SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 18
Baixar para ler offline
*
Sociology of Disasters




                               **
Manuel João Ribeiro




                Abstract: This article presents a conceptualization of disasters as socially relevant
                nonroutine processes.
                The first part is focused on the articulation between the social system and the
                built environment and consists of a reflection about its dynamics as configurative
                processes of the systemic causes of disasters.
                The second part deals with the concepts of social vulnerability and disaster
                cultures as well as the dynamics that give an analytical framework to the social
                dimension of disasters.
                The final part of this article consists of an essentially thematic reference to three
                specific types of social protagonists and their level of involvement while direct
                and indirect agents of disasters as social processes.




1. Disasters as social processes


       A sociological approach to the problem of disasters implies the previous
awareness of the fact that these phenomena are socially relevant processes in their
essence. The study of disasters is analytically pertinent only within this framework,
namely in the presence of a process of involvement in the social system. This social
dimension of disasters is particularly relevant both in the mechanisms which act as
their potential causes and in the consequences which they have on society as they
change the regular course of social life.



*
 Article published in the Journal «Sociologia - Problemas e Práticas» nº 18, edited by the Center for
Sociology Research and Study/Faculty of Sociology (CIES/ISCTE)

**
     Sociologist of the Municipal Department of Civil Protection, Lisbon City Council



                                                     1
According to Thomas A. Drabek, the conceptualization of a sociology focused
on disasters as social problems gives a correct dimension to the analysis of these
phenomena by establishing a link between them and the social system. When the
author says that «A disaster is a nonroutine social problem», he withdraws from
limited and reductively technocratic views currently used in some fields of research
and emphasizes the consubstantiation of the phenomenon as a social process (1).
       Disasters are therefore conceived as failures in the social system and not as
merely external and socially inimputable events.
        In this context and independently of their immediate causes, disasters are
basically processes of social disruption which necessarily reflect the type and level of
preparedness of the social system to deal with natural and technological hazards and to
manage phenomena which were mostly created by the system itself as it increasingly
produced a socially built environment (2).
        Most current concepts usually identify two major types of disasters according to
their origin or genesis: natural disasters and technological disasters. Natural
disasters are usually linked to phenomena derived from nature-produced events.
Technological disasters have a human origin and usually include phenomena which are
caused by failure, disruption or conscious or unconscious misuse of technological and
industrial developments.
        This typification is undoubtedly a precious help for the understanding of
disaster mechanisms. It nevertheless reflects a concept of genetic causality by
establishing a link between the event and the immediate factors that cause it.
        On the other hand, some social representations of disasters often reflect an
attempt to explain these phenomena as having a natural and/or divine cause, therefore
giving them a dimension which goes far beyond the control or the responsibility of
social structures. This kind of naturalist and metaphysical determinism is usually
rejected as far as technological hazards are concerned, although these often tend to be
understood from the exclusive point of view of genetic causality.
        However, as it was said above, disasters can also be explained as processes
which are an essential part of the social system and of the dynamics of the socially built
environment. This articulation between the social system and the built environment
not only results in new disaster risks for the contemporary societies but it also enhances
already existing risks. According to Anthony Giddens, the technological, industrial and
urban developments of modern times have created wide areas of safety in the world,
but they have also contributed in a formidable way to the emergence of a series of new
risks (3). Risks are therefore the dark and contingent side of modern societies in search
of progress and new patterns of quality of life.
       In this sense, the immediate genetic causes of disasters, whatever they may be,
must be closely and simultaneously associated to intrinsic processes of systemic or
structural causality which derive from the social system and from its relationship
with the built environment.




                                            2
Natural
                                                     Environment
                                                    natural causes
                                                 technological causes

                                                     BUILT
                                                  ENVIRONMENT
                        Risk                         (genetic causes)




                                                                            DISASTERS
                   SOCIAL SYSTEM
                                                                                (social
                                                   Disruption
                                                                               process)

                  (systemic causes)


Figure 1: The disaster as a social process


        The introduction of this concept of systemic or structural causality gives
therefore a new analytical and reflective framework to the thematic study of disasters
as intrinsically social phenomena by considering them both as events which are deeply
rooted in the relationship between the social system and the built environment and as
potential agents of dramatic disruptions affecting the functioning of society as well as
people’s lives. The narrow and exclusivist approach that reduces the analysis of this
problem to a genetic causality determinism is therefore dismissed.
        «Floods» provide a good example, for they are the type of disaster one
immediately links with a natural origin. Their genetic cause is indeed related to high
pluviometric levels. However, a «flood» can only be considered as a social disaster
when several systemic causes occur at the same time: undue occupation of alluvial land
with buildings, arbitrary deflection of water courses in order to supply water to other
places, building of several infrastructures in certain areas preventing the normal flow-
off of rainwater, etc. If identical precipitation levels occur in non-inhabited land or in
areas that were previously subject to a correct land use planning, it will certainly be
considered as a not particularly noteworthy event, apart from the meteorological
reference in itself.
        A reconceptualization of this thematic is therefore made possible by this
explanatory paradigm as it establishes a link between genetic and systemic causes in a
simultaneous way and within the same process. It also contributes to a new approach to
disasters as social processes while consequently going beyond the limits usually
imposed by reductive and essentially technocratic views on this subject.
        As it was said before, modern developments have revealed new balances as far
as the problem of disasters is concerned. They have brought about new and never
experienced patterns of safety and comfort while at the same time institutionalizing the
disaster risk as an omnipresent condition of contemporary societies. The risk is


                                             3
enhanced by the vulnerability of the social system itself as it results from an
articulation process between the social system and nature - built environment - as well
as from the inherent recurrence of that process. Risks can be generically defined as the
possibility that a disaster would occur, either with a natural or with a technological
origin. They effectively result both from the probability that a disruption
phenomenon would occur and from the degree of impact in association with the
effects which that same event may have on the social system. In other words, a risk
can be characterized by a threat which is perceived by the social system when facing a
concrete situation of physical, economical or cultural disruption derived from the
possible occurrence of a disaster. Risks - and the dangers resulting from them - are
therefore substantially enhanced by the modern societies’ own process of production
and development, in a simultaneous and increasing way.


                                           *


        The conceptualization of disasters as social processes enables an examination
of each of these phenomena from a diachronic point of view by decomposing them
analytically into three phases.
        The first phase will be called production/reproduction phase and can be
characterized by the large matrix of social relationships which configure the productive
processes as well as the dynamics of functioning that are implied in the interaction
between the social system and the built environment. This process of social
production/reproduction becomes therefore decisively important for the understanding
of disasters as problems with a social root. The systemic origin of the disaster is
actually consubtantiated during this period, both through the contingent ability to
create favourable conditions for the potential occurrence of the disaster and through the
dimensioning of its level of impact and possible effects. In the same way, two major
levels of social action can be decisive in this phase as far as prevention and social
protection of disasters are concerned. The first level deals with more generic areas and
integrates, in a systemic way, all major options and decisions adopted within modern
societies concerning technological and industrial development, spatial planning and
organization, sociodemographic flows and movements, etc. Some of the most
important global options for the future of societies are therefore made during this
phase. They can contribute either to the mitigation of disaster risks and or to the
enhancement of the social system’s own vulnerabilities. The second level is more
specific and concerns more operational dynamics of response preparedness for
immediate emergency situations. The development of prevention instruments and their
respective procedures leads to the consolidation of models and patterns of sociocultural
reference and therefore to social and institutional attitudes, behaviors and
representations which are likely to encourage the planning of preventive actions which
and the preparation for the possible occurrence of a disaster. They can also lead,
however, to neglectful and badly timed technocratic policies which together with
inadequate instruments may later jeopardize responses in a crisis situation.




                                           4
The second phase is characterized by the direct effect of the disaster on the
social system and can be defined as a process of disruption/emergency. This phase
corresponds to the moment the immediate impact of the disaster is concretely felt,
clearly showing the report between the social system’s level of preparedness and the
effects produced by the outbreak of the event. It is a decisive moment, a situation of
social exception that comprises both the occurrence of the disaster and the emergency
action which is to be activated in order to face the immediate consequences of the
event. In this phase, predefined models of emergency management planning have to be
tested in a real situation or, in certain circumstances, it is realized that those response
instruments do not exist, which leads to an improvisation of measures and procedures
as the events happen. Following the outbreak of this social problem, the social system
has to face a change in its usual routines and is therefore compelled to find more or less
rapid answers in order to bring the situation back to normal. It is also in this phase that
such concepts as solidarity and social participation, voluntary work and social
organization, authoritarism and social control, etc., acquire a new operative relevance.
The occurrence of such a disruption in space and time creates new social mechanisms
and dynamics that can prove to be decisive in the field actions that are to be carried out
in the emergency management.
        The third and last phase to be considered is an essential moment in the process
of social response to the disaster and will be designated as reconstruction/social
development. It is characterized by a post-disaster situation during which all major
strategic guidelines are defined and implemented in order to create the social,
economical and political process in which the social system is to recover from the
effects of the catastrophe. In this context and as soon as the basic conditions of social
functioning are created, namely after the emergency management work is completed,
the reconstruction process is structured and activated in order to recover from the
disruption caused by the accident. At the same time, it is also in this period that the
intervention models and projects which are considered more appropriate for the
rehabilitation of the affected social system are assessed in a prospective approach.
There is a confrontation of all kinds of representations and areas, reflecting the
existence of different views within the society and reproducing different models and
interests of social intervention. Among these, there are some trends in intervention
processes in which the predominance is given to the actions to be carried out in the
built environment, aiming to restore the previously existent social, economical and
physical structures. As an example of these trends and from the point of view of the
physically, economically and culturally affected populations, a reference must be made
to the decisions made on the basis of concessions following top down hierarchical
models, bearing a strongly paternalistic component and favouring authoritarian
assistance systems. However, other trends can be activated, especially those aiming to
change the responses to the effects of the disaster into processes of social development
with the will to improve the standards of living of the population in a qualitative way.
The externalization of the damage caused by the disaster and the social participation of
the affected populations are essential processes for this purpose.
2. Social dimensions of disasters




