The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 24 (2013)

Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in
the Atomic Age

Priscilla Wald*Introduction
Recent histories of American Studies stress its roots in Cold War
geopolitics, with attention to the role of the United States in theestablishment of propagandistic American Studies programs abroad, butthey tend to overlook a critique of the nation that is evident in American
Studies work from the outset. Histories are constructed stories about thepast shaped by the choice of events the teller determines to be relevant.
Histories of our field have not typically considered the bombing of
the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II as
affecting the development of American Studies. Yet, there was arguably
no more momentous event in the 1940s, the decade that witnessed thesignificant institutionalization of the field in American universities,
than the dropping of those bombs. On August 7, the very day President
Harry S. Truman officially introduced the American public to the atom
Copyright © 2013 Priscilla Wald. All rights reserved. This work may be used, withthis notice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be
distributed, electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission fromthe author.
*Professor, Duke University

7

8

Priscilla Waldbomb, calling it, “a harnessing of the basic power of the universe,” many
journalists expressed their horror and dismay, lamenting, in the words ofone, that “Americans” had become “synonymous with destruction.”1 Thatsentiment motivated Wallace Shawn, managing editor of The New Yorker,
to send war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist John Hersey
to Hiroshima to document the human suffering that America’s use of thebomb had perpetrated on a civilian population. On August 31, 1946, thejournal known for its urbanity and sophistication devoted an entire issue toHersey’s account—the only time in its history to do so.
Hersey’s narrative asked Americans to consider their own and certainly
their nation’s accountability for the decision to deploy a weapon that not
only devastated two cities and their surroundings, but could also have ended
the world along with the war. It is tempting to think of this account as awork of American Studies. While such accountability was not the central
argument of the early classics in the field, which sought mainly to distinguisha uniquely “American” culture from its imperial progenitor, England, thecoincidence of the institutionalization of the field with the emergence of theUnited States as one of the two pre-eminent global powers in what can only
be described as a dangerously explosive world, is registered in these works
as well. In that sense, their concerns resonate with those of the criticaljournalists; they are evident, for example, in the exploration of the destructive
consequences of the early nation’s mythic relationship to the land by such
figures as Henry Nash Smith, Perry Miller, R. W. B. Lewis, and Leo Marx.
“Nature’s nation,” as Perry Miller called it, has always registeredambivalence about its own tenuous roots—or suspicion of its lack thereof.
In what follows, I will not be looking primarily at American Studies, but myanalysis of a popular cultural phenomenon that I see as a reaction to atomic
warfare comes out of the critical perspective it offers.
I am deeply honored by your invitation to address the annual meeting of
the Japanese Association for American Studies. I am humbled when I
consider that I am speaking to you a year after the tragic events of the
Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster,which summoned painful memories of the atomic devastation. And I am
grateful that our field has brought us together. It is precisely into theconnections between natural and manmade disaster and between warfare
and environmental devastation that I believe an American Studies approach
can offer important insight. Those connections will be the topic of my talktonight. It is worth remembering that both the American Studies Associationand the Japanese Association for American Studies were founded in 1951,
in the aftermath of war, following events of planetary significance: theBotanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

9bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am arguing that those bombings
were a defining moment both for world politics and the relationship ofhumanity to the earth as an entity, and for the creation of American Studies
as a field that emerged to explain “America” to the world and especially toitself. Contemporary critiques of American Studies stress the narrowness ofthe national frame and encourage scholars in the field to think“transnationally” or “globally.” If, however, we think about World War II
and the dropping of the atom bombs in particular as a defining moment notjust for the United States, but also for American Studies, we might begin tounderstand the ways in which American Studies has always been planetary,and to consider how the field has imparted the tools and methods for thevery analyses represented by these recent calls. I am drawing on these tools
as I consider, in what follows, the evidence and consequences of what I call“botanophobia”: the fear of plants in the atomic age.

I.
Among the many horrifying effects of nuclear warfare, the proliferationof plant life does not seem as though it would rank high on the list. Yet,when Hersey interviewed the six survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima
whose accounts would form the basis of Hiroshima, one of the survivors,
Miss Sasaki, remembered being especially disturbed by precisely that.
Carried through the city en route from one hospital to another several weeks
after the event, the wounded clerk was “horrified and amazed” by thedestruction that she had been unable to imagine. But “there was something
she noticed about it that particularly gave her the creeps. Over everything—up through the wreckage of the city, in gutters, along the riverbanks, tangled
among tiles and tin roofing, climbing on charred tree trunks—was a blanket
of fresh, vivid, lush, optimistic green; the verdancy rose even from thefoundations of ruined houses. Weeds already hid the ashes, and wild flowers
were in bloom among the city’s bones.”2 The contrast between theunthinkable destruction of life in one form and the clear evidence of its
continuity in another, which Hersey captures in the phrase “optimistic
green,” disturbed her in its uncanniness.
Hersey’s editorializing inheres in his word choice: the “vivid, lush,
optimistic green” blankets the wreckage, and the weeds hide the ashes and“bloom among the city’s bones.” He continues:
The bomb had not only left the underground organs of plants intact; it

