s ‘Fukkō’ narrative proved a powerful and regenerative socio-political tool that drove Hiroshima’s post-war development, turning the disaster into a regenerative strength.

Acknowledgements

This article was made possible thanks to the advice and support given by the survivors of the atomic bombings and wars, Hidankyō, the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, the Hiroshima City Office, the Hiroshima Prefectural Office, Chūgoku-Shimbun, and many individuals who are the makers of peace. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under Grant 21KK0032 and 22H00905 and by Daiwa Foundation Grant 14343.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Luli van der Does

Luli van der Does is Associate Professor of Memory Studies at the Center for Peace, Hiroshima University. Her research explores the nexus of mind and society where traumatic memories are manipulated and sublimated into a tool for individual and collective survival in facing critical situations and for post-crisis recovery and community regeneration. She is a member of ICOM and the Steering Committee of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. As a member of ICOM and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum's steering committee, her current research investigates the processes of survival in memory ecologies.

Notes

1 Akio Sakita, ‘Eien no jūbyō’, Nagasaki Nōto (Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun, 2008).

2 Yōko Ōta, Shikabane no Machi (Tokyo: Tōgashobō, 1950).

3 Chūgoku-Shimbun, ed., Hono’o no hi kara Nijū-nen: Hiroshima no Kiroku 2. (Hiroshima: Miraisha, 1966).

4 Ryūichi Fujisawa, Hiroshima no Ayunda Michi (Natoya: Fūbaisha, 1996), 120.

5 The term is defined as ‘a discourse pertaining to the impact of human actions’.

6 An alternative phrase is ‘seventy-year-lifelessness’.

7 All analyses, including the analysable database construction, were performed by the author, who also produced all figures and tables in this paper.

8 Paul J. Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer, ‘The Anthropocene’, IGBP Newsletter 41, (2000), 17–8.

9 Paul. J. Crutzen and John W. Birks, ‘The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon’, Ambio 11, no. 2 (1982), 73.

10 Colin N. Waters, Jaia. P.M. Syvitski, Agnieszka Gałuszka, Gary J. Hancock, Jan Zalasiewicz, Alejandro Cearreta, J. Grinevald, Catherine Jeandel, John R. McNeill, Colin Summerhayes, and Anthony Barnosky, ‘Can Nuclear Weapons Fallout Mark the Beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch?’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71, no. 3 (2015), 46–57.

11 Jan Zalasiewicz et al., ‘The Anthropocene: Comparing Its Meaning in Geology (Chronostratigraphy) with Conceptual Approaches Arising in Other Disciplines’, Earth’s Future 9, (2021), 1–25.

12 ‘Hiroshima: Interview With “Dutch” van Kirk by Randall Gregg’, RTP-TV & The Raleigh Telegram Newspaper, Raleigh, North Carolina, November 2007, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWet3Cheh1A> [accessed 6 August 2023].

13 ‘Area Struck by Atomic Bomb is Saturated with Death for 70 Years, Scientist Declares’, Washington Post, 8 August 1945, 4. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. [Accessed 13 October 2023.]

14 ‘Death Awaits All in Bombed City is Claim’ , Desert News, (Salt Lake City, Utah, 8 August 1945), 1.

15 ‘Ikijigoku ni shattā ga kirezu’, Peace Media, <https://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/?p=20590> [accessed 13 October 2023].

16 Katayama Noboru, ‘Messages from Hibakusha’, Asahi News, <https://www.asahi.com/hibakusha/hiroshima/h00-00292j.html> [accessed 1 October 2023].

17 This phrase was commonly used during my interviews with hibakusha, Ms C.K., Ms K.K., Ms J.Y., Mr H.N., and Mr H.T., August 2018–31 March 2022. Also see Shuntarō Hida and Hitomi Kamanaka, ‘Naibu hibaku no Kyōi’ (The threat of internal exposure to radiation), Chikuma-shobō (2005).

18 Maika Nakao, ‘Hankaku’, Heiwa’ to Genbaku-higai wo meguru Gensetsu’, Heiwa-kagaku 157, (2021), 57–79.

19 Author’s interviews with hibakusha, Mr J.L., Ms J.Y., Mr H.T., Mr K.T., Ms M.S., 1 December 2021–5 April 2022.

20 Quotations are from the interviews with Mr H.N., Ms K.K., and Ms C.K. conducted from 1 October 2019 to 31 August 2023.

21 Ms J.Y. and Mr H.T.

22 Robert Lifton, ‘Psychological Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima: The Theme of Death’, Daedalus 92, no. 3, (1963), 462–97; ‘Genbaku de kizamareta keloids, Sabetsude egurareta kokoro (The keloids the atomic bomb etched into my body, the hollowness of heart that discrimination left with me)’, Chūgoku Shimbun, 10 February 2023, <https://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/articles/-/269666> [accessed 1 October 2023].