                                            5
2.1. Social vulnerability of disasters


       As it was mentioned before, the understanding of disasters becomes analytically
pertinent if they are considered as social processes. According to this approach, the
explanation of these phenomena implies the interpretation of their inherent social
dimensions.
        The concept of vulnerability is particularly associated to the problem of
disasters since it is one of their most relevant social dimensions. Being a result of the
process of articulation between the social system and the built environment, risks
clearly show the level of exposure of societies to disasters as well as their social
vulnerabilities.
        The definition of social vulnerability of disasters requires the previous
assumption of the fact that the social system is likely to suffer damage. The concept
must therefore be understood as a manifestation which results from the development
process of social relationships. Vulnerability means insecurity and fragility in the
presence of a danger and must be conceptualized as a notion of explanatory nature
within its own social context (4).
        The interpretative dimension of vulnerability within a social theory of disasters
also contains a double analytical reference which contributes in an unmistakable way
to the understanding of these phenomena. This means that the assessment of the level
and degree of exposure to certain dangers must be accompanied by a simultaneous
reflection on the ability of the system and the social groups to absorb and recover
from the damage which has been produced. Vulnerability is therefore viewed as a
dynamic process with repercussions both on the phase of social
production/reproduction and on the moment of disruption/emergency as well as on the
period of reconstruction/social development. The development of the favourable social
conditions for increasing or decreasing the vulnerability parameters of the social
system takes place during the phase of production/reproduction. In the phase of
disruption/emergency, the vulnerability characteristics are defined according to the
ability of the social system to absorb the impact of the disaster, on the basis of the
articulation between the existence or absence of the means and resources which are
necessary to face the accident and the preparedness level of the social, technical and
cultural system in charge of the management of the rescue action. In the period of
reconstruction/social development, the vulnerability factors can be assessed according
to the social system’s degree of ability to recover from the damage produced by the
disaster. Rather than as a reductively natural or technical fact, the problem of
vulnerabilities is considered in its relation to the social context which created that
condition.
        It must therefore be said that the condition of vulnerability is the result or
consequence of the social process itself and a social reflection of the relationships that
define the type and stage of development of a society. In this sense and as it will be
mentioned further on, the attitudes to be adopted in prevention must contribute to the
reduction or elimination of the social system’s vulnerabilities.




                                            6
The distribution of vulnerabilities among the social groups in presence must be
determined within the analytical context of the predominant social relationships. It is
therefore not surprising to realize that there are different levels of risk exposure in the
presence of the very same danger, which means that there are different vulnerabilities
within the system itself according to its social organization, distribution and
composition. This approach contributes in a decisive way to the use of this concept as
a constitutional dimension of disasters as social processes. For that purpose, the
assessment of the effects derived from the disaster risk must take into account not only
social circumstances like access to property and space, safety systems and technologies
but also the economical, professional, familial and cultural resources and reserves - as
well as their social hierarchy and distribution - that are available for prevention and
recovery from the effects caused by the disruption process following the disaster.
         The analysis of social vulnerabilities relies therefore on an interpretative and
comprehensive reading of components with a sociostructural, sociourbanistic and
sociocultural incidence. As a reference framework for the application of the concept of
social vulnerability and from a merely illustrative point of view, it should be stressed
that it is important, at the sociostructural level, to take into account variables like
family composition, age and sex structures, education levels, neighbourhood networks,
socioprofessional composition, etc., which are determinant in an interpretative study of
the vulnerability factors within social groups and communities. In the same way and in
a more intrinsically sociocultural context, school formation, the access to information
and awareness programs in the area of security and civil protection and their incidence
rates, the symbolic and cultural mechanisms of risk perception and representation are,
among others, fundamental analytical instruments in the comprehensive formulation of
vulnerability parameters. Last but not least, sociourban elements like the existing urban
structure and network, housing types and their architectural and building typology,
state of conservation, investment in maintenance and occupation densities are essential
for a correct knowledge and differentiation of the vulnerability patterns within the
social system.
        In this way, all necessary conditions have been put together in order to enable
and justify the theoretical building of a rate. Being a decisive instrument of analysis
and planning, this rate should reflect the type and degree of the disaster’s potential
effects on the social system. This social vulnerability rate (SVR) establishes relational
mechanisms between the variables of social characterization and the factors related to
disaster risks and can be represented by the following mathematical formula:


                        SVR = w1 s1 + w2 s2 + w3 s3 + ... + wn sn


        The «s» variables represent the social dimensions that must be taken into
account in the analysis of the vulnerability to disasters. The values represented by those
variables must be subject to a specific analysis in each social situation. The set of
variables to be considered is displayed in Table 1.


Table 1 : Variables of social vulnerability

                                              7
_____________________________________________________________________
                                   Sociostructural variables
∗   ( s1 ) age and sex structures
∗   ( s2 ) socioprofessional structure
∗   ( s3 ) legal system of housing occupation
∗   ( s4 ) level of education
∗   ( s5 ) family
∗   ( s6 ) critical groups


                                     Sociourban variables
∗   ( s7 ) density (occupation rate)
∗   ( s8 ) rhythm and types of uses
∗   ( s9 ) ratio residential / non-residential
∗   ( s10) ratio resident population / present population
∗   ( s11) urban network and fabric
∗   ( s12) collective facilities


                                     Sociocultural variables
∗   ( s13 ) specific risk cultures
∗   ( s14 ) educational actions (incidence rates)
∗   ( s15 ) school formation
∗   ( s16 ) communication mechanisms
_____________________________________________________________________


        The variables above reflect the pertinent universe for a general evaluation of the
social vulnerability rates. However, due to the social characteristics and specific factors
inherent in any empirical research, it should be stressed that some of these variables
may not fulfil the necessary requirements to be included in a further evaluation, while
some other variables which were not mentioned above may prove to be essential for a
correct interpretation of the social contexts subject to analysis.
         The «w» values represent the weighting coefficients to be estimated for each
type of disaster risk and are evaluated in relation to each one of the variables. In order
to illustrate this, a type of disaster risk like the seismic risk can be taken as an example,
leading to the following situation:




                                                 8
SVR = (0,4) s1 + ... + (0,8) s7 + ... + (0,6) s13 + ...


        Bearing in mind that these are merely simulation values, 0,4 would be the
weighting coefficient «w1» of the seismic risk related to the variable «s1» (age and sex
structures); the value 0,8 would represent the weighting coefficient «w7» of the seismic
risk related to the variable «s7» (occupation rate); and so forth. The existence of
different weighting factors for the disaster risk is explained by the probability inherent
in the impact that the disaster is likely to have on the variable under consideration.
       This conceptualization is merely theoretical and will have to be subject to a
consequent process of empirical validation, which is to be provided by the
development of research projects in this specific area of knowledge.
        However, a framework of reference can be built as of now in order to evaluate
the disaster vulnerability rate (VR) of societies in a comprehensive way. This must be
done taking into account the physical vulnerability rates (PhVR) which are worked out
and evaluated by other specific technical and scientific fields of research. Taking once
again the seismic risk as a reference and according to research work undertaken in the
fields of seismology, geology, seismic engineering, etc., some examples of physical
vulnerability can be found in the analysis of variables like magnitude, focal distance,
attenuation, local geology and morphology, building typologies, age, materials and
state of conservation of the building stock, etc.
        The vulnerability rate is therefore to be calculated by the addition of the
respective physical vulnerability and social vulnerability rates:


                                VR = a PhVR + b SVR


        Once again, «a» and «b» would be the weighting coefficients to be given to
each disaster risk, according to the impact estimation and to the effects produced on the
existing physical and social components.


2.2. Disaster cultures


        One of the most important contributions for the a comprehensive understanding
of disasters as social processes consists in the theoretical building of the concept of
disaster cultures.
        It has already been stressed that the structural origin of risks and disasters lies
in the dynamics of articulation between the social system and the built environment. In
this sense, the analysis of disasters as social processes from the point of view of their
systemic causes develops an interpretative logic. One of the fundamental references for
the understanding of this problem is therefore the interpretation of the cultural
components of the social system.



                                             9
Disaster cultures can present various characteristics according to the social
system in which they develop. They frequently - but not exclusively - consist of
preventive manifestations aiming to deal with possible threats or disaster dangers.
       It is possible to identify three essential components as far as the
production/development process of disaster cultures is concerned.
        Firstly, and as in the case of social vulnerabilities, the organization, distribution
and composition of the social system also play an important role in the differentiation
of disaster cultures, both in their production and in the effects they have on society.
        Secondly, disaster cultures develop different stages of perception and social
representation in the present of disaster risks. The analysis of their diversity must take
simultaneously into account the interpretation of the distribution and social hierarchy
of the available economical, professional, familial and educational capacities, the
specific identification of the type of risk or risks and also the definition of the
estimated socio-geographical areas in which the impact of the disaster is likely to be
felt.
        Thirdly, and as a result of the articulation between the two components
presented above, it is necessary to consider the mechanisms of social practice, namely
the social attitudes and behaviors developed in the presence of disasters.
        Disaster cultures can therefore be defined as socially produced sets of values,
norms, rules and knowledge providing a framework for the representations, attitudes
and behaviors that are adopted according to different expectations within specific
social and environmental situations (5). The role played by this conceptualization in
the understanding of disasters as social processes is fundamental as it gives an
indispensable analytical support to the relationship with the other social dynamics. In
fact, disaster cultures show the different social mechanisms (representations,
attitudes and behaviors) which are produced by communities, groups and individuals
within the social system in order to deal with disasters either in a latent or in an
obvious way. On the other hand, they contribute reflexively to an interpretative
reading of the social processes and dynamics which are inherent in the production of
certain sociocultural types and patterns. The two above mentioned aspects contain
therefore the explanatory elements of the different cultural manifestations which are
likely to be found within the social system as far as the problem of disasters is
concerned. The existence of different sociocultural, sociopolitical and sociostructural
patterns also leads to the development of different attitudes, representations and
behaviors in terms of disaster cultures, with obvious implications for the effects and
consequences of disasters.
        Cultures with a sociotechnical dimension are a good example in this context.
Among others, they are represented in fire departments, civil protection departments,
medical emergency services or the scientific community. Their activity is based on
specific manifestations and rely mainly on accumulated professional experience as well
as on technical and scientific research.
       These sociotechnical cultures also play a relevant role in the elaboration of a
wide range of procedures such as making emergency plans, producing implementation