10

Priscilla Wald

had stimulated them. Everywhere were bluets and Spanish bayonets,
goosefoot, morning glories and day lilies, the hairy-fruited bean,
purslane and clotbur and sesame and panic grass and feverfew.
Especially in a circle at the center, sickle senna grew in extraordinary
regeneration, not only standing among the charred remnants of thesame plant but pushing up in new places, among bricks and throughcracks in the asphalt. It actually seemed as if a load of sickle-senna
seed had been dropped along with the bomb. (69–70)
In this final chapter, the survivors recall their efforts to make sense of theincomprehensible destruction—the blast that turned people into theirshadows—giving rise to stories, like Hersey’s own, that mixed “fancy andprecise details” (73). Miss Sasaki’s memory of the vision that “gave her the
creeps” occasions Hersey’s lavish botanical catalogue, a list that very briefly
disrupts his journalistic account of the horrible aftereffects of the bomb: thenausea, fatigue, fevers, hemorrhages, hair loss. The narrator seems to getlost in the lushness of his description, as though the verdant landscape has
lulled him into a moment of forgetfulness.
It is easy for the reader to be lulled as well into forgetting that Hersey isreporting someone else’s account of this vision, since he was in Moscow,
not Hiroshima, at the time of the bombing. And it is difficult to imagine thatMiss Sasaki, who was suffering from fever and terrible pain at the time that
she was being moved through the city between hospitals, would havenoticed exactly which plants were blanketing the ruins, even if she had suchdetailed botanical knowledge. Moreover, many of the plants in Hersey’s
catalogue are not native to Japan and were not likely to have been in bloom
among the bricks and bones of Hiroshima. The list represents a mix oftechnical botanical terms and more generic names, of weeds and blossoms,
native and alien species. The apparent precision of the details threatens tomask the fancy. The catalogue reminds us that what may seem most factualand objective may be precisely where the journalist reveals himself as astoryteller and interpreter.
Hersey never loses sight in his account of the fact that the devastation onwhich he is reporting was perpetrated by the United States government
against Japanese civilians, but the implications of this passage widen the
culpability to planetary proportions. The insight was evident in the UnitedStates even in the earliest days following the August 7 announcement of thebombing of Hiroshima, in the response, as I have noted, of several journalists.
While Truman justified the new war craft to the American public,Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

11proclaiming, “the force from which the sun draws its powers has beenloosed against those who brought war to the Far East,” the Times military
editor, Hanson Baldwin, who had won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage ofthe early years of the war, was considerably less sanguine. In the same issue,
he chastened, “Yesterday man unleashed the atom to destroy man, andanother chapter in human history opened, a chapter in which the weird, thestrange, the horrible becomes the trite and the obvious. Yesterday weclinched victory in the Pacific, but we sowed the whirlwind.” Lamenting,“much of our bombing throughout the war—like the enemy’s—has been
directed against cities, and hence against civilians,” Baldwin explains that itis the particular efficacy, hence devastation, of American bombs that has
turned “Americans” into “a synonym for destruction,” an equation
intensified by the use of “a new weapon of unknowable effects which may
bring us victory quickly but which will sow the seeds of hate more widely
than ever. We may yet,” he forecast, “reap the whirlwind.”
In the days following the dropping of the bombs, when Hersey’s subjects
were suffering the earliest effects of radiation sickness, other prominent
American journalists echoed Baldwin’s warning. Edward R. Murrow
mourned, “Seldom if ever has a war ended leaving the victors with such asense of uncertainty and fear, with such a realization that the future is
obscure and that survival is not assured,” and Norman Cousins noted thetempering of any elation at the apparent end of the war by the emergence of“a primitive fear, the fear of the unknown, the fear of forces man can neither
channel nor comprehend.”3 It was not, he explained, a new fear; it was
rather “the fear of irrational death. But overnight it has become intensified,magnified. It has burst out of the subconscious and into the conscious, fillingthe mind with primordial apprehensions.”4 And an editorial in ChristianCentury magazine described “a spell of dark foreboding over the spirit ofhumanity” that had been cast by the bomb.5
It is tempting to read the botanical catalogue in Hiroshima allegorically.
Many of the plants in the list are North American species, some of themnotoriously invasive. A Japanese survivor of the bombing could well note
their resonance with the American troops stationed in the city, and throughout
Japan, to supervise the surrender and maintain control in the aftermath of
the bombing. But the horror of the scene pierces the allegory, showing a
glimpse into the potential future of humankind in the atomic age. The
contrast between the devastated fauna and infrastructure of the city and thethriving flora enacts Nature’s indifference to human achievement andsurvival. Miss Sasaki’s response to the “optimistic green” bears witness to12

Priscilla Waldthe anguish of the insight that, as the molecular biologist Joshua Lederberg
would explain in another context, “Nature is far from benign; at least it has
no special sentiment for the welfare of the human versus other species . . .
the survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary
program.”6 The particular uncanny sensation Miss Sasaki (ostensibly)
reports suggests a tacit acknowledgment of that indifference, as the plants
turn the destroyed structures into classic ruins—perhaps even a mockery ofhuman achievement. Hersey’s description manifests generic confusion
when a pastoral landscape metamorphoses into the setting of a horror filmof biblical proportions, as though the destruction changed the terms ofstorytelling itself. The potential future glimpsed in this scene forecasts a
postapocalyptic world in which the meek truly inherit the earth.
Although not yet quite marking the end of the world, this apocalypse isrevelatory in the green optimism of its accelerated growth. Complementing
the national conflicts of World War II was another imminent conflagration.
Humankind was evidently at war with its surroundings. “Ever since manlearned to master it to such an extent that the destruction of all organic lifeon earth with man-made instruments has become conceivable and technicallypossible,” the philosopher Hannah Arendt would observe, “he has been
alienated from nature.” Atomic warfare for her was merely the amplificationof that mastery: “Ever since a deeper knowledge of natural processes
instilled serious doubts about the existence of natural laws at all, nature
itself has assumed a sinister aspect.”7 In the magnifying glass of the rubbleof this mastery, Hersey displayed that alienation and its consequences.
Nature turns gradually and subtly sinister in this passage, as the blanket—
vivid, lush, optimistic—slowly overwhelms; leaves push through cracks,
turning ruination into ruins, life into the memory (and mockery) of death,until sickle senna seeds are virtually indistinguishable from the bomb itself.
“The disease of reason,” wrote the philosopher Max Horkheimer in 1947,
as the long-term consequences of atomic warfare were beginning to emerge,“is that reason is born from man’s urge to dominate nature.”8 The futuristic
timeline of Hiroshima’s verdure shows what vegetation might become in
the absence of Nature’s sworn foe. Unchecked by a human presence,vegetation proliferates. But Miss Sasaki’s creepy sensation signals that thegeneric metamorphosis from pastoral to horror has already begun. The
sinister turn inflects the (potentially contaminated) plants with a hint of(human) aggression.
Whether Hersey intended to stage this all-too-human transformation of
indifference into enmity—of, that is, the return of the repressed—or whether

Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

13

he unwittingly performed it, the scene foretells a prominent theme of science
fiction horror novels and films that proliferated, like the vegetation in thescene, in the wake of the war. The premise of such works as The Thing from
Another World, The Day of the Triffids, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers
may seem absurd to narrate, but the numerous incarnations of these works
bespeak an endurance that is the result of more than camp. The intelligent
vegetation that threatens humanity in these works suggests a widespread
grappling with the relationship between the human and its environment in
the postwar world that had broad implications not only for the developmentof the environmental movement, fueled by Rachel Carson’s 1962 Silent
Spring, but also for American science and politics—and for American
Studies.

II.
It is easy to chuckle at the plots of such films as The Thing from Another
World (1951), about a military unit’s battle with what one of the charactersin the film dubs “an intellectual carrot,” or Invasion of the Body Snatchers(1956), in which giant seedpods threaten the human race. But as American
Studies has taught us, the recurrence of a particular theme in popular culturalforms registers and fosters widespread concerns and yields insight into thepreoccupations of a particular moment. What may seem absurd in retrospect
was very much intended to be—and characteristically experienced as—
horror, if contemporary reviews of the films are any indication. These works
turn assumptions that might be buried in the metaphors of scientificpublications or perhaps offered as passing suggestions in journalism intofull-blown scenarios that amplify those conventions. The stories in thesefilms and the fiction on which they were based extend the implications ofHersey’s botanical catalogue. What may seem absurd now is precisely what
offers insight into a formative, although largely obscured, set of concerns
about the nature of the human and its relationship to its surroundings in the
postwar period.
The Thing from Another World begins with a prominent scientist’s
summoning a military unit to his experimental station at the North Pole toinvestigate what seems to be an unidentified flying object. Discovering amysterious flying machine buried in the ice, the unit follows “standard
operating procedure” and blasts the area with thermite. Despite the ice, themachine catches fire and burns, but the occupant survives, and the unit
brings it back to the station. Escaping from its frozen prison, the creature

14

Priscilla Waldflees into the night, where it is attacked by sled dogs, two of whom it kills,
losing an arm in the process. Led by the stereotypical postwar man ofscience, Dr. Carrington, the scientists discover that the creature, whichappears humanoid, is in fact “porous unconnected vegetable growth,” whichis to say, walking vegetable matter.9
In response to the surprise of the military personnel, Carrington explainsthat the mind should not in fact “boggle” if they really know anything
about either evolution or the flora of their own planet. He quickly surmisesthat while animal life evolved to be the dominant form on the Earth, thecreature is clearly from a planet on which vegetation took the evolutionary
lead. Here Carrington underscores the arbitrary nature of the human as heputs into popular terms the implications of evolutionary insights that had
been broadly circulating since the previous decade. The “evolutionary
synthesis,” as it came to be called, referred to a collaboration of geneticists
and natural historians that offered an explanation for the mechanism of
Darwin’s concept of natural selection. An outgrowth of the emerging fieldof population genetics, this concept showed how a single “mistake” in the
copying of genetic material could, over several generations, alter the
genetic characteristics of a population, and, eventually, produce an entirely
new species. It showed, in other words, the inevitability of change and therole of chance in the process. And it challenged any human pretentions toteleology. While the evolutionary synthesis preceded the bombing ofHiroshima, the use of atomic weapons significantly accelerated research inhuman genetics; in turn, alternative evolutionary possibilities in an
increasingly populated cosmos fueled the emerging genre of science fiction
and its hybrid, science fiction horror. The “intellectual carrot” challenged
human evolutionary hubris.
Carrington, whose appearance and mannerisms hint at his Mephistopheliancharacteristics, is the classic postwar man of science, whose quest forknowledge has tempered his humanity. Scientists’ role in the creation of theatomic bomb in particular generated a pervasive unease about the perceived
lack of humanistic considerations in the sciences extending to a lack of faith
in the constraints of humanity itself in 1950s America. “The bomb dropped
on Hiroshima was doubtless heard by human ears for hundreds of miles
around,” intoned an editorialist in the New York Times shortly after Truman’s
announcement, “but morally it was heard around the world.” It is not humanmalevolence so much as short-sightedness that concerns this writer, whomuses, “Today men can only think haphazardly of a few of its possible

Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

15consequences: the effect on the war against Japan, the effect on the future of
all warfare, the peacetime applications to power and economic creation, thescientific and political revolution that it must bring.” And the writer wonders
whether or not “mankind” can “grow up quickly enough to win the race
between civilization and disaster.”10
One of Carrington’s colleagues offers a quick botany lesson, assuring
the astonished journalist, who worries about his readership’s ability tobelieve what they have encountered, that “intelligence in plants andvegetables is an old story . . . older even than the animal arrogance thathas overlooked it.” But most revealing is Carrington’s excitement about
the discovery of seedpods in the creature’s severed arm, which signals the“neat and unconfused reproductive technique of vegetation. No pain orpleasure as we know it. No emotions. No heart.” The creature, he enthuses,
is “our superior, our superior in every way” and will reveal “secrets” of theuniverse “if we can only communicate with it.” His homage to the creature
is interrupted when the group notices that the arm is consuming the bloodof the dogs that ripped it off and beginning to move. The discovery that“it lives on blood” is also the discovery that it feeds on animal life. The
implications of that discovery materialize when two of the scientists
are discovered hanging upside down in the greenhouse with their blooddrained, as “in a slaughterhouse.” Carrington explains that the creature “hasthe same attitude towards us that we have toward a cabbage field,” and oneof his colleagues speculates that the creature may well have come to Earthin order to conquer it, to create an army and harvest humans as food forit. The horror expressed in the film is not so much that human beings findthemselves at “war” with vegetable matter, as that the botanical creatureexperiences humanity as nothing more than its food.
Similarly, the seedpods threatening to take over the world in Invasion of
the Body Snatchers have no enmity for humanity, just the instinct to survive.
Jack Finney, author of the novel (originally entitled The Body Snatchers),
puts the explanation in the mouth of a former botany professor, the aptly
named Bernard Budlong, who is Pod Zero (the first human being who is“body snatched” by the pods): the pods have come to earth, he explains, “bypure chance, but having arrived, they have a function to perform. . . . The
function of all life, everywhere—to survive.”11 There is no malevolence inwhat the human beings experience as an attack; rather, “the pods are aparasite on whatever life they encounter. . . . But they are the perfect parasite,
capable of far more than clinging to the host. They are completely evolved

16

Priscilla Waldlife; they have the ability to re-form and reconstitute themselves into perfect
duplication, cell for living cell, of any life form they may encounter inwhatever conditions that life has suited itself for” (153). The pods take overhuman bodies when human beings fall asleep; they are exact replicas of thesnatched person except for one crucial particular: like the “intellectual
carrot,” they have no emotions.
The revelation compelled by the pods similarly involves a newconception of the human, but in this case it derives from the new scienceof information theory rather than evolution. Budlong explains themachination of body snatching in terms that echo the early cyberneticist
Norbert Wiener’s description of the nature of human beings in The Human
Use of Human Beings. Wiener labeled the “pattern . . . the touchstone of
our personal identity. Our tissues change as we live: the food we eat andthe air we breathe become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone, and themomentary elements of our flesh and bone pass out of our body every day
with our excreta. . . . We are not stuff that abides, but patterns thatperpetuate themselves.”12 Likewise, Budlong explains to the protagonist of
Body Snatchers that the human body “contains a pattern” that “is the very
foundation of cellular life” (155); since “every cell of [an entire body]emanates waves as individual as fingerprints” (155), the pods can snatch
the pattern “during sleep . . . absorb [it] like static electricity, from one
body to another” (155-56).
The seedpods of these science fiction horror stories draw out the
implications of Hersey’s botanical catalogue; they are most disturbing intheir indifference to humanity, in their treating human beings as sustenancerather than intelligent foes. And both stories manifest the response that is
also implicit in the Hersey passage when they transform the sentient plantlife into a willful enemy. While the creature in The Thing is described as
humanoid, there is no significant character development; its visual
association with the creature in Frankenstein and its wordless raging in its
rare appearances renders it monstrous from the outset and throughout thefilm. Carrington’s insistence that it is, as he puts it, “a stranger in a strange
land” and a superior life form, entitled to respect and capable ofcommunication with human beings, is never supported with evidence and isdefinitively belied when the roaring creature swipes him aside in its
determination to destroy the human beings in the penultimate scene. The
creature’s electrocution at the end of that scene cements its association withFrankenstein’s creature. The creature in The Thing from Another Worldmight well be capable of superior technology (the spaceship), but it has theBotanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

17diplomatic skills of a vegetable—and not an intellectual one. The pod
people, by contrast, are capable of communication, but they nonethelessmanifest the same contempt for their human prey. They are cunning andwillful and, while not monstrous in appearance, their coldness—describedin the novel through their tone of voice and the absence of a “special look”
in their eyes and manifested in the film through tone and look as a chilling
automatism—renders them “monstrous” by association with the characteristics of villainy in this period: the chilling automatism evident incinematic depictions of Communists and Nazis.
It is surprising that Carrington, who works to protect the creature
throughout The Thing from Another World, describes a “war” between thecreature and the human species, but his language is revelatory. The novels
and films bespeak a deeply adversarial relationship between humankind andnature in which botanical aggression comes to justify the human domination
over nature that Horkheimer called the “disease of reason.” The botanicalturn to the vicious, that is, justifies the domination that the insights evident
in Horkheimer’s comment and, although more implicitly, Hersey’s botanicalcatalogue call into question.

