Session No. 5

Course Title: Theory, Principles and Fundamentals of Hazards, Disasters,
and U.S.

Emergency Management

Session Title: Four Theories of Disaster

Time: 1 Hour

**Objectives:**

1.  Describe and discuss the disaster as Act of God or Fate Theory.

2.  Describe and discuss the disaster as Act of Nature Theory.

3.  Describe and discuss the disaster as Intersection of Society and
    Nature Theory.

4.  Describe and discuss the disaster as Avoidable Human Creation and
    Prism

Highlighting Societal Injustice Theory.

5.  Briefly explore the significance and implications of perspectives on
    the term "disaster."

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Scope:**

During this session, the students explore the four steps in the
evolution of disaster conceptions. The professor presents discussion on
the four theories, eliciting student input and discussion. Next, the
focus turns to the significance and implications of disaster
perspectives---whether it is important or not to have consensus.
Students are asked to present their opinions on the various ways of
perceiving disasters and to ponder the question of whether one's
perception of disaster matters. The point is made that how one perceives
disaster does have a bearing on what, if anything, one does about
disasters. Examples are presented of possible actions that might be
taken, based on each of the four theories. Finally, the implications of
viewing disasters as social, rather than natural, phenomena, are
explored, including changes in public expectations of government. The
professor concludes the session by explaining that this subject will be
revisited during the exploration of "Technocratic vs. Social
Vulnerability Approaches" section later in the course.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Suggested Student Homework Reading Assignment:**

Blaikie, Piers, Terry Cannon, Ian Davis and Ben Wisner. 1994. Pp. 3-32
in *At Risk:*

> *Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disasters*. London and
> New York: Routledge.

Erikson, Kai. First 3 sections of Chapter 4, pp. 139-151, in *A New
Species of*

> *Trouble: The Human Experience of Modern Disasters*. New York and
> London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1989.

Lewis, James. Chapter 1m "The Meaning of Vulnerability." Pp. 3-11, in
*Development in*

*Disaster Prone Places -- Studies in Vulnerability.* London:
Intermediate Technology Publications, 1999.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

#### Suggested Additional Instructor Reading

Dynes, Russell R. 1997. *The Lisbon Earthquake in 1755: Contested
Meanings In The First*

*Modern Disaster*. Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Department of
Sociology and

Criminal Justice, Disaster Research Center, Preliminary Paper 255.
Downloadable from:

<http://www.udel.edu/DRC/preliminary/255.pdf> (32 pages)

#### General Requirements:

PowerPoint slides have been prepared to support this session. The
session is not dependent upon the utilization of these visual aids. They
are provided as a tool that the instructor is free to use as PowerPoints
or overhead transparencies.

**Objective 5.1: Describe and discuss the disaster as Act of God or Fate
Theory.**

*Explain that there **are four relatively distinct steps** in the
evolution of disaster conceptions:*

**(Visual Aid 1)**

(1) **Disaster as an Act of God --or Fate**

(2) **Disaster as a purely physical agent -- Act of Nature.**

(3) **Disaster as Intersection of Society and Nature**

(4) **Disaster as Avoidable Human Creation and Prism that Highlights
    Societal Injustices and Growing Vulnerability.**

    ***Explore each of the steps** in the evolution, **seeking student
    input and discussion**.*

    **(1) Disaster as "Act of God."**

-   Entered English language from the French (disastre), which was a
    derivation from two

    Latin Words (**dis, astro**)---roughly, "formed on a star."
    (Quarantelli 1987, 8)

    **(Visual Aid 2)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Early usage referred to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Unfavorable or negative events;**

-   **Usually of a personal nature;**

-   **Resulting from unfavorable alignment of the stars and planets.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In time, the word was **applied to major physical disturbances**
    such as earthquakes and floods....

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Came to be **known traditionally as Acts of God**.

    **(Visual Aid 3)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Earliest (and continuing) usage suggests that Acts of God were
    viewed as **divine retribution** for **human misdeeds and
    failings**. (White, et al., 2001, 87)[^1]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **One can find this in Western and Eastern societies** -- from Greek
    and Roman mythology to "early" **Chinese wisdom**. Yeats (2001,
    193), for example, notes that:

    "During the Zhow Dynasty in the first millennium B.C., the Chinese
    came to believe that heaven gives wise and virtuous leaders a
    mandate to rule, and removes this mandate if the leaders are evil or
    corrupt. This became incorporated into the Taoist view that heaven
    expresses its disapproval of bad rule through natural disasters such
    as floods, plagues, or earthquakes."