                                             10
norms focused on priority action in crisis situations, conceiving disaster management
models or making technical regulations and laws.
        On the other hand, local or social group cultures are also relevant. They have a
large diversity of manifestations that are based both on knowledge and beliefs. Their
representativity is diversified, for they can be found both in local or regional
communities and in larger social groups like professional or religious associations.
       Among a large number of possible forms, local cultures can have the following
configurations:
        a) religious or supernatural rites (processions, oblations, vows, prayers to
several icons) appealing for divine protection in order to face threatening natural and/or
technological phenomena;
        b) building techniques and methods, based on native architecture and on the use
of traditional materials that reinforce the structure of the houses and consequently
improve their safety, thus enabling them to resist to natural phenomena such as
earthquakes;
        c) socioeconomical organization processes, usually found in certain
communities or regions and based on empirical knowledge and experience; they are
developed in order to face natural events with a potential immediate disaster incidence,
though they often become factors of social and economical development in the medium
term (e.g. using alluvial land for agriculture, where the fertility of the soil is enhanced
by cyclic floods).
         Disaster cultures are therefore social processes and dynamics with
unmistakable manifestations in the production/reproduction phase, in the
disruption/emergency moment and in the reconstruction/social development period.
During the production/reproduction phase, cultural patterns can lead to the
development of alert and prevention mechanisms, especially adapted as a
reinforcement or as a social alternative response to disaster situations. They can also
produce other particularly technocratic and metaphysical forms, most of which are not
actually able to deal with disasters. During the disruption/emergency phase, the
legislative models, behaviors and knowledge that emerged from the development of the
cultural patterns have to guarantee the safety of the populations affected by the disaster.
In this sense, the emergency management capacity of the social system can lead to
results that prove adequate to deal with the disaster’s contingencies and therefore able
to minimize its social effects, but it can also lead to the lack of support references, so
that communities, groups and individuals have to face the absence of conditions to deal
with the disaster. During the reconstruction/social development phase, which is the
appropriate moment to reflect and assess the cultural models of reference, the priority
can be given to the maintenance and reinforcement of the institutional and non-
institutional factors that were able to respond efficiently to the disaster. On the other
hand, this phase can be considered as an opportunity to draw some conclusions about
the situation and the inability to achieve an effective capacity of integrated response,
probably due to bad timing, omission or inadequate mechanisms.


2.3. Social dynamics

                                            11
The approach to the problem of disasters and the systematization of its basic
guidelines will now be further developed by analysing and explaining the main factors
that provide disasters with an essentially sociostructural dimension as far as social
relationships and dynamics are concerned.
        The processes and dynamics reflecting the models and practices that configure
a comprehensive understanding of the problem of disasters will be discussed on the
basis of the explanatory logic which has been used hitherto, namely within the
framework of the three phases already presented - production/reproduction,
disruption/emergency and reconstruction/social development.
        The options made during the phase of social production/reproduction can either
act as enhancing factors of the social conditions of vulnerability, thus increasing the
existing risks and dangers, or be directed towards prevention and minimization of
those risks and social vulnerabilities. An analytical contribution to the research on this
theme would be to elaborate both on the daily social representations and practices and
on the social processes and relationships that determine the development of
sociopolitical, sociourban, socioeconomical and sociocultural strategies and practices.
       The relevance of systemic causality in the determination and analytical
explanation of disasters can therefore be confirmed by the interpretation of the social
dynamics that influence political, economical and cultural decision-making and
consequently lead to the choice of certain options instead of others.
        Architectural and building criteria are a good example of this as far as
sociourban production is concerned. It is well known that these criteria are often an
extremely important element, for they can contribute either to the enhancement of
vulnerabilities or to the minimization of disaster risks. In a systemic analysis it is
essential to take into account interpretative mechanisms such as the knowledge of the
factors that led both to political and economical development and to urban and land use
options, the understanding of the spirit underlying law production, the existing legal
framework and the actions undertaken in order to control their application, as well as
the comprehension of the patterns and values that characterize the cultures under
consideration.
        There are also differentiated developments at the level of the crisis management
process during the disruption/emergency phase. The analysis and explanation of these
differences must be focused on social relationships and dynamics.
        A number of analogies and assumptions frequently tend to consider the periods
of crisis following a disaster as manifestations of anti-social behaviors in order to
justify the adoption of measures supported by top down authoritarian hierarchical
structures. Analogies are usually drawn in the definition of emergency and disruption
situations caused by disasters, which are considered as violent processes or conflicts
identical to those experienced in a situation of war. Emergency planning responses are
consequently based on strongly centralized and normative models that are typical of
military organizations, in order to guarantee the necessary social control and the
support to the victims which are assumed to be in a state of anomy. On the other hand,
there are certain assumptions about the behavior of individuals and groups in the


                                           12
emergency periods, during which they are assumed to have panic and/or passivity
reactions, become traumatized, self-centered or even anti-social. In this sense,
emergency planning entities tend to carry out actions that are based on rigid
organizational philosophies, authoritarian control and command.
        However, according to E. L. Quarantelli, these analogies are not empirically
supported by studies and research on disasters that have been undertaken in the last
thirty years (6). According to this and other authors, namely R. Dynes (7), the periods
of crisis following a disaster are characterized by a stronger feeling of social
appurtenance of individuals and groups as they tend to significantly intensify the
mechanisms of mutual assistance and solidarity. On the other hand, Quarantelli
considers the above mentioned assumptions as generalized myths that are supported by
the predominant social relationships but have little practical application or none at all.
According to this author, actions derived from panic - flight reactions, uncoordinated
escape, fits of hysteria - passivity - inability to act or think - traumas - emotional
disturbances at the level of mental health - self-centredness - isolation attitudes and
self-inflicted punishment - and anti-social behaviors - abusive actions like plundering
and delinquency - cannot be analytically confirmed, in terms of exclusive or
predominant occurrence, in the countless studies that have been carried out. On the
contrary, disaster victims often have rational behaviors and show a significant will to
participate and contribute, in an active and dynamic way, to the emergency
management process. As an example, this author recalls that about two thirds of the
wounded disaster victims are rescued by relatives and neighbors (8).
       Although important, the development of the discussion on this set of analytical
parameters falls outside the scope of this article. They nevertheless reflect, in any case,
the process and dynamics inherent in the social system in which they develop, while at
the same time enabling the assessment, according to the adopted strategies and the
developed tactical options, of the implication and preparedness rates of social groups
and institutions as they cope with disruption/emergency situations following a disaster.
       Differentiated options can also be identified during the reconstruction/social
development phase as the social system recovers from the effects of a disaster.
        Post-disruption strategic guidelines are closely related to the functioning
dynamics of the social system before the disaster, for they can effectively act as
valuable mechanisms for the improvement of the life conditions of the affected groups
and communities. They can also lead to situations of social stagnation or even to the
loss of the previously experienced life patterns.
        Within the scope of sociology of disasters and as opposed to theories which
tend to consider disasters as nothing more than dramatic phenomena with high human
and material damage, it is possible to identify a further conceptual paradigm which
accepts the possibility that disasters could be changed into factors of social
development as they provide an opportunity to reassess the political, economical and
cultural life patterns of the affected communities, groups and individuals.
Contradictory as it may seem, this dichotomy simply reflects the paradoxical
consequences that disasters have on societies. The approach to this problem is
therefore focused on the analysis and interpretation of the types of response to disasters
that are provided by the social system.


                                            13
It is often said that it is necessary to bring the situation back to normal as soon
as the immediate emergency intervention work is concluded. This assertion relies on a
pertinent set of analytical considerations as far as the social dynamics of the
reconstruction process are concerned. It actually has to do with the way the concept of
normalcy is understood. If it is assumed that bringing the situation back to normal
means reproducing the social patterns which existed before the disaster, that might lead
to the reconstruction of the social vulnerability rates and levels that caused the disaster.
If, on the contrary, it is understood as a chance to correct and improve the previously
existing forms of organization and functioning of the social system and to take
measures in order to reduce the factors of social vulnerability, the reconstruction
process will then be directed towards social development and disaster prevention.
       In this sense and as a strategy of social development in disaster situations,
Fernando P. Carrasco proposes to use the damage externalization process as well as
the process of social participation of the affected communities and groups (9).
According to this author, it is necessary to dismiss the negative effects that disasters
have on the social system. Among a number of possible mechanisms, the community,
groups and individuals affected by the disaster are to be left out of the economical
costs of the reconstruction process. In this way, the social rehabilitation and
reassessment work can be carried out faster and, on the other hand, it is possible to
undertake concrete actions in order to reduce the factors of social inequality and,
consequently, the inherent vulnerability contexts.
        However, and also according to Fernando P. Carrasco, if the damage
externalization process is one of the fundamental elements of the post-disaster social
development strategies, it has nevertheless to be complemented by the consequent
protagonism and social participation of the affected communities, groups and
individuals. For that particular purpose, he suggests building social programs,
methodically divided into three main phases: the first is called project phase and
includes the definition of targets and policies, the conceptualization of working
strategies and the determination of the necessary methods and resources for the
implementation of the program; during the second phase, which is called operative
phase, responsibilities are exercised and decisions are taken according to the previously
defined strategies and targets; the third and last phase is designated as administrative
reproduction phase and includes all activities concerning the maintenance and legal
and administrative permanence of the social program. The different levels of
implication and social protagonism of the affected communities, groups and
individuals during the different phases of the social program determine the quality of
the effects as far as social development is concerned.
        According to this author and as presented in Table 2, the effects of damage
externalization are subject to different developments, depending on whether there is a
social participation of the victims in the process or not.


Table 2 - Effects of damage externalization

    Effects of damage externalization                Effects of damage externalization


                                            14
processes with social participation                 processes without social participation

1. In formal terms                                  1. In formal terms

•   victims participate in the draft/project of •        victims are the receivers of programs that
    designed by other social groups;                     were reconstruction programs;
•   victims participate in the implementation of •       victims do not participate in the
    the programs thereby gaining experience              implementation of the programs and
    for the further administrative reproduction          consequently have problems with their
    of those programs.                                   administrative reproduction.

2. In structural terms                              2. In structural terms

•   the balance of power between victims and •           corporative-like     relationships and
    political authorities is restructured as there       centralized decision-making management
    is a development of concertation and self-           are strengthened.
    management.

3. In daily life terms                              3. In daily life terms

•  victims participate in the control and           •    the organization and distribution of basic
   distribution of the basic goods during                goods is controlled by state and/or charity
   emergency work;                                       organizations;
• victims make arrangements with public and         •    victims are provided with already organized
   civil     institutions     concerning      the        lodging;
   draft/project and the progress of house-         •    victims are provided on an individual basis
   building programs;                                    with job-restitution programs;
• victims create labor unions in order to           •    the quality of the reconstructed collective
   claim the restitution of their jobs;                  facilities deteriorates in the medium term.
• victims are responsible for the maintenance
  of the reconstructed collective facilities.


        According to the same author, in spite of the dichotomy presented in the table
above, the empirical analysis and research that have been carried out on the basis of
concrete experiences and in contexts of post-disaster social development often reveal
that there has been a combination of both situations.