III.
Beginning her 1958 study of The Human Condition with the launching of
Sputnik the year before—an event she calls “second in importance to noother, not even the splitting of the atom”—Arendt remarks on the oddnessof the general reaction: not, as she might have expected, joy at this humanachievement, but “relief about” what one reporter called “the first ‘step
toward escape from men’s imprisonment to earth.’”13 That feeling, sheobserves, had been “commonplace for some time. . . . What is new is onlythat one of this country’s most respectable newspapers finally brought to its
front page what up to then had been buried in the highly non-respectable
literature of science fiction (to which, unfortunately, nobody yet has paid
the attention it deserves as a vehicle of mass sentiments and mass desires)”(2). While Arendt describes “the first atomic explosions” (6) as a break withthe past—an initiation of a new political modernity—the project of The
Human Condition is to tease out the implications of humankind’s alienationfrom nature to which she had alluded nearly a decade earlier in The Origins
of Totalitarianism. “The purpose of the historical analysis,” she explains,“is to trace back modern world alienation, its twofold flight from the earth
into the universe and from the world into the self, to its origins, in order to18

Priscilla Waldarrive at an understanding of the nature of society as it had developed andpresented itself at the very moment when it was overcome by the advent of
a new and yet unknown age” (6). And she dates those origins from what shecalls “an Archimedean standpoint,” the term she gives to the cosmic
conceptualization of the planet. The imagined view of the Earth from thecosmos has the effect, she argues, of “alienating man from his immediate
earthly surroundings” and, consequently, of allowing human beings toimagine their survival after the destruction of the planet. The resulting“world-alienation,” she argues, “and not self-alienation, as Marx thought,
has been the hallmark of the modern age.”
Implicit in this alienation is a disavowed identification with livingorganisms, a refusal, that is, of an ecological point of view in which humanbeings are part of a planetary ecosystem. In the world-alienation, Arendt
suggestively identifies a human wish for immortality that requires humanbeings to dissociate themselves from the flora and fauna, which mark theinevitability of death—of the individual and of the species. In the life cycles
that are fundamental to living organisms, human beings see the certainty of
their own mortality—the inevitable finitude of individuals and species
alike—and, Arendt suggests, they rebel. Nothing better records thatrebellion, the hopes and fears associated with the wish and the disavowal it
prompts, than science fiction. If human beings are plant food in The Thingfrom Another World and hosts for parasitic seedpods in Invasion of the Body
Snatchers, the barren landscape of Forbidden Planet (1956) shows theconsequences of disavowed wishes. In this film, scientists sent to discover
the fate of an earlier group of colonizers discover that their predecessors
have devastated a once Edenic planet. Having designed a machine that cangratify human wishes, they fail to take into account the destructive impulsesof the unconscious. The fate of the planet—and of all but the two remaining
survivors, a scientist in the Carrington (and Prospero) mold and his
daughter—reflects the consequences of which Arendt warns. “If it should
turn out to be true that knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) andthought have parted company for good,” she cautions, “then we would
indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of ourknow-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which istechnically possible, no matter how murderous it is” (3).
It is, then, not surprising that the alien vegetation of these stories
eventually metamorphoses into sinister antagonists—“an inhuman enemy,”laments Miles, the sole survivor of the pod invasion in Body Snatchers,“bent on my destruction.”14 And it makes sense, as well, that greenhouses—

Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

19

spaces of human cultivation of flora—should be uncanny sites of destruction.
The greenhouse is where the scientists in The Thing find their colleagues
hanging upside down, drained of their blood, and where the four central
characters of Body Snatchers discover the pods. Director Don Siegel uses
greenhouse plants to frame the characters in the shot that captures their firstglimpse of the pods, as though the plants are closing in on their humancultivators. The greenhouse scenes subtly suggest the control over naturethat cultivation taken to its extreme implies, especially in the context ofsuch works as the 1951 novel The Day of the Triffids, which gives literalmeaning to invasive species when the possibly bioengineered triffids declare
war on humankind. The multiple novelistic and cinematic retellings of all ofthese stories evince a widespread and continuing fascination with thistheme.
But if the dangerous greenhouse hints at the botanical antagonism thathuman beings may be cultivating along with their plants, cultivation canalso suggest a continuum that extends from plants to their human cultivators.
The brilliant but evil scientist who brainwashes a US combat unit in Richard
Condon’s 1959 novel, The Manchurian Candidate, chooses a ladies’ garden
club in New Jersey as the hallucinatory setting for the unit, which is actuallysitting on the stage of a theater in Manchuria while the scientist, Yen Lo,
demonstrates the new science for an audience of military and civilian
leaders from China and the Soviet Union. Although the substance of thehallucination Yen Lo produces might seem incidental to the plot of thenovel, the brilliant 1962 cinematic adaptation, directed by John
Frankenheimer, suggests a connection between the two lectures. While Yen
Lo explains that the form of extreme “conditioning” that had recently been
dubbed “brainwashing” is nothing more than an extension of the normal
processes of social conditioning to which everyone is subject, Mrs. Henry
Whittaker delivers a lecture on “Fun with Hydrangeas.” An ornamental
plant noted for its beauty and for (if ingested) its potential toxicity, and (ifsmoked) its hallucinatory quality, the hydrangea is not unlike Ellie Iselin,
the beautiful but deadly mother of the primary subject of Yen Lo’s
experiment, Raymond Shaw, whom he “conditions” to become an unwitting
assassin, the center of an elaborate plot to overthrow the US government.
The camera pans the room repeatedly, randomly exchanging Mrs. Henry
Whittaker (whose name invokes the famous Communist-turned-informant
Whittaker Chambers) and Yen Lo, the ladies in the audience and theCommunist dignitaries, and the lectures on the cultivation of plants and theconditioning of human beings in the process. If human beings are at war