    **(Visual Aid 4)**

-   About two thousand years later in the West:

    "**If there is one voice louder than others in this terrible event
    it is that**

    **of God! Determined to guard his Sabbath with jealous care, God
    does**

    **not afflict except with good cause. The Sabbath of God has been**

    **dreadfully profaned by our great public companies. These wicked**

    **people are actually going to have the audacity to rebuild this
    bridge. Is**

    **it not awful to think that they (the passengers) must have been
    carried**

    **away when they were transgressing the law of God**." (From sermon
    of

    Dr. Begg, in reference to the Sunday, December 28, 1879 collapse of

    railway bridge over the River Tay in Scotland, killing 75; cited by
    Toft

    1992, 48)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "Accordingly, **repentance** or **human sacrifice** were regarded as
    the means to appeasing Deity." (McEntire 2003, Session 8, page 3)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Others have viewed disasters as **God's way of order** or **control
    of human events**.[^2]

    **(Visual Aid 5)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Later, natural **disasters as Acts of God** came to be viewed as:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Just the way things were.**

-   **Part of God's plan that could not be understood by humans.**

-   **Need to just accept** and get on with it**.**

-   **Disasters happen and people are the innocent victims.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This strand of thinking has led some to a **fatalistic acceptance of
    disaster** as an Act of God, concerning which nothing can be done.

    In the words of Keith Smith, the concept of Acts of God could be
    characterized as:

    "A fatalistic syndrome whereby individuals feel no personal
    responsibility for hazard response and wish to avoid expenditure on
    risk reduction." (Smith 1996, 70.)[^3]

    Another strand of thinking sees Acts of God as **a way to escape
    responsibility**.

    **(Visual Aid 6)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Referring to the February 26, 1972 **Buffalo Creek, West Virginia**
    makeshift coal-company **dam failure** which killed 125 people, Kai
    Erikson writes:

    **"Soon after the black wall of water and debris ground its way down
    Buffalo Creek, attorneys for the coal company involved called the
    disaster 'an act of God.' When asked what that meant, a spokesperson
    explained helpfully that the dam was simply 'incapable of holding
    the water God poured into it.'** However people elsewhere may look
    upon that act of theological reasoning, the residents of Buffalo
    Creek understood it to be blasphemy. They knew that one does not
    blame God lightly for the wrongdoings of humankind...they knew, too,
    that the phrase itself reflected **a degree of indifference
    bordering on contempt**." (Erikson, 1989, 19 -- emphasis added)

    And:

    "According to Steinberg, **those in positions of authority** -- from
    local politicians and business leaders, to state officials and
    federal elected and appointed officials (not to mention any
    government agencies) **use the terms** 'acts of God,' 'forces of
    nature' and 'freak events' **to distance themselves and their
    organizations from any complicity and responsibility** for building
    (or permitting) homes in high hazard areas. Using these terms places
    the blame for a disaster clearly outside of human control, or so
    they would have it." (Martinet 2002, 9 -- emphasis added)

    **(Visual Aid 7)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Finally, and perhaps on a brighter side, **some see disasters as
    acts of God when we are spared:**

    "Gov. Mike Foster said he's convinced Louisiana was spared from
    major

    destruction from Hurricane Lili by 'divine intervention'." (Hasten,
    2002)

    **(Visual Aid 8)**

    ***Bottom Line \-- Fate (the stars), God or human sin is to blame
    for disasters.***

    **Objective 5.2 Discuss and Describe Disaster Theory \# 2:**

(2) **Disaster as** **purely physical agent/event--**

    **Act of Nature (Objective Phenomenon)**[^4]

-   Though there are those who still today characterize disasters as
    acts of God, most within the disaster research and emergency
    management communities do not share this view.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   As Quarantelli notes (1987, 8), over time **"nature" has been
    increasingly substituted for the supernatural**, and **the term
    "natural disaster**" **has come to the fore**.

    **(Visual Aid 9)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Russell Dynes** argues that this **transformation began** after
    the **Lisbon earthquake** of **1755** in Portugal -- as he calls it
    "**the first modern urban disaster**." (Dynes 1997, 24) According to
    Dynes:

    "Prior to that, earthquakes traditionally had been interpreted as a
    dramatic means of communication between gods and humans. In
    particular, such events previously had been explained as indicating
    some disturbance between earthly and heavenly spheres. The Lisbon
    earthquake can be identified as a turning point in human history
    which moved the consideration of such physical events as
    supernatural signals toward a more neutral or even a secular,
    proto-scientific causation." (Dynes 1997, 2)

-   Dynes quotes a leading cleric of the time, Gabriel Malagrida,
    confessor to King John, who wrote a pamphlet which said:

    "Learn, O Lisbon that the destroyers of our houses, palaces,