3. Social protagonists


       In order to complete and conclude the present analysis and sociological
approach to the problem of disasters, this chapter will be dedicated to an essentially
thematic reflection on the levels of implication and protagonism of the main social
agents and institutions.



                                               15
For that purpose, the relations and practices of the different social agents and
institutions must be interpreted as mechanisms that contribute for an explanatory
analysis of disasters.
        In the organization and functioning process of societies and in their articulation
with the built environment, a number of positions and strategies are at stake and
subject to relational negotiations. Depending on the options and balances to be
achieved, they can lead to different results in dealing with the problem of disasters.
However, rather than going through the different implications of the confrontation of
various types of protagonisms, it is important to try to define a typology which
provides the diverse social agents and institutions with a generic framework and to use
it as an analytical reference to be taken into account in approaching the problem of
disasters.
       In this context, it is possible to identify three main categories of social
protagonists as far as disasters are concerned.
        The first category includes the social agents and institutions that are represented
in the society’s economical and business sector such as financial, industrial, urban and
insurance agents, among others, and in the populations in a broad sense: families,
communities, social groups.
        They share common positions and practices within the social structure at the
level of the production and consumer systems, which makes them direct protagonists
of the processes that condition the articulation dynamics between the social system and
the built environment. Although they may not always have coincident strategic
interests or a common development logic, they clearly determine the social options
which in an analytical approach to disasters can lead either to vulnerability contexts
and to the enhancement of disaster dangers and risks or to preventive cultures aiming at
the reduction and/or mitigation of disaster risks.
         The second category is based on arbitration and control and is characterized by
an intervention logic. It includes the agents and institutions of the political and legal
authorities at local, national and international levels, the social movements of various
citizens associations - ecological and environmental groups, labor unions and
resident’s commissions, labor and professional associations, religious congregations,
etc. - and the mass media - press, radio and television.
        The activity of these groups can be characterized by a regulatory
protagonism. Within the problem of disasters, it can be directed towards processes of
legitimization and legal and administrative support of the options and procedures
adopted in the context of the social functioning mechanisms, although they may also
choose to have a critical position and to denounce social decisions and practices
concerning forms of social organization and distribution, with consequent effects on
the built environment and on society.
         The third and last category of social protagonists concerns all agents and
institutions with a high level of specialization in the field of disasters. It includes the
institutional security and civil protection agents - firemen, red cross, civil protection
departments, etc. - as well as the scientific and technical community doing research and
theoretical-empirical work on disaster-related subjects.


                                            16
They can be designated as specialized protagonism agents, for they provide
the indispensable social support to the preparation and organization of emergency
response systems at various levels. Their specific social intervention is focused on
analytical studies and research on risks and genetic and systemic causes of disasters as
well as on the conception and elaboration of management models, information,
awareness and preventive educational actions, emergency plans, crisis response
operations, etc.
        Although the intervention dynamics of these three types of social protagonists
have been characterized individually for presentation purposes, there is a very close
articulation among them as well as a large number of different combinations. The
specific situations and the social contexts under consideration lead to processes of
systemic convergence and relational negotiation which can favour either the building
of alliances based on complicity and solidarity or the development of situations of
social confrontation with elements of tension and conflict.
        This thematic reference to social protagonists provides the necessary
framework for the integration of social vulnerabilities, cultures and dynamics while
important dimensions of disasters. At the same time and to conclude, it must be
stressed that the contextualization of social protagonists in the dynamics of articulation
between the social system and the built environment clearly accounts for the need to
approach the problem of disasters by considering them as socially relevant nonroutine
phenomena as well as for the pertinence of such an approach.




REFERENCES


(1) Thomas E. Drabek. 1989. «Disasters as Nonroutine Social Problems», in
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Disaster Research
Center, University of Delaware, 7(3), pp. 253-264.
(2) F. L. Bates, R.R. Dynes and E.L. Quarantelli. 1992. «Importancia de las ciencias
sociales ante las catástrofes naturales», Protección Civil, Revista de la Dirección
General, Ministerio del Interior-Espana, Nr. 15, pp. 46.
(3) Anthony Giddens. 1992. As Consequências da Modernidade, Oeiras, Celta
Editores. (The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK)
(4) Jesús Manuel Macías. 1992. «Significado de la vulnerabilidad social frente a los
desastres», Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, nr. 4, pp. 3-10.
(5)  Neil R. Britton. 1992. «Uncommon Hazards and Orthodox Emergency
Management: Toward a Reconciliation.», International Journal of Mass



                                           17
Emergencies and Disasters, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, 10(2),
pp. 329-348.
(6) E. L. Quarantelli. 1991. «Implicaciones de planificación y gestión para el envio de
servicios médicos de emergencia (EMS)», Protección Civil, Revista de la Dirección
General, Ministerio del Interior, Espana, Nr. 13, pp. 38-51.
(7) Russell R. Dynes. 1994. «Community Emergency Planning: False Assumptions
and Inappropriate Analogies», International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, 12(2), pp. 141-158.
(8) E. L. Quarantelli. 1991. op. cit.
(9) Fernando P. Carrasco. 1992. «Estrategias de desarollo social en situaciones de
desastre», Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, nr. 4, pp. 11-24.




                                          18

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Role & Importance of Finance in Disaster Management
Role & Importance of Finance in Disaster ManagementRole & Importance of Finance in Disaster Management
Role & Importance of Finance in Disaster ManagementAtul Pandey
 
2. Disaster risk and emergency management
2. Disaster risk and emergency management2. Disaster risk and emergency management
2. Disaster risk and emergency managementsajidinam
 
Role of women in disaster management Experience from Asia and Africa presente...
Role of women in disaster management Experience from Asia and Africa presente...Role of women in disaster management Experience from Asia and Africa presente...
Role of women in disaster management Experience from Asia and Africa presente...Bibhuti Bhusan Gadanayak
 
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Indigenous Coping Mechanism
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Indigenous Coping MechanismDisaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Indigenous Coping Mechanism
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Indigenous Coping MechanismAsif Sultan Razu
 
Ralf dahrendorf
Ralf dahrendorfRalf dahrendorf
Ralf dahrendorfUzma Hasan
 
The institutions for disaster management in bangladesh
The institutions for disaster management in bangladeshThe institutions for disaster management in bangladesh
The institutions for disaster management in bangladeshMd. Ayatullah Khan
 
C. wright mills 1916 1962-b
C. wright mills 1916 1962-bC. wright mills 1916 1962-b
C. wright mills 1916 1962-bEric Strayer
 
Explain the link between disasters and development.
Explain the link between disasters and development.Explain the link between disasters and development.
Explain the link between disasters and development.Turja Deb
 
Positivism and Auguste comte
Positivism and Auguste comtePositivism and Auguste comte
Positivism and Auguste comtemuneera1994
 
Livelihood in disaster.pptx
Livelihood in disaster.pptxLivelihood in disaster.pptx
Livelihood in disaster.pptxJIT KUMAR GUPTA
 
Lecture 9: Urban Disaster Risk Reduction
Lecture 9: Urban Disaster Risk ReductionLecture 9: Urban Disaster Risk Reduction
Lecture 9: Urban Disaster Risk ReductionESD UNU-IAS
 

Mais procurados (20)

Role & Importance of Finance in Disaster Management
Role & Importance of Finance in Disaster ManagementRole & Importance of Finance in Disaster Management
Role & Importance of Finance in Disaster Management
 
Political sociology
Political sociologyPolitical sociology
Political sociology
 
2. Disaster risk and emergency management
2. Disaster risk and emergency management2. Disaster risk and emergency management
2. Disaster risk and emergency management
 
Role of women in disaster management Experience from Asia and Africa presente...
Role of women in disaster management Experience from Asia and Africa presente...Role of women in disaster management Experience from Asia and Africa presente...
Role of women in disaster management Experience from Asia and Africa presente...
 
Urbanization and Urbanism
Urbanization and UrbanismUrbanization and Urbanism
Urbanization and Urbanism
 
Community Based Disaster Management
Community Based Disaster ManagementCommunity Based Disaster Management
Community Based Disaster Management
 
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Indigenous Coping Mechanism
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Indigenous Coping MechanismDisaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Indigenous Coping Mechanism
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Indigenous Coping Mechanism
 
Ralf dahrendorf
Ralf dahrendorfRalf dahrendorf
Ralf dahrendorf
 
The institutions for disaster management in bangladesh
The institutions for disaster management in bangladeshThe institutions for disaster management in bangladesh
The institutions for disaster management in bangladesh
 
C. wright mills 1916 1962-b
C. wright mills 1916 1962-bC. wright mills 1916 1962-b
C. wright mills 1916 1962-b
 
Definition, nature and scope of population geography
Definition, nature and scope of population geographyDefinition, nature and scope of population geography
Definition, nature and scope of population geography
 
Conflict Theory
Conflict TheoryConflict Theory
Conflict Theory
 
Community based disaster management
Community based disaster managementCommunity based disaster management
Community based disaster management
 
Elite theory
Elite theoryElite theory
Elite theory
 
Explain the link between disasters and development.
Explain the link between disasters and development.Explain the link between disasters and development.
Explain the link between disasters and development.
 
Positivism and Auguste comte
Positivism and Auguste comtePositivism and Auguste comte
Positivism and Auguste comte
 
Neo-functionalism.pdf
Neo-functionalism.pdfNeo-functionalism.pdf
Neo-functionalism.pdf
 
definitions of sociology
 definitions of sociology definitions of sociology
definitions of sociology
 
Livelihood in disaster.pptx
Livelihood in disaster.pptxLivelihood in disaster.pptx
Livelihood in disaster.pptx
 
Lecture 9: Urban Disaster Risk Reduction
Lecture 9: Urban Disaster Risk ReductionLecture 9: Urban Disaster Risk Reduction
Lecture 9: Urban Disaster Risk Reduction
 

Destaque

Destaque (8)

Portfolio
PortfolioPortfolio
Portfolio
 
COLEGIO DE INGENIERO.
COLEGIO DE INGENIERO.COLEGIO DE INGENIERO.
COLEGIO DE INGENIERO.
 
