The Nature–Culture Distinction in Disaster Studies: The Recent Petition for Reform as an Opportunity for New Thinking?

Abstract

This article constructively challenges the often cited distinction between the so-called hazard and vulnerability perspectives in disaster studies. In a context of increasingly intertwined, dense, and complex socioecological dynamics, disaster scholars often hold onto an apparently untenable distinction between nature and culture, manifested as either a hazard or a vulnerability approach. This article maintains that the typically undesired approach (the hazard approach) is inherent to the preferred (vulnerability) perspective. The article builds on Oliver-Smith’s (2013) critique of the magnitude of requirements placed upon practitioners given the full implications of the vulnerability perspective. Although critical of the vulnerability perspective, this article does not fundamentally disagree with the validity of its claims. Instead, by drawing on the pragmatist philosophy of Rorty (1989) and by demonstrating the potential value of posthumanism for disaster studies, I wish to argue for greater pragmatism within disaster scholarship. The article considers the recent petition or manifesto for disaster studies (Gaillard et al. 2019) for more inclusive disaster research as a potential opportunity to challenge the aforementioned nature–culture distinction in the field, as the petition signed by a number of disaster scholars outlines various concerns over the asymmetrical power relations between local and external researchers. These power relations have adverse consequences for the appropriateness of knowledge production in many contexts. I am primarily concerned with the very local level of disaster occurrence, where posthumanism might be most valuable.

Keywords

Disaster studies / Nature-culture / Posthumanism / Pragmatist philosophy / Vulnerability perspective

References

[1] Bankoff G. Rendering the world unsafe: “Vulnerability” as Western discourse. Disasters, 2001, 25(1): 19-35

[2] Becker P. Grasping the hydra: The need for a holistic and systematic approach to disaster risk reduction. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 2009, 2(1): 12-24

[3] Becker P, Tehler H. Constructing a common holistic description of what is valuable and important to protect: A possible requisite for disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2013, 6: 18-27

[4] Bernstein RJ. Rorty’s liberal utopia. Philosophy and Politics, 1990, 57(1): 31-72.

[5] Castells M. The network society, 1996, London: Blackwell

[6] Coetzee C, van Niekerk D. Should all disaster risks be reduced? A perspective from the systems concept of the edge of chaos. Environmental Hazards, 2018, 17(5): 470-481

[7] Davis I. Reflections on 40 years of disasters, 1977–2017. Disasters, 2019, 43(S1): S61-S82

[8] Dean M. Risk, calculable and incalculable. Soziale Welt, 1998, 49(1): 25-42.

[9] Digeser P. The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics, 1992, 54(4): 977-1007

[10] Escobar A. Crush J. Imagining a post-development era. Power of development, 1995, London: Routledge 211-227.

[11] Ferguson J. The anti-politics machine: Development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho, 1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[12] Flint CG, Luloff AE. Natural resource-based communities, risk, and disaster: An intersection of theories. Society & Natural Resources, 2005, 18(5): 399-412

[13] Freudenburg WR. Risky thinking: Irrational fears about risk and society. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1996, 545(1): 44-53

[14] Gaillard JC. Disaster studies inside out. Disasters, 2019, 43(S1): S7-S17

[15] Gaillard, J.C., B. Alexander, P. Becker, K. Blanchard, L. Bosher, F. Broines, J.R. Cadag, K. Chmutina, et al. 2019. Power, prestige & forgotten values: A disaster studies manifesto. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/power-prestige-forgotten-values-a-disaster. Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

[16] Haraway D. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 1988, 14(3): 575-599

[17] Haraway D. Haraway D. Promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. The Haraway reader, 2004, New York: Routledge 63-124.

[18] Hewitt K. Regions of risk: A geographical introduction to disasters, 1997, Longham: Addison Wesley

[19] Higgs P. Scambler G, Higgs P. Risk, governmentality and the reconceptualization of citizenship. Modernity, medicine and health, 1998, London: Routledge 177-198.

[20] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary for policymakers. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2009.

[21] Katanha A, Simatele D. Natural hazard mitigation strategies review: Actor-network theory and the eco-based approach understanding in Zimbabwe. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 2019, 11(1): 79-87

[22] Kelman, I. 2010. Natural disasters do not exist (Natural hazards do not exist either) Version 3, 9 July 2010 (Version 1 was 26 July 2007). http://www.ilankelman.org/miscellany/NaturalDisasters.doc. Accessed 24 Apr 2020.

[23] Kelman I. Disaster by choice, 2020, Oxford: Oxford University Press

[24] Laclau E. New reflections on the revolution of our time, 1990, New York: Verso

[25] Latour B. We have never been modern, 1993, New York: Harvester

[26] Lewis J. Sea level rise: Some implications for Tuvalu. Environmentalist, 1989, 9: 269-275

[27] Lewis J, Kelman I. The good, the bad and the ugly: Disaster risk reduction (DRR) versus disaster risk creation (DRC), 2012, PLoS Currents: Disasters

[28] Maskrey A. Disaster mitigation: A community based approach, 1989, Oxford: Oxfam

[29] Oliver-Smith A. A matter of choice: Editorial. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2013, 3: 1-3

[30] O’Keefe P, Westgate K, Wisner B. Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature, 1976, 260(5552): 566-567

[31] Rorty R. Contingency, irony and solidarity, 1989, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[32] Stengers, I. 2018. Another science is possible: A manifesto for slow science. Translated by Stephen Muecke. Cambridge: Polity.

[33] Van Riet G. The institutionalization of disaster risk reduction: South Africa and neoliberal governmentality, 2017, London: Routledge

[34] Waschinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(6): 1049-1065

[35] Walker PA. Political ecology: Where is the ecology?. Progress in Human Geography, 2005, 29(1): 73-82

[36] Wisner B. Capitalism and the shifting spatial and social distribution of hazard and vulnerability. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 2001, 16(2): 44-50.

[37] Wisner B. Kendra J, Knowles SG, Wachtendorf T. Disaster studies at 50: Time to wear bifocals?. Disaster research and the second environmental crisis, 2019, Berlin: Springer 47-68

[38] Wisner B. Five years beyond Sendai: Can we get beyond frameworks?. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2020, 11(2): 239-249

[39] Wolfe C. What is posthumanism?, 2010, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

[40] WCDRR (World Conference on Disaster Reduction). 2005. Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, 18–22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. http://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2013.

[41] WCDRR (World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction). 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2020.

[42] Xu D, Liu E, Wang X, Tang H, Liu S. Rural households' livelihood capital, risk perception, and willingness to purchase earthquake disaster insurance: Evidence from Southwestern China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018, 15(7): 1319-1338