23 Masaya Nemoto, ‘Book Review: Association to Document the Postwar Histories of the Nagasaki Atomic Bombing’, (ed.) Seventy-Five Years after the Atomic Bombing: Tracing Records and Memories of Nagasaki’, Shigaku-Kenkyū 316, (Hiroshima: Hiroshima University, 2023), 32.

24 ‘Hōjin gyofu Bikini genbaku-jikken ni sōgū (Japanese fishermen encountered a Hydrogen-bomb testing at Bikini Atoll)’, Yomiuri Shimbun (Tokyo), 26 March 1954, 1; ‘Suibaku-hisai Hatsu no Giseisha (The first victim of exposure to the Hydrogen-bomb testing)’, Yomiuri Shimbun, (Tokyo), 24 September 1954, 1.

25 Fumisawa Ryūichi, ‘Hiroshima no Ayunda Michi’, Fubai-sha, (1996), 10–2.

26 Monica Braw, The Atomic Bomb Suppressed: American Censorship in Occupied Japan (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1991).

27 Akiko Naono, ‘The Origins of “Hibakusha” as a Scientific and Political Classification of the Survivor’, Japanese Studies 39, no. 3, (2019), 333–52.

28 List no. 775, UNESCO-ICOMOS Advisory Board Evaluation, 28 September 1996.

29 Spelt as ‘Shinzō’ following the city’s official English translation.

30 Shinzō Hamai, Genbaku-Shichō [The A-bomb Mayor], 1st ed. (Hiroshima: Genbaku-Shichō Fukkokuban Kankōiinkai, 1967/2011).

31 Recollection of his father by Junsō Hamai, <https://www.tss-tv.co.jp/tssnews/000006846.html> [accessed 13 October 2023].

32 Deixis is a linguistic concept where words denote how the speaker/writer views the object in relation to themselves. The word's lexical meaning is fixed, but depending on the context, what the word denotes may vary: Charles J. Fillmore, ‘Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis’ in Robert. J. Jarvella and Wolfgang R.J. Klein (eds), Speech, Place and Action (Chichester: Wiley,1982), 31–59.

33 Dahlia Simangan (in this special issue) employs a ‘reflexive approach’ incorporating the concepts of spatial, temporal and agency shifts in peacebuilding. Dahlia Simangan, Agencies, Temporalities, and Spatialities in Hiroshima’s Post-War Reconstruction: A Case of Reflexive Peacebuilding in the Anthropocene?, <https://doi.org/10.1080/07292473.2023.2273033>.

34 Thomas Hobbes, ‘Leviathan,’ in Hobbes: Leviathan, ed. by Richard Tuck (Cambridge: CUP, 2006); Johan Galtung, ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,’ Journal of Peace Research, 6, no.3 (1969), 167–191.

35 Detailed discussion of discourse assimilation through ‘shifts’ is given in Luli van der Does-Ishikawa and Glenn D. Hook, ‘Mediating Risk Communication and the Shifting Locus of Responsibility: Japanese Adaptation Policy in Response to Cross-border Atmospheric Pollution’, in Media and Environmental Sustainability: An Empirical Study of National Media Reporting of Environmental Issues in China and Japan, Glenn D. Hook, Libby Lester, Meng Ji, Kingsley Edney, Chris G. Pope, and Luli van der Does-Ishikawa (eds), (London: Routledge, 2017), 98–145.

36 Ran Zwigenberg, Hiroshima: The Origins of Global Memory Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

37 Hidankyō (ed.), Ano hi no Shōgen vols. 1 and 2, (Tokyo: Hidankyō, 1988).

38 Asahi-Shimbun (ed.), Hiroshima Nagasaki no Kioku: Hibakusha kara no Messages. (Tokyo: Asahi-Shimbun, 2010).

39 <https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/soshiki/7/17966.html> [accessed 1 August 2023].

40 van der Does-Ishikawa and Hook, 98–145.

41 According to Hiroshima Shiseiyōran (the city administration handbook), Hiroshima’s population at the time of the atomic bombing was approximately 350,000. It declined sharply to less than 140,000 but recovered to 171,000 by April 1946: Hiroshima City Office, ed. Hiroshima Shiseiyōran, (Hiroshima: Hiroshima City Office, 1947), 55.

42 ‘Tsuzuki-Hakushi wo Kakomu Zadankai’, Chūgoku-Shimbun, 13 September 1945.

43 Braw.

44 'Bakuhatsugo isshūkango wa mugai (Harmless, one week after the explosion)', Chūgoku-Shimbun, 17 September 1945.