20

Priscilla Waldwith their botanical surroundings, it is, as Arendt and numerous science
fiction writers make clear, a violence that threatens nothing more than thehuman species itself: herbicide become homicide.
Hersey’s botanical catalogue suggests as much, and it was the explicit
and powerful message of another ground-breaking New Yorker article
turned best-selling book in 1962, the biologist Rachel Carson’s Silent
Spring. The work that is often touted for its role in launching—or at least
widely popularizing—the contemporary environmental movement in the
United States chronicles how the development of chemical weapons during
and between the world wars led to a “war on nature” in the form of pesticides
and herbicides. “This pollution,” writes Carson, initiates “a chain ofevil . . . not only in the world that must support life but in living tissues” thatis “for the most part irreversible.” Carson begins with an enchanted
landscape: “There once was a town in the heart of America where all life
seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings” until “a strange blight
crept over the area and everything began to change.”15 An “evil spell”
appeared to have settled on the town; the animals and people suffer from“mysterious maladies,” and “everywhere was a shadow of death.” A “strange
stillness” settles on the land. . . . It was a spring without voices” (2). The
tone begins to shift with the disenchanting conclusion that “no witchcraft,
no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world.
The people had done it themselves” (3).
Fairy tale shades into science fiction as Carson discloses the past of her“Fable for Tomorrow” to be the reader’s ominous future, a “grim specter[that] has crept upon us almost unnoticed” (3): a silent spring devoid of thesong of birds. Like the “noiseless flash” in the title of Hersey’s first chapter,
silence heralds unspeakable destruction. In the mirror of the tale, as in the
proliferating vegetation of Hiroshima, readers glimpse the world following
their own extinction. And, as in Hersey’s work, the apocalyptic moment isrevelatory: it manifests humankind’s ongoing war with nature.
As in her opening tale, Carson turns to the literary in Silent Spring todramatize the strange and horrifying transformations human beings areenacting in this war. Invoking Medea’s magical poisonous robe that causes
its wearer to suffer an especially painful death, she describes the “death-byindirection” of “systemic insecticides” (32). The “extraordinary properties”
of these chemicals
convert plants or animals into a sort of Medea’s robe by making themactually poisonous. . . . The world of systemic insecticides is a weird

Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

21

world, surpassing the imaginings of the brothers Grimm—perhaps
most closely akin to the cartoon world of Charles Addams. It is a world
where the enchanted forest of the fairy tales has become the poisonous
forest in which an insect that chews a leaf or sucks the sap of a plant isdoomed. It is a world where a flea bites a dog, and dies because the
dog’s blood has been made poisonous, where an insect may die fromvapors emanating from a plant it has never touched, where a bee may
carry poisonous nectar back to its hive and presently produce poisonoushoney. (32–33)
If Hersey’s proliferating plants mock the hubris of human endeavor,
Carson’s poisonous forest marks it as destructive and ultimately doomed.
Nathaniel Hawthorne foretold this world in his description of Dr. Rappaccini,whose belief that “all medicinal virtues are comprised within . . . vegetablepoisons” leads him not only to cultivate a luxuriant but deadly garden, butalso to turn his beautiful daughter poisonous.16 In Carson, as in Hawthorne,
the quest for knowledge and control at once bespeaks and creates a fear oflife.
“This sudden silencing of the song of the birds,” writes Carson, “thisobliteration of the color and beauty and interest they lend to our world havecome about swiftly, insidiously, and unnoticed by those whose communities
are as yet unaffected” (103). Like the pod invasion in Body Snatchers, thetakeover is systemic but gradual, silent, and unperceived. Carson isparticularly horrified by what it portends: “chemicals are the sinister andlittle-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of theworld—the very nature of its life” (6). Humankind is colonizing the future.
The chemicals are finding their way not only into the blood, tissue, andbones of living human beings, but also into “mother’s milk, and probably
into the tissues of the unborn child” (16)—into the circulatory systems ofpeople and of the planet. They “have the power to strike directly at thechromosomes,” threatening “our genetic heritage, a possession that hascome down to us through some two billion years of evolution and selectionof living protoplasm, a possession that is ours for the moment only, until wemust pass it on to generations to come” (216). Carson, who was battlingbreast cancer while writing Silent Spring, turns especially dramatic in her
description of how our very cells turn against us in the present, as exposure
alters cell division, turning it “alien and destructive” (230). As individuals
and as a species, we are mortgaging our future for “a sproutless potato or amosquitoless patio” (216).

22

Priscilla Wald

Carson does not suggest that human beings should make no effort tocontrol their surroundings; rather, she advocates for biological rather thanchemical solutions, which requires a deeper understanding of the “web oflife” in which human beings exist. The anxious insight registered in The
Thing, Body Snatchers, and other science fiction, however, is implicit in
Carson’s analysis: human beings are not only part of the food chain, butthey may not be at its top. Or deserve to be. “The question” she poses “iswhether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying
itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized” (99). Or its
presumed place in the food chain. Ironically, the very war they are waging
seems to be giving the evolutionary advantage to the ostensibly lower-orderorganisms. Temporally, insects, with their rapid generations, are mutating
sufficiently quickly to develop resistance to the toxins that are not only
failing to hit their marks but are turning back on the marksmen. Carson’sobservations illustrate Arendt’s formulation: the dangerous desire to escapethe earth, which is to say to escape individual death, is leading to the deathof the species. Again, the haunting irony of Hersey’s flora: Darwin goes
biblical as the survival of the fittest means the meek inherit the earth.
The war on nature perverts reproduction, turning it into the source of fearrather than assurance of a future. The seedpods in both The Thing and Body
Snatchers manifest the uncanny implications of Hersey’s proliferating flora.
Yen Lo conjures Mrs. Whittaker and the matronly ladies of the garden club,as he uses Raymond’s mother, as part of his deadly plot to transform ahuman being into a weapon that can unknowingly destroy even what hemost loves. The poet Theodore Roethke’s 1948 collection, The Lost Son andOther Poems, illustrates how widespread this idea was in the transformationof a greenhouse into a haunted house. Although this son of commercial
greenhouse owners described the greenhouse as his poetic “symbol for thewhole of life, a womb, a heaven-on-earth,” the vegetation that is the focusof this poetry repeatedly terrifies the child. Orchids, for example, “Addermouthed,” drift “down from their mossy cradles: / Soft luminescent fingers,/ Lips neither dead nor alive, / Loose ghostly mouths / Breathing.” And apoem entitled “The Weed Puller” finds the poet “Hacking at black hairyroots,— / . . . With everything blooming above [him], / Lilies, pale-pink
cyclamen, roses, / Whole fields lovely and inviolate,— / . . . down in that
fetor of weeds, / Crawling on all fours, / Alive, in a slippery grave.”17 Like
the reader of Carson’s opening tale, he has become his own ghost as
cultivation shades imperceptibly into destruction.

Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

23IV.
As knowledge of the mutagenic properties of chemicals and radiation
made humanity’s future uncertain, turning wombs into spaces of dangerous
transmission if not graves outright, science fiction increasingly recorded thetransformation of vegetation into invasive species in the most literal sense.
The mutated giant ants of Gordon Douglas’s 1954 Them! and Ishirō Honda’s
mutated sea creature in his incomparable 1954 Godzilla are two of the bestknown science fictional treatments of the effects of radiation on the insect
and amphibious worlds. But the power of the transformative effect of thewar on both flora and humanity is perhaps nowhere more powerfully
depicted than Honda’s 1963 Matango, known in English as Matango,
Fungus of Terror and also as Attack of the Mushroom People. Based on ashort story by the early twentieth-century English writer William Hope
Hodgson, Matango chronicles the fate of the passengers of a yacht marooned
on an island filled with mushrooms that turn most of them into mushroom
people. The resonances with Lucky Dragon 5 and the mushroom cloud are
obvious, but the film differs from other films premised on atomic mutations,such as Them! and Godzilla, in its emphasis on metamorphosis rather thanwar and destruction. It is in that sense more like the pods of The Body
Snatchers and other aliens that take over their human hosts, including
Robert Heinlein’s 1951 The Puppet Masters, William Cameron Menzies’
1953 film Invaders from Mars, or Philip K. Dick’s 1954 short story “TheFather-Thing.” But the surviving protagonist actually wonders if he shouldhave stayed on the island with his converted love and muses on thesimilarities between human beings and the mushroom people: both, it
seems, are invasive species. Unlike those earlier works, Matango is not a
cautionary tale about the loss of humanity but a grim recalibration of what
humanity actually is.
The poet and novelist James Dickey similarly meditates on thatmetamorphosis, but with a twist, in his 1963 poem “Kudzu.” The arresting
opening of the poem maps geopolitics onto botanical bullying: “Japan
invades. Far Eastern vines / Run from the clay banks they are / Supposed tokeep from eroding.” Nature fights back, as the poem dramatizes theconsequences of human interference in the web of life. The kudzu runs
amok, escaping the river banks where it has been planted to do humanity’s
bidding and coiling “Up telephone poles, / Which rear, half out of leafage /As though they would shriek, / Like things smothered by their own / Green,mindless, unkillable ghosts.” It creeps into the pasture and up to the home,

24

Priscilla Wald

where “. . . you sleep like the dead. / Silence has grown Oriental / And you
cannot step upon the ground” because it disappears beneath the kudzu
where snakes hide.18 The poem ends with a pyrrhic victory and an uncannytransformation: the snakes rooted out and the vines withering, but at a greatcost. Powerful and destructive, the vines are also metamorphic; their powertransforms as it courses through the bodies of the humans—“It was asthough you had / A green sword twined among / The veins of your growing
right arm”—until disrupted by the destruction of the field.
The metamorphosis identifies the humans with the kudzu, ambiguously
casting them as invasive species and part of the web of life, diminishingthemselves as they destroy the field. The opening of the poem summons theplanetary war marked by the dropping of the atom bomb, as it satirizes the
racialized nativist sentiments that were commonly invoked through botany:
it was not unusual for mid-twentieth-century gardening magazines to
describe the proliferation of plants native to other countries, such as kudzu
or honeysuckle, as invasions, and, conversely, to advocate the cultivation ofnative plants. Yet, Dickey is also writing against the backdrop of the use,from 1962 through 1971, of herbicides and defoliants to expose the hiding
places and destroy the food supply of “enemy” troops, which David Zierler
dubs the “herbicidal warfare” of Vietnam.19 His invocation of the pervasive
botanical nativism shows how the fear of life implicit in the fear of plants
inflects geopolitics, resulting in the “world-alienation”—the potentiallyplanetary devastation—that Arendt had forecast.
I have been suggesting that botanophobia manifests a human unwillingness to accept the lessons of evolution: the mutability and the ultimate
finitude of all living things as they circulate through a web of life. For
Arendt, that unwillingness had put the species on a course of planetary
destruction. By the end of the 1960s that destruction seemed imminent.
Race riots and anticolonial violence worldwide showed the broaddissatisfaction with contemporary social hierarchies and the geopolitics thatmaintained them. Nuclear proliferation and environmental exhaustionsuggested the world could end at any time either in a bang or a whimper.
America’s involvement in Vietnam helped to crystallize the connections
among the different forms of violence and disregard for human andnonhuman life. Structural analyses began to emerge.
At a widely publicized gathering of clergy opposed to America’s
involvement in the Vietnam War at New York’s Riverside Church, the Civil
Rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. highlighted the connections among
racism and poverty at home and colonial and ecological violence abroad.

Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

25“They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of theircrops,” he intoned. “They must weep as the bulldozers roar through theirareas preparing to destroy the precious trees. . . . So far we may have killed
a million of them, mostly children.” The American soldiers, disproportionately representing the nation’s poor, watch too, King laments, and thedistinction between them blurs, as he condemns the injustice “of burning
human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans andwidows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of people
normally humane, of sending men home from bloody battlefields physicallyhandicapped and psychologically deranged.”20 In 1967, King could nothave known that the soldiers on both sides would also bring home the effects
of Agent Orange and the other toxins in their very blood and genes—that in
the most literal way, the war had injected its poisons into their very futures.
Although he would not live to learn how herbicidal warfare in Vietnam
would literalize his metaphors, the connections he drew anticipated theinsights that the Black Power activist Stokely Carmichael would call“institutional racism” and the Norwegian sociologist and peace activist
Johan Galtung would dub “structural violence.” Such analyses showed howsocial and geopolitical institutions and structures intrinsically perpetuatedsocial inequities, making certain populations considerably more susceptible
to hardships than others. They illustrated how those inequities were reflectedin access to health care, education, and employment opportunities and inincreased susceptibility to environmental hazards and natural disasters.
It is less far from Hersey’s botanical catalogue to America’s “herbicidal
warfare” in Vietnam than might at first appear. In chronicling the routes and“roots” that connect them, I have been drawing on the insights that came outof this historical moment, as American “involvement” in Vietnam escalated
into full-fledged war. It was a moment of transformation for American
culture and American Studies. It was a moment, observed the Black Power
activist Eldridge Cleaver, when the white race lost its heroes and students ofAmerican Studies began to fashion new histories that better explained their
lived realities: the demonstrable differences across populations—defined bysuch attributes as race, gender, and class—in life expectancy, infantmortality, and exposure to toxins and pollutants; the differences in access toresources, health care, and educational opportunity. They learned tounderstand these differences as expressions of continuing institutional
racism and structural violence, to accept their own accountability as social
beings and recognize it as a mandate for change. Against the backdrop of
total war and environmental exhaustion, these analyses began to shift the26

Priscilla Waldemphasis in the field from the nation to the planet, the citizen to the human.
I have been attempting to show the work that remains for us and for future
generations of students in our field to accomplish: the full integration ofenvironmental and social justice into a multifaceted, multivocal critique ofAmerican culture as it now is, in its descent from the imperial heights of theimmediate postwar era into its changing role in a new world system—a role
we must help to define. The growth of American Studies in the wake ofHiroshima and Nagasaki has written a mandate for justice, for a method ofinvestigation rooted in compassion and accountability, for an acceptance ofthe human as an element of an ever-evolving planet so that we might
imagine, contra world-alienation, a way of writing and thinking that thestate of the very air, water, earth and all that lives on, above, or beneath itbegs us to develop.

Notes
This is a slightly revised version of the Presidential Lecture I delivered as American
Studies Association president at the 46th annual meeting of the JAAS held on June 2
and 3, 2012, at Nagoya University.
1“Text of Statement by Truman, Stimson on Development of the Atomic Bomb,”
New York Times (7 August 1945), 4, and Hanson W. Baldwin, “The Atomic Weapon,”
New York Times (7 August 1945), 10.
2John Hersey, Hiroshima (New York: Vintage Books, 1985 [1946]), 69. Futurereferences are to this edition.
3
Edward R. Murrow, radio broadcast, August 12, 1945, In Search of Light: The
Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow, 1938–1961 (New York: Knopf, 1961), 102.
4
Norman Cousins, “Modern Man Is Obsolete,” Saturday Review (August 18, 1945),
8.
5“Man and the Atom,” Christian Century (August 22, 1945), 951.
6
Joshua Lederberg, “Viruses and Humankind: Intracellular Symbiosis andEvolutionary Competition,” in Emerging Viruses, ed. Stephen S. Morse (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993), 3–9, quote at 8.
7
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1973 [1948]), 298.
8
Max Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason (New York: Continuum, 1974 [1947]),
176.
9
The Thing from Another World, dir. Christian Nyby (and Howard Hawks) (1951;
Burbank, CA: Turner Entertainment Co and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 2003).
DVD. The discussion of the “intellectual carrot” is in chapter 14; the slaughterhouseline and the cabbage field quotation are in chapter 17.
10“Heard Round the World,” New York Times (August 7, 1945), 22.
11Jack Finney, The Body Snatchers (New York: Dell, 1955), 152. Future references
are to this edition.
12
Norbert Wiener, The Human Uses of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society

Botanophobia: Fear of Plants in the Atomic Age

27(Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1954 [1950]), 96.
13
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1998 [1958]), 1. Future references are to this edition.
14
Invasion of the Body Snatchers, dir. Don Siegel (1956; Santa Monica, CA: Artisan
Entertainment, Inc.). DVD, chapter 23.
15
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002 [1962]), 1–2. Futurereferences are to this edition.
16
Nathaniel Hawthorne, “Rappaccini’s Daughter,” Nathaniel Hawthorne: Tales andSketches (New York: Library of America, 1982), 975–1005, quote at 982.
17
Theodore Roethke, “Orchids” and “The Weed Killer,” The Collected Poems of
Theodore Roethke (New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1975), 37.
18James Dickey, “Kudzu,” The Complete Poems of James Dickey, ed. Ward Briggs(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2013), 224–26.
19David Zierler, The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientists
Who Changed the Way We Think about the Environment (Athens: University of Georgia
Press, 2011).
20
Martin Luther King, Jr. “Beyond Vietnam—A Time to Break Silence,” speechdelivered April 4, 1967, American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank, http://www.
americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm.