This is a commentary written by law student Katelyn Lilley (University of Texas) in response to Professor Kirsten Cather's paper, "How I Learned to Keep Worrying and Teach the Bomb." Lilley wrote this commentary as a member of the Working Paper Series Editorial Committee.
In her paper, “How I Learned to Keep Worrying and Teach the Bomb,” Professor Kirsten Cather draws upon her experience utilizing literature, film, games, historical documents, and photographs to teach “the Bomb”, i.e. the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the long political, ethical and aesthetic afterlife of that historic event. Cather utilizes the term “the Bomb,” throughout the paper to highlight how difficult and incorrect it is to re-present the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in such simplistic terms. The paper grapples with “how to teach ‘the Bomb’ – and also, crucially, how not to teach it.” Cather opens with relaying an “unremitting disaster” early in her teaching career. She introduced the topic to students by showing images of the Bomb. Instead of sparking conversation centered around its effects on Japan, the students fell into a debate on whether it was “right” for the United States to use it, leaving the class split over that question and not engaging with the highly contested meanings and consequences of the Bomb and how it could be represented.
Following the introductory example, Cather recounts how she has since modified her teaching methods. She has shifted her focus to exposing students to diverse personal and political narratives surrounding the Bomb, and their censorship in different national contexts. Through watching films and reading first-person accounts, students explore themes of post-war censorship in Japan and the United States. Cather has also turned to interactive genres, with her students creating a video game around these themes. She stresses the importance of teaching the Bomb in a manner that not simply re-presents its damage using pictures, statistics, and facts, but through methods that sparkunderstanding of the “power and limitations of these representations.”
Several questions are raised in responding to Cather’s paper: How do we teach significant moments in history that are becoming more distant from us in space and in time, while remaining true to lived experience? How do we remain aware of the difference in possible narratives that emerge from different sources? Cather’s use of Gojira and Godzilla, King of the Monsters! provides the perfect example of these questions in practice with her students. Through comparing and contrasting the films, Cather’s students were able to view representations of ‘the Bomb’ from the original Japanese filmmakers of Gojira, to the Western recreation in Godzilla, King of the Monsters! The students were able to understand that in essentially poaching the original film, Godzilla, King of the Monsters! recenters the narrative to focus on the West, decentering the Japanese experience.
In Gojira, the protagonist of the story is a Japanese man, while in Godzilla, King of the Monsters!,the protagonist is an American reporter, and the focus of the film is shifted. The narrative becomes centered not on those harmed by the Bomb, but on the American journalist and the West viewing its devastation. By contrasting the two films, students were able to understand both films in a new light, viewing each narrative as a product of its sociohistorical and political context.
How can we then utilize this comparative teaching method in other educational settings, for example, courses on human rights law? Many universities now offer courses on the intersection of narrative/literature and human rights.[1] Law school programs have also offered courses related to the intersection of the law and literature/film.[2] Continuing to incorporate learning through narrative within these classrooms could assist and form similar discussions to those Cather recounts. Both fictional and factual narratives, created by those who have experienced abuses, can assist in underscoring the personal impact of these abuses. Exploring the similarities and differences in these narratives could also provoke more perceptive discussions on policy and the implications of the law. For example, by comparing American media portrayals of immigration to personal accounts by immigrants themselves, educators can center those most affected by injustice.
[1] See, for example, Human Rights and World Literature, Stanford Bull. ExploreCourses, https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?q=COMPLIT57; Narrative and Human Rights, Colombia Univ. Dep’t. of Eng. and Compar. Literature, https://english.columbia.edu/content/narrative-and-human-rights.
[2] See, for example, SMNR: Literature and the Law, The Univ. of Tex. at Austin School of Law, https://law.utexas.edu/courses/class-details/20249/28960/; 399 Law and Literature, Duke Law, https://law.duke.edu/academics/course/339; Law in Literature and Film, Colombia Law School Courses, https://www.law.columbia.edu/academics/courses/36420.