TDinglas_Portfolio
TDinglas_PortfolioTDinglas_Portfolio
TDinglas_Portfolio
 
28496p
28496p28496p
28496p
 
Золушка
ЗолушкаЗолушка
Золушка
 
Flyer Aalfarm
Flyer AalfarmFlyer Aalfarm
Flyer Aalfarm
 
Sample Bank Statement Template to Study in USA
Sample Bank Statement Template to Study in USASample Bank Statement Template to Study in USA
Sample Bank Statement Template to Study in USA
 
Proiect programare web
Proiect programare webProiect programare web
Proiect programare web
 

Semelhante a Sociology of disasters

7. A hazard need not a disaster make vulnerability and the .docx
7. A hazard need not a disaster make vulnerability and the .docx7. A hazard need not a disaster make vulnerability and the .docx
7. A hazard need not a disaster make vulnerability and the .docxevonnehoggarth79783
 
AN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC DISASTER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATION
AN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC DISASTER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATIONAN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC DISASTER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATION
AN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC DISASTER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATIONFinni Rice
 
Week One – Risk and the All Hazards ApproachIt seems logical for.docx
Week One – Risk and the All Hazards ApproachIt seems logical for.docxWeek One – Risk and the All Hazards ApproachIt seems logical for.docx
Week One – Risk and the All Hazards ApproachIt seems logical for.docxphilipnelson29183
 
Disaster portfolio taylor huffman 2013
Disaster portfolio taylor huffman 2013Disaster portfolio taylor huffman 2013
Disaster portfolio taylor huffman 2013Taylor Huffman
 
Social construction views
Social construction viewsSocial construction views
Social construction viewsTCW TRENDS INC
 
Society-first hazard mitigation.pdf
Society-first hazard mitigation.pdfSociety-first hazard mitigation.pdf
Society-first hazard mitigation.pdfNeil Dufty
 
Roots of the contemporary environmental crisis
Roots of the contemporary environmental crisisRoots of the contemporary environmental crisis
Roots of the contemporary environmental crisisKayse Giire
 
MR_CURSO RRD - INGLES OFDA
MR_CURSO RRD - INGLES OFDAMR_CURSO RRD - INGLES OFDA
MR_CURSO RRD - INGLES OFDAEDGAR GUEVARA
 
Disaster Risk Reduction and Response Report
Disaster Risk Reduction and Response ReportDisaster Risk Reduction and Response Report
Disaster Risk Reduction and Response ReportFrancesca Hughes
 
Chapter 1 basic concept of disaster
Chapter 1 basic concept of disasterChapter 1 basic concept of disaster
Chapter 1 basic concept of disasterreyillustrisimo1
 
Dirk Helbing - The System Approach in Resiliency
Dirk Helbing - The System Approach in ResiliencyDirk Helbing - The System Approach in Resiliency
Dirk Helbing - The System Approach in ResiliencyGlobal Risk Forum GRFDavos
 
2668674 Case Study
2668674 Case Study2668674 Case Study
2668674 Case StudyAngie Willis
 
Disaster management and planning
Disaster management and planningDisaster management and planning
Disaster management and planningIBS, Hyderabad
 
Nobody has come to help us yet. wip paper digital sociology conference
Nobody has come to help us yet. wip paper digital sociology conferenceNobody has come to help us yet. wip paper digital sociology conference
Nobody has come to help us yet. wip paper digital sociology conferenceDigital Sociology Mini-Conference
 
Mark bahnisch insights from sociology on social media in times of crisis 040413
Mark bahnisch insights from sociology on social media in times of crisis 040413Mark bahnisch insights from sociology on social media in times of crisis 040413
Mark bahnisch insights from sociology on social media in times of crisis 040413Dr Mark Bahnisch
 
Differentiated social risk Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in...
Differentiated social risk Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in...Differentiated social risk Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in...
Differentiated social risk Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in...Sandy Worden
 
Introduction to Disaster planning and mgt.pptx
Introduction to Disaster planning and mgt.pptxIntroduction to Disaster planning and mgt.pptx
Introduction to Disaster planning and mgt.pptxMudasiruMahama
 
MISC full paper AS
MISC full paper ASMISC full paper AS
MISC full paper ASAnne Snick
 

Semelhante a Sociology of disasters (20)

7. A hazard need not a disaster make vulnerability and the .docx
7. A hazard need not a disaster make vulnerability and the .docx7. A hazard need not a disaster make vulnerability and the .docx
7. A hazard need not a disaster make vulnerability and the .docx
 
AN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC DISASTER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATION
AN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC DISASTER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATIONAN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC DISASTER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATION
AN INTEGRATED STRATEGIC DISASTER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATION
 
Week One – Risk and the All Hazards ApproachIt seems logical for.docx
Week One – Risk and the All Hazards ApproachIt seems logical for.docxWeek One – Risk and the All Hazards ApproachIt seems logical for.docx
Week One – Risk and the All Hazards ApproachIt seems logical for.docx
 
Disaster portfolio taylor huffman 2013
Disaster portfolio taylor huffman 2013Disaster portfolio taylor huffman 2013
Disaster portfolio taylor huffman 2013
 
Social construction views
Social construction viewsSocial construction views
Social construction views
 
Society-first hazard mitigation.pdf
Society-first hazard mitigation.pdfSociety-first hazard mitigation.pdf
Society-first hazard mitigation.pdf
 
Roots of the contemporary environmental crisis
Roots of the contemporary environmental crisisRoots of the contemporary environmental crisis
Roots of the contemporary environmental crisis
 
MR_CURSO RRD - INGLES OFDA
MR_CURSO RRD - INGLES OFDAMR_CURSO RRD - INGLES OFDA
MR_CURSO RRD - INGLES OFDA
 
Disaster Risk Reduction and Response Report
Disaster Risk Reduction and Response ReportDisaster Risk Reduction and Response Report
Disaster Risk Reduction and Response Report
 
Chapter 1 basic concept of disaster
Chapter 1 basic concept of disasterChapter 1 basic concept of disaster
Chapter 1 basic concept of disaster
 
Dirk Helbing - The System Approach in Resiliency
Dirk Helbing - The System Approach in ResiliencyDirk Helbing - The System Approach in Resiliency
Dirk Helbing - The System Approach in Resiliency
 
2668674 Case Study
2668674 Case Study2668674 Case Study
2668674 Case Study
 
AMV template stres 2015_eng
AMV template stres 2015_engAMV template stres 2015_eng
AMV template stres 2015_eng
 
Disaster management and planning
Disaster management and planningDisaster management and planning
Disaster management and planning
 
Nobody has come to help us yet. wip paper digital sociology conference
Nobody has come to help us yet. wip paper digital sociology conferenceNobody has come to help us yet. wip paper digital sociology conference
Nobody has come to help us yet. wip paper digital sociology conference
 
Sussex Development Lecture Terry Cannon 17 Feb
Sussex Development Lecture Terry Cannon 17 FebSussex Development Lecture Terry Cannon 17 Feb
Sussex Development Lecture Terry Cannon 17 Feb
 
Mark bahnisch insights from sociology on social media in times of crisis 040413
Mark bahnisch insights from sociology on social media in times of crisis 040413Mark bahnisch insights from sociology on social media in times of crisis 040413
Mark bahnisch insights from sociology on social media in times of crisis 040413
 
Differentiated social risk Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in...
Differentiated social risk Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in...Differentiated social risk Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in...
Differentiated social risk Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in...
 
Introduction to Disaster planning and mgt.pptx
Introduction to Disaster planning and mgt.pptxIntroduction to Disaster planning and mgt.pptx
Introduction to Disaster planning and mgt.pptx
 
MISC full paper AS
MISC full paper ASMISC full paper AS
MISC full paper AS
 

Sociology of disasters

  • 1. * Sociology of Disasters ** Manuel João Ribeiro Abstract: This article presents a conceptualization of disasters as socially relevant nonroutine processes. The first part is focused on the articulation between the social system and the built environment and consists of a reflection about its dynamics as configurative processes of the systemic causes of disasters. The second part deals with the concepts of social vulnerability and disaster cultures as well as the dynamics that give an analytical framework to the social dimension of disasters. The final part of this article consists of an essentially thematic reference to three specific types of social protagonists and their level of involvement while direct and indirect agents of disasters as social processes. 1. Disasters as social processes A sociological approach to the problem of disasters implies the previous awareness of the fact that these phenomena are socially relevant processes in their essence. The study of disasters is analytically pertinent only within this framework, namely in the presence of a process of involvement in the social system. This social dimension of disasters is particularly relevant both in the mechanisms which act as their potential causes and in the consequences which they have on society as they change the regular course of social life. * Article published in the Journal «Sociologia - Problemas e Práticas» nº 18, edited by the Center for Sociology Research and Study/Faculty of Sociology (CIES/ISCTE) ** Sociologist of the Municipal Department of Civil Protection, Lisbon City Council 1
  • 2. According to Thomas A. Drabek, the conceptualization of a sociology focused on disasters as social problems gives a correct dimension to the analysis of these phenomena by establishing a link between them and the social system. When the author says that «A disaster is a nonroutine social problem», he withdraws from limited and reductively technocratic views currently used in some fields of research and emphasizes the consubstantiation of the phenomenon as a social process (1). Disasters are therefore conceived as failures in the social system and not as merely external and socially inimputable events. In this context and independently of their immediate causes, disasters are basically processes of social disruption which necessarily reflect the type and level of preparedness of the social system to deal with natural and technological hazards and to manage phenomena which were mostly created by the system itself as it increasingly produced a socially built environment (2). Most current concepts usually identify two major types of disasters according to their origin or genesis: natural disasters and technological disasters. Natural disasters are usually linked to phenomena derived from nature-produced events. Technological disasters have a human origin and usually include phenomena which are caused by failure, disruption or conscious or unconscious misuse of technological and industrial developments. This typification is undoubtedly a precious help for the understanding of disaster mechanisms. It nevertheless reflects a concept of genetic causality by establishing a link between the event and the immediate factors that cause it. On the other hand, some social representations of disasters often reflect an attempt to explain these phenomena as having a natural and/or divine cause, therefore giving them a dimension which goes far beyond the control or the responsibility of social structures. This kind of naturalist and metaphysical determinism is usually rejected as far as technological hazards are concerned, although these often tend to be understood from the exclusive point of view of genetic causality. However, as it was said above, disasters can also be explained as processes which are an essential part of the social system and of the dynamics of the socially built environment. This articulation between the social system and the built environment not only results in new disaster risks for the contemporary societies but it also enhances already existing risks. According to Anthony Giddens, the technological, industrial and urban developments of modern times have created wide areas of safety in the world, but they have also contributed in a formidable way to the emergence of a series of new risks (3). Risks are therefore the dark and contingent side of modern societies in search of progress and new patterns of quality of life. In this sense, the immediate genetic causes of disasters, whatever they may be, must be closely and simultaneously associated to intrinsic processes of systemic or structural causality which derive from the social system and from its relationship with the built environment. 2
  • 3. Natural Environment natural causes technological causes BUILT ENVIRONMENT Risk (genetic causes) DISASTERS SOCIAL SYSTEM (social Disruption process) (systemic causes) Figure 1: The disaster as a social process The introduction of this concept of systemic or structural causality gives therefore a new analytical and reflective framework to the thematic study of disasters as intrinsically social phenomena by considering them both as events which are deeply rooted in the relationship between the social system and the built environment and as potential agents of dramatic disruptions affecting the functioning of society as well as people’s lives. The narrow and exclusivist approach that reduces the analysis of this problem to a genetic causality determinism is therefore dismissed. «Floods» provide a good example, for they are the type of disaster one immediately links with a natural origin. Their genetic cause is indeed related to high pluviometric levels. However, a «flood» can only be considered as a social disaster when several systemic causes occur at the same time: undue occupation of alluvial land with buildings, arbitrary deflection of water courses in order to supply water to other places, building of several infrastructures in certain areas preventing the normal flow- off of rainwater, etc. If identical precipitation levels occur in non-inhabited land or in areas that were previously subject to a correct land use planning, it will certainly be considered as a not particularly noteworthy event, apart from the meteorological reference in itself. A reconceptualization of this thematic is therefore made possible by this explanatory paradigm as it establishes a link between genetic and systemic causes in a simultaneous way and within the same process. It also contributes to a new approach to disasters as social processes while consequently going beyond the limits usually imposed by reductive and essentially technocratic views on this subject. As it was said before, modern developments have revealed new balances as far as the problem of disasters is concerned. They have brought about new and never experienced patterns of safety and comfort while at the same time institutionalizing the disaster risk as an omnipresent condition of contemporary societies. The risk is 3
  • 4. enhanced by the vulnerability of the social system itself as it results from an articulation process between the social system and nature - built environment - as well as from the inherent recurrence of that process. Risks can be generically defined as the possibility that a disaster would occur, either with a natural or with a technological origin. They effectively result both from the probability that a disruption phenomenon would occur and from the degree of impact in association with the effects which that same event may have on the social system. In other words, a risk can be characterized by a threat which is perceived by the social system when facing a concrete situation of physical, economical or cultural disruption derived from the possible occurrence of a disaster. Risks - and the dangers resulting from them - are therefore substantially enhanced by the modern societies’ own process of production and development, in a simultaneous and increasing way. * The conceptualization of disasters as social processes enables an examination of each of these phenomena from a diachronic point of view by decomposing them analytically into three phases. The first phase will be called production/reproduction phase and can be characterized by the large matrix of social relationships which configure the productive processes as well as the dynamics of functioning that are implied in the interaction between the social system and the built environment. This process of social production/reproduction becomes therefore decisively important for the understanding of disasters as problems with a social root. The systemic origin of the disaster is actually consubtantiated during this period, both through the contingent ability to create favourable conditions for the potential occurrence of the disaster and through the dimensioning of its level of impact and possible effects. In the same way, two major levels of social action can be decisive in this phase as far as prevention and social protection of disasters are concerned. The first level deals with more generic areas and integrates, in a systemic way, all major options and decisions adopted within modern societies concerning technological and industrial development, spatial planning and organization, sociodemographic flows and movements, etc. Some of the most important global options for the future of societies are therefore made during this phase. They can contribute either to the mitigation of disaster risks and or to the enhancement of the social system’s own vulnerabilities. The second level is more specific and concerns more operational dynamics of response preparedness for immediate emergency situations. The development of prevention instruments and their respective procedures leads to the consolidation of models and patterns of sociocultural reference and therefore to social and institutional attitudes, behaviors and representations which are likely to encourage the planning of preventive actions which and the preparation for the possible occurrence of a disaster. They can also lead, however, to neglectful and badly timed technocratic policies which together with inadequate instruments may later jeopardize responses in a crisis situation. 4
  • 5. The second phase is characterized by the direct effect of the disaster on the social system and can be defined as a process of disruption/emergency. This phase corresponds to the moment the immediate impact of the disaster is concretely felt, clearly showing the report between the social system’s level of preparedness and the effects produced by the outbreak of the event. It is a decisive moment, a situation of social exception that comprises both the occurrence of the disaster and the emergency action which is to be activated in order to face the immediate consequences of the event. In this phase, predefined models of emergency management planning have to be tested in a real situation or, in certain circumstances, it is realized that those response instruments do not exist, which leads to an improvisation of measures and procedures as the events happen. Following the outbreak of this social problem, the social system has to face a change in its usual routines and is therefore compelled to find more or less rapid answers in order to bring the situation back to normal. It is also in this phase that such concepts as solidarity and social participation, voluntary work and social organization, authoritarism and social control, etc., acquire a new operative relevance. The occurrence of such a disruption in space and time creates new social mechanisms and dynamics that can prove to be decisive in the field actions that are to be carried out in the emergency management. The third and last phase to be considered is an essential moment in the process of social response to the disaster and will be designated as reconstruction/social development. It is characterized by a post-disaster situation during which all major strategic guidelines are defined and implemented in order to create the social, economical and political process in which the social system is to recover from the effects of the catastrophe. In this context and as soon as the basic conditions of social functioning are created, namely after the emergency management work is completed, the reconstruction process is structured and activated in order to recover from the disruption caused by the accident. At the same time, it is also in this period that the intervention models and projects which are considered more appropriate for the rehabilitation of the affected social system are assessed in a prospective approach. There is a confrontation of all kinds of representations and areas, reflecting the existence of different views within the society and reproducing different models and interests of social intervention. Among these, there are some trends in intervention processes in which the predominance is given to the actions to be carried out in the built environment, aiming to restore the previously existent social, economical and physical structures. As an example of these trends and from the point of view of the physically, economically and culturally affected populations, a reference must be made to the decisions made on the basis of concessions following top down hierarchical models, bearing a strongly paternalistic component and favouring authoritarian assistance systems. However, other trends can be activated, especially those aiming to change the responses to the effects of the disaster into processes of social development with the will to improve the standards of living of the population in a qualitative way. The externalization of the damage caused by the disaster and the social participation of the affected populations are essential processes for this purpose. 2. Social dimensions of disasters 5
  • 6. 2.1. Social vulnerability of disasters As it was mentioned before, the understanding of disasters becomes analytically pertinent if they are considered as social processes. According to this approach, the explanation of these phenomena implies the interpretation of their inherent social dimensions. The concept of vulnerability is particularly associated to the problem of disasters since it is one of their most relevant social dimensions. Being a result of the process of articulation between the social system and the built environment, risks clearly show the level of exposure of societies to disasters as well as their social vulnerabilities. The definition of social vulnerability of disasters requires the previous assumption of the fact that the social system is likely to suffer damage. The concept must therefore be understood as a manifestation which results from the development process of social relationships. Vulnerability means insecurity and fragility in the presence of a danger and must be conceptualized as a notion of explanatory nature within its own social context (4). The interpretative dimension of vulnerability within a social theory of disasters also contains a double analytical reference which contributes in an unmistakable way to the understanding of these phenomena. This means that the assessment of the level and degree of exposure to certain dangers must be accompanied by a simultaneous reflection on the ability of the system and the social groups to absorb and recover from the damage which has been produced. Vulnerability is therefore viewed as a dynamic process with repercussions both on the phase of social production/reproduction and on the moment of disruption/emergency as well as on the period of reconstruction/social development. The development of the favourable social conditions for increasing or decreasing the vulnerability parameters of the social system takes place during the phase of production/reproduction. In the phase of disruption/emergency, the vulnerability characteristics are defined according to the ability of the social system to absorb the impact of the disaster, on the basis of the articulation between the existence or absence of the means and resources which are necessary to face the accident and the preparedness level of the social, technical and cultural system in charge of the management of the rescue action. In the period of reconstruction/social development, the vulnerability factors can be assessed according to the social system’s degree of ability to recover from the damage produced by the disaster. Rather than as a reductively natural or technical fact, the problem of vulnerabilities is considered in its relation to the social context which created that condition. It must therefore be said that the condition of vulnerability is the result or consequence of the social process itself and a social reflection of the relationships that define the type and stage of development of a society. In this sense and as it will be mentioned further on, the attitudes to be adopted in prevention must contribute to the reduction or elimination of the social system’s vulnerabilities. 6
  • 7. The distribution of vulnerabilities among the social groups in presence must be determined within the analytical context of the predominant social relationships. It is therefore not surprising to realize that there are different levels of risk exposure in the presence of the very same danger, which means that there are different vulnerabilities within the system itself according to its social organization, distribution and composition. This approach contributes in a decisive way to the use of this concept as a constitutional dimension of disasters as social processes. For that purpose, the assessment of the effects derived from the disaster risk must take into account not only social circumstances like access to property and space, safety systems and technologies but also the economical, professional, familial and cultural resources and reserves - as well as their social hierarchy and distribution - that are available for prevention and recovery from the effects caused by the disruption process following the disaster. The analysis of social vulnerabilities relies therefore on an interpretative and comprehensive reading of components with a sociostructural, sociourbanistic and sociocultural incidence. As a reference framework for the application of the concept of social vulnerability and from a merely illustrative point of view, it should be stressed that it is important, at the sociostructural level, to take into account variables like family composition, age and sex structures, education levels, neighbourhood networks, socioprofessional composition, etc., which are determinant in an interpretative study of the vulnerability factors within social groups and communities. In the same way and in a more intrinsically sociocultural context, school formation, the access to information and awareness programs in the area of security and civil protection and their incidence rates, the symbolic and cultural mechanisms of risk perception and representation are, among others, fundamental analytical instruments in the comprehensive formulation of vulnerability parameters. Last but not least, sociourban elements like the existing urban structure and network, housing types and their architectural and building typology, state of conservation, investment in maintenance and occupation densities are essential for a correct knowledge and differentiation of the vulnerability patterns within the social system. In this way, all necessary conditions have been put together in order to enable and justify the theoretical building of a rate. Being a decisive instrument of analysis and planning, this rate should reflect the type and degree of the disaster’s potential effects on the social system. This social vulnerability rate (SVR) establishes relational mechanisms between the variables of social characterization and the factors related to disaster risks and can be represented by the following mathematical formula: SVR = w1 s1 + w2 s2 + w3 s3 + ... + wn sn The «s» variables represent the social dimensions that must be taken into account in the analysis of the vulnerability to disasters. The values represented by those variables must be subject to a specific analysis in each social situation. The set of variables to be considered is displayed in Table 1. Table 1 : Variables of social vulnerability 7
  • 8. _____________________________________________________________________ Sociostructural variables ∗ ( s1 ) age and sex structures ∗ ( s2 ) socioprofessional structure ∗ ( s3 ) legal system of housing occupation ∗ ( s4 ) level of education ∗ ( s5 ) family ∗ ( s6 ) critical groups Sociourban variables ∗ ( s7 ) density (occupation rate) ∗ ( s8 ) rhythm and types of uses ∗ ( s9 ) ratio residential / non-residential ∗ ( s10) ratio resident population / present population ∗ ( s11) urban network and fabric ∗ ( s12) collective facilities Sociocultural variables ∗ ( s13 ) specific risk cultures ∗ ( s14 ) educational actions (incidence rates) ∗ ( s15 ) school formation ∗ ( s16 ) communication mechanisms _____________________________________________________________________ The variables above reflect the pertinent universe for a general evaluation of the social vulnerability rates. However, due to the social characteristics and specific factors inherent in any empirical research, it should be stressed that some of these variables may not fulfil the necessary requirements to be included in a further evaluation, while some other variables which were not mentioned above may prove to be essential for a correct interpretation of the social contexts subject to analysis. The «w» values represent the weighting coefficients to be estimated for each type of disaster risk and are evaluated in relation to each one of the variables. In order to illustrate this, a type of disaster risk like the seismic risk can be taken as an example, leading to the following situation: 8
  • 9. SVR = (0,4) s1 + ... + (0,8) s7 + ... + (0,6) s13 + ... Bearing in mind that these are merely simulation values, 0,4 would be the weighting coefficient «w1» of the seismic risk related to the variable «s1» (age and sex structures); the value 0,8 would represent the weighting coefficient «w7» of the seismic risk related to the variable «s7» (occupation rate); and so forth. The existence of different weighting factors for the disaster risk is explained by the probability inherent in the impact that the disaster is likely to have on the variable under consideration. This conceptualization is merely theoretical and will have to be subject to a consequent process of empirical validation, which is to be provided by the development of research projects in this specific area of knowledge. However, a framework of reference can be built as of now in order to evaluate the disaster vulnerability rate (VR) of societies in a comprehensive way. This must be done taking into account the physical vulnerability rates (PhVR) which are worked out and evaluated by other specific technical and scientific fields of research. Taking once again the seismic risk as a reference and according to research work undertaken in the fields of seismology, geology, seismic engineering, etc., some examples of physical vulnerability can be found in the analysis of variables like magnitude, focal distance, attenuation, local geology and morphology, building typologies, age, materials and state of conservation of the building stock, etc. The vulnerability rate is therefore to be calculated by the addition of the respective physical vulnerability and social vulnerability rates: VR = a PhVR + b SVR Once again, «a» and «b» would be the weighting coefficients to be given to each disaster risk, according to the impact estimation and to the effects produced on the existing physical and social components. 2.2. Disaster cultures One of the most important contributions for the a comprehensive understanding of disasters as social processes consists in the theoretical building of the concept of disaster cultures. It has already been stressed that the structural origin of risks and disasters lies in the dynamics of articulation between the social system and the built environment. In this sense, the analysis of disasters as social processes from the point of view of their systemic causes develops an interpretative logic. One of the fundamental references for the understanding of this problem is therefore the interpretation of the cultural components of the social system. 9
  • 10. Disaster cultures can present various characteristics according to the social system in which they develop. They frequently - but not exclusively - consist of preventive manifestations aiming to deal with possible threats or disaster dangers. It is possible to identify three essential components as far as the production/development process of disaster cultures is concerned. Firstly, and as in the case of social vulnerabilities, the organization, distribution and composition of the social system also play an important role in the differentiation of disaster cultures, both in their production and in the effects they have on society. Secondly, disaster cultures develop different stages of perception and social representation in the present of disaster risks. The analysis of their diversity must take simultaneously into account the interpretation of the distribution and social hierarchy of the available economical, professional, familial and educational capacities, the specific identification of the type of risk or risks and also the definition of the estimated socio-geographical areas in which the impact of the disaster is likely to be felt. Thirdly, and as a result of the articulation between the two components presented above, it is necessary to consider the mechanisms of social practice, namely the social attitudes and behaviors developed in the presence of disasters. Disaster cultures can therefore be defined as socially produced sets of values, norms, rules and knowledge providing a framework for the representations, attitudes and behaviors that are adopted according to different expectations within specific social and environmental situations (5). The role played by this conceptualization in the understanding of disasters as social processes is fundamental as it gives an indispensable analytical support to the relationship with the other social dynamics. In fact, disaster cultures show the different social mechanisms (representations, attitudes and behaviors) which are produced by communities, groups and individuals within the social system in order to deal with disasters either in a latent or in an obvious way. On the other hand, they contribute reflexively to an interpretative reading of the social processes and dynamics which are inherent in the production of certain sociocultural types and patterns. The two above mentioned aspects contain therefore the explanatory elements of the different cultural manifestations which are likely to be found within the social system as far as the problem of disasters is concerned. The existence of different sociocultural, sociopolitical and sociostructural patterns also leads to the development of different attitudes, representations and behaviors in terms of disaster cultures, with obvious implications for the effects and consequences of disasters. Cultures with a sociotechnical dimension are a good example in this context. Among others, they are represented in fire departments, civil protection departments, medical emergency services or the scientific community. Their activity is based on specific manifestations and rely mainly on accumulated professional experience as well as on technical and scientific research. These sociotechnical cultures also play a relevant role in the elaboration of a wide range of procedures such as making emergency plans, producing implementation 10
  • 11. norms focused on priority action in crisis situations, conceiving disaster management models or making technical regulations and laws. On the other hand, local or social group cultures are also relevant. They have a large diversity of manifestations that are based both on knowledge and beliefs. Their representativity is diversified, for they can be found both in local or regional communities and in larger social groups like professional or religious associations. Among a large number of possible forms, local cultures can have the following configurations: a) religious or supernatural rites (processions, oblations, vows, prayers to several icons) appealing for divine protection in order to face threatening natural and/or technological phenomena; b) building techniques and methods, based on native architecture and on the use of traditional materials that reinforce the structure of the houses and consequently improve their safety, thus enabling them to resist to natural phenomena such as earthquakes; c) socioeconomical organization processes, usually found in certain communities or regions and based on empirical knowledge and experience; they are developed in order to face natural events with a potential immediate disaster incidence, though they often become factors of social and economical development in the medium term (e.g. using alluvial land for agriculture, where the fertility of the soil is enhanced by cyclic floods). Disaster cultures are therefore social processes and dynamics with unmistakable manifestations in the production/reproduction phase, in the disruption/emergency moment and in the reconstruction/social development period. During the production/reproduction phase, cultural patterns can lead to the development of alert and prevention mechanisms, especially adapted as a reinforcement or as a social alternative response to disaster situations. They can also produce other particularly technocratic and metaphysical forms, most of which are not actually able to deal with disasters. During the disruption/emergency phase, the legislative models, behaviors and knowledge that emerged from the development of the cultural patterns have to guarantee the safety of the populations affected by the disaster. In this sense, the emergency management capacity of the social system can lead to results that prove adequate to deal with the disaster’s contingencies and therefore able to minimize its social effects, but it can also lead to the lack of support references, so that communities, groups and individuals have to face the absence of conditions to deal with the disaster. During the reconstruction/social development phase, which is the appropriate moment to reflect and assess the cultural models of reference, the priority can be given to the maintenance and reinforcement of the institutional and non- institutional factors that were able to respond efficiently to the disaster. On the other hand, this phase can be considered as an opportunity to draw some conclusions about the situation and the inability to achieve an effective capacity of integrated response, probably due to bad timing, omission or inadequate mechanisms. 2.3. Social dynamics 11
  • 12. The approach to the problem of disasters and the systematization of its basic guidelines will now be further developed by analysing and explaining the main factors that provide disasters with an essentially sociostructural dimension as far as social relationships and dynamics are concerned. The processes and dynamics reflecting the models and practices that configure a comprehensive understanding of the problem of disasters will be discussed on the basis of the explanatory logic which has been used hitherto, namely within the framework of the three phases already presented - production/reproduction, disruption/emergency and reconstruction/social development. The options made during the phase of social production/reproduction can either act as enhancing factors of the social conditions of vulnerability, thus increasing the existing risks and dangers, or be directed towards prevention and minimization of those risks and social vulnerabilities. An analytical contribution to the research on this theme would be to elaborate both on the daily social representations and practices and on the social processes and relationships that determine the development of sociopolitical, sociourban, socioeconomical and sociocultural strategies and practices. The relevance of systemic causality in the determination and analytical explanation of disasters can therefore be confirmed by the interpretation of the social dynamics that influence political, economical and cultural decision-making and consequently lead to the choice of certain options instead of others. Architectural and building criteria are a good example of this as far as sociourban production is concerned. It is well known that these criteria are often an extremely important element, for they can contribute either to the enhancement of vulnerabilities or to the minimization of disaster risks. In a systemic analysis it is essential to take into account interpretative mechanisms such as the knowledge of the factors that led both to political and economical development and to urban and land use options, the understanding of the spirit underlying law production, the existing legal framework and the actions undertaken in order to control their application, as well as the comprehension of the patterns and values that characterize the cultures under consideration. There are also differentiated developments at the level of the crisis management process during the disruption/emergency phase. The analysis and explanation of these differences must be focused on social relationships and dynamics. A number of analogies and assumptions frequently tend to consider the periods of crisis following a disaster as manifestations of anti-social behaviors in order to justify the adoption of measures supported by top down authoritarian hierarchical structures. Analogies are usually drawn in the definition of emergency and disruption situations caused by disasters, which are considered as violent processes or conflicts identical to those experienced in a situation of war. Emergency planning responses are consequently based on strongly centralized and normative models that are typical of military organizations, in order to guarantee the necessary social control and the support to the victims which are assumed to be in a state of anomy. On the other hand, there are certain assumptions about the behavior of individuals and groups in the 12