45 Ming Li and Ishi Norioki, ‘Sengo Hiroshima ekimae yamiichi no Shutugen to sono hensen katei: Ekimae no seibi, saikaihatsu, kasseika jigyo ni kansuru shiteki kenkyu’, Journal of Architecture and Planning 73, (2008), 1395–402.

46 ‘Hiroshima, 70 years after the atomic bombing: Rebirth of the city, part 1’, Hiroshima Chūgoku News, 24 July 2015.

47 ‘Shinsei Dai-ninen-e Honsha-henshūkyoku-Dōjin-zadankai II, Hikidase Shikon-Shōsai Kurutta takane wa Hiroshima dake’, Chūgoku-Shimbun, 10 August 1946.

48 Masaaki Henmi, ‘Dainiji Sekai Taisengo no Nihon ni Okeru Furōji/Sensō koji no Rekishi’ (Juvenile Vagrants and War – Orphans after World War II in Japan), Japan Society for the Historical Studies of Education, 37 (1994), 99–115.

49 ‘Shasetsu Heiwasai eno Kokorogamae’, Chūgoku-Shimbun, 1 August 1945.

50 Shinzō Hamai, Genbaku-Shichō.

51 ‘Onshū Moyu, ‘Sekai no Miyako’ (Burning rage of ‘City of the World’), Chūgoku-Shimbun, 31 July 1946.

52 Satoru Ubuki, Heiwa-sengen (Hiroshima: Hiroshima Peace Culture Center, 1992).

53 ‘Seinaru Shikiten’, Chūgoku-Shimbun, 6 and 15 August 1947.

54 Nakagawa Toshikuni, ‘Kenkyū Note: Senryōgun Shiryō wo chūshin tosuru Hiroshima-shi Fukkō Komon to Fukkō keikaku eno ichi-kōsatsu’ [‘[Research Notes Centered around the Archives of the time of the Allied Occupation’], Hiroshima City Archives 28, (2015), 11–30.

55 Yoneyama; Zwigenberg.

56 Luli van der Does, ‘Toward a Borderless Memory’, in War Memory and East Asian Conflicts 1930–45, Eveline Buchheim and Jennifer Coates [eds], (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2023), 63–94; Luli van der Does and Noriyuki Kawano, ‘An Empirical Study of the Shifts in HIROSHIMA’s Identity in the Peace Declarations and Their English Translations 1947–2018’, Hiroshima Peace Science 40, (2018), 69–94.

57 ‘Hibaku-nanajū-gonen Genbaku-shichō ga kataru Hiroshima’, [Terebi-Shin-Hiroshima], a TV programme broadcast at 19:00 on 5 August 2020 (Hiroshima: Terebi-Shin-Hiroshima, 5 August 2020).

58 Hamai Shinzō, Mayor’s Speech at the Hiroshima Peace Festival, Hiroshima, 6 August 1947, <https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/heiwasengen/9481.html> [accessed 1 October 2023].

59 Hamai, Genbaku-Shichō.

60 Translated by the author. The original is ‘kon’nichi ano yoni kusaki mo aoaoto shigeri’.

61 Translation by the City of Hiroshima.

62 Hayao Kawai and Takeshi Inoue, ‘Fukkō to Heiwa no Setten: Kokoro’ [Heart of the mankind at the juncture of Fukkō and Peace], in Umarete [Born on this Planet] in Commemoration of Opening of UNITAR Hiroshima Office for Asia and the Pacific, (Hiroshima: UNITAR, 2004).

63 Further details are provided in van der Does, ‘Toward a Borderless Memory’.

64 Reported on 27 February 2022.

65 Sodei Rinjirō, Were We the enemy? American Survivors of Hiroshima (New York: Routledge, 1998).

66 Hiraoka Takashi, Peace Declaration delivered at the 1993 Peace Ceremony, (Hiroshima: Hiroshima City Office, 1993); Hiroshima City Office, Heiwa-Sengen no Rekishi, <https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/atomicbomb-peace/9818.html> [accessed 15 September 2023].

67 Zwigenberg, 25.

68 Hiroshima Prefectural Office, Hiroshima’s Path to Reconstruction, (Hiroshima: Hiroshima Prefectural Office, 2015), 29.

69 Interview with KC on 3 February 2022 in the hibakusha’s home in Hiroshima.

70 Author’s translations.

71 Hoshino Haruo, ed. Genbaku to Hahatachi, (Hiroshima: Taibundō, 1955); ISDA JNPC Henshū-shuppan Iinkai, ed., Hibaku no Jissō to Hibakusha no Jitsujō (Hiroshima: ISDA JNPC Henshū-shuppan Iinkai, 1978), 260–2.

72 As in the sense of Pierre Nora’s ‘lieux de memoire’: Pierre Nora, Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past: Conflicts and Divisions, European Perspectives: A Series in Social thought & Cultural Criticism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

73 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 2016).