  • 13. emergency periods, during which they are assumed to have panic and/or passivity reactions, become traumatized, self-centered or even anti-social. In this sense, emergency planning entities tend to carry out actions that are based on rigid organizational philosophies, authoritarian control and command. However, according to E. L. Quarantelli, these analogies are not empirically supported by studies and research on disasters that have been undertaken in the last thirty years (6). According to this and other authors, namely R. Dynes (7), the periods of crisis following a disaster are characterized by a stronger feeling of social appurtenance of individuals and groups as they tend to significantly intensify the mechanisms of mutual assistance and solidarity. On the other hand, Quarantelli considers the above mentioned assumptions as generalized myths that are supported by the predominant social relationships but have little practical application or none at all. According to this author, actions derived from panic - flight reactions, uncoordinated escape, fits of hysteria - passivity - inability to act or think - traumas - emotional disturbances at the level of mental health - self-centredness - isolation attitudes and self-inflicted punishment - and anti-social behaviors - abusive actions like plundering and delinquency - cannot be analytically confirmed, in terms of exclusive or predominant occurrence, in the countless studies that have been carried out. On the contrary, disaster victims often have rational behaviors and show a significant will to participate and contribute, in an active and dynamic way, to the emergency management process. As an example, this author recalls that about two thirds of the wounded disaster victims are rescued by relatives and neighbors (8). Although important, the development of the discussion on this set of analytical parameters falls outside the scope of this article. They nevertheless reflect, in any case, the process and dynamics inherent in the social system in which they develop, while at the same time enabling the assessment, according to the adopted strategies and the developed tactical options, of the implication and preparedness rates of social groups and institutions as they cope with disruption/emergency situations following a disaster. Differentiated options can also be identified during the reconstruction/social development phase as the social system recovers from the effects of a disaster. Post-disruption strategic guidelines are closely related to the functioning dynamics of the social system before the disaster, for they can effectively act as valuable mechanisms for the improvement of the life conditions of the affected groups and communities. They can also lead to situations of social stagnation or even to the loss of the previously experienced life patterns. Within the scope of sociology of disasters and as opposed to theories which tend to consider disasters as nothing more than dramatic phenomena with high human and material damage, it is possible to identify a further conceptual paradigm which accepts the possibility that disasters could be changed into factors of social development as they provide an opportunity to reassess the political, economical and cultural life patterns of the affected communities, groups and individuals. Contradictory as it may seem, this dichotomy simply reflects the paradoxical consequences that disasters have on societies. The approach to this problem is therefore focused on the analysis and interpretation of the types of response to disasters that are provided by the social system. 13
  • 14. It is often said that it is necessary to bring the situation back to normal as soon as the immediate emergency intervention work is concluded. This assertion relies on a pertinent set of analytical considerations as far as the social dynamics of the reconstruction process are concerned. It actually has to do with the way the concept of normalcy is understood. If it is assumed that bringing the situation back to normal means reproducing the social patterns which existed before the disaster, that might lead to the reconstruction of the social vulnerability rates and levels that caused the disaster. If, on the contrary, it is understood as a chance to correct and improve the previously existing forms of organization and functioning of the social system and to take measures in order to reduce the factors of social vulnerability, the reconstruction process will then be directed towards social development and disaster prevention. In this sense and as a strategy of social development in disaster situations, Fernando P. Carrasco proposes to use the damage externalization process as well as the process of social participation of the affected communities and groups (9). According to this author, it is necessary to dismiss the negative effects that disasters have on the social system. Among a number of possible mechanisms, the community, groups and individuals affected by the disaster are to be left out of the economical costs of the reconstruction process. In this way, the social rehabilitation and reassessment work can be carried out faster and, on the other hand, it is possible to undertake concrete actions in order to reduce the factors of social inequality and, consequently, the inherent vulnerability contexts. However, and also according to Fernando P. Carrasco, if the damage externalization process is one of the fundamental elements of the post-disaster social development strategies, it has nevertheless to be complemented by the consequent protagonism and social participation of the affected communities, groups and individuals. For that particular purpose, he suggests building social programs, methodically divided into three main phases: the first is called project phase and includes the definition of targets and policies, the conceptualization of working strategies and the determination of the necessary methods and resources for the implementation of the program; during the second phase, which is called operative phase, responsibilities are exercised and decisions are taken according to the previously defined strategies and targets; the third and last phase is designated as administrative reproduction phase and includes all activities concerning the maintenance and legal and administrative permanence of the social program. The different levels of implication and social protagonism of the affected communities, groups and individuals during the different phases of the social program determine the quality of the effects as far as social development is concerned. According to this author and as presented in Table 2, the effects of damage externalization are subject to different developments, depending on whether there is a social participation of the victims in the process or not. Table 2 - Effects of damage externalization Effects of damage externalization Effects of damage externalization 14
  • 15. processes with social participation processes without social participation 1. In formal terms 1. In formal terms • victims participate in the draft/project of • victims are the receivers of programs that designed by other social groups; were reconstruction programs; • victims participate in the implementation of • victims do not participate in the the programs thereby gaining experience implementation of the programs and for the further administrative reproduction consequently have problems with their of those programs. administrative reproduction. 2. In structural terms 2. In structural terms • the balance of power between victims and • corporative-like relationships and political authorities is restructured as there centralized decision-making management is a development of concertation and self- are strengthened. management. 3. In daily life terms 3. In daily life terms • victims participate in the control and • the organization and distribution of basic distribution of the basic goods during goods is controlled by state and/or charity emergency work; organizations; • victims make arrangements with public and • victims are provided with already organized civil institutions concerning the lodging; draft/project and the progress of house- • victims are provided on an individual basis building programs; with job-restitution programs; • victims create labor unions in order to • the quality of the reconstructed collective claim the restitution of their jobs; facilities deteriorates in the medium term. • victims are responsible for the maintenance of the reconstructed collective facilities. According to the same author, in spite of the dichotomy presented in the table above, the empirical analysis and research that have been carried out on the basis of concrete experiences and in contexts of post-disaster social development often reveal that there has been a combination of both situations. 3. Social protagonists In order to complete and conclude the present analysis and sociological approach to the problem of disasters, this chapter will be dedicated to an essentially thematic reflection on the levels of implication and protagonism of the main social agents and institutions. 15
  • 16. For that purpose, the relations and practices of the different social agents and institutions must be interpreted as mechanisms that contribute for an explanatory analysis of disasters. In the organization and functioning process of societies and in their articulation with the built environment, a number of positions and strategies are at stake and subject to relational negotiations. Depending on the options and balances to be achieved, they can lead to different results in dealing with the problem of disasters. However, rather than going through the different implications of the confrontation of various types of protagonisms, it is important to try to define a typology which provides the diverse social agents and institutions with a generic framework and to use it as an analytical reference to be taken into account in approaching the problem of disasters. In this context, it is possible to identify three main categories of social protagonists as far as disasters are concerned. The first category includes the social agents and institutions that are represented in the society’s economical and business sector such as financial, industrial, urban and insurance agents, among others, and in the populations in a broad sense: families, communities, social groups. They share common positions and practices within the social structure at the level of the production and consumer systems, which makes them direct protagonists of the processes that condition the articulation dynamics between the social system and the built environment. Although they may not always have coincident strategic interests or a common development logic, they clearly determine the social options which in an analytical approach to disasters can lead either to vulnerability contexts and to the enhancement of disaster dangers and risks or to preventive cultures aiming at the reduction and/or mitigation of disaster risks. The second category is based on arbitration and control and is characterized by an intervention logic. It includes the agents and institutions of the political and legal authorities at local, national and international levels, the social movements of various citizens associations - ecological and environmental groups, labor unions and resident’s commissions, labor and professional associations, religious congregations, etc. - and the mass media - press, radio and television. The activity of these groups can be characterized by a regulatory protagonism. Within the problem of disasters, it can be directed towards processes of legitimization and legal and administrative support of the options and procedures adopted in the context of the social functioning mechanisms, although they may also choose to have a critical position and to denounce social decisions and practices concerning forms of social organization and distribution, with consequent effects on the built environment and on society. The third and last category of social protagonists concerns all agents and institutions with a high level of specialization in the field of disasters. It includes the institutional security and civil protection agents - firemen, red cross, civil protection departments, etc. - as well as the scientific and technical community doing research and theoretical-empirical work on disaster-related subjects. 16
  • 17. They can be designated as specialized protagonism agents, for they provide the indispensable social support to the preparation and organization of emergency response systems at various levels. Their specific social intervention is focused on analytical studies and research on risks and genetic and systemic causes of disasters as well as on the conception and elaboration of management models, information, awareness and preventive educational actions, emergency plans, crisis response operations, etc. Although the intervention dynamics of these three types of social protagonists have been characterized individually for presentation purposes, there is a very close articulation among them as well as a large number of different combinations. The specific situations and the social contexts under consideration lead to processes of systemic convergence and relational negotiation which can favour either the building of alliances based on complicity and solidarity or the development of situations of social confrontation with elements of tension and conflict. This thematic reference to social protagonists provides the necessary framework for the integration of social vulnerabilities, cultures and dynamics while important dimensions of disasters. At the same time and to conclude, it must be stressed that the contextualization of social protagonists in the dynamics of articulation between the social system and the built environment clearly accounts for the need to approach the problem of disasters by considering them as socially relevant nonroutine phenomena as well as for the pertinence of such an approach. REFERENCES (1) Thomas E. Drabek. 1989. «Disasters as Nonroutine Social Problems», in International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, 7(3), pp. 253-264. (2) F. L. Bates, R.R. Dynes and E.L. Quarantelli. 1992. «Importancia de las ciencias sociales ante las catástrofes naturales», Protección Civil, Revista de la Dirección General, Ministerio del Interior-Espana, Nr. 15, pp. 46. (3) Anthony Giddens. 1992. As Consequências da Modernidade, Oeiras, Celta Editores. (The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK) (4) Jesús Manuel Macías. 1992. «Significado de la vulnerabilidad social frente a los desastres», Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, nr. 4, pp. 3-10. (5) Neil R. Britton. 1992. «Uncommon Hazards and Orthodox Emergency Management: Toward a Reconciliation.», International Journal of Mass 17
  • 18. Emergencies and Disasters, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, 10(2), pp. 329-348. (6) E. L. Quarantelli. 1991. «Implicaciones de planificación y gestión para el envio de servicios médicos de emergencia (EMS)», Protección Civil, Revista de la Dirección General, Ministerio del Interior, Espana, Nr. 13, pp. 38-51. (7) Russell R. Dynes. 1994. «Community Emergency Planning: False Assumptions and Inappropriate Analogies», International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, 12(2), pp. 141-158. (8) E. L. Quarantelli. 1991. op. cit. (9) Fernando P. Carrasco. 1992. «Estrategias de desarollo social en situaciones de desastre», Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, nr. 4, pp. 11-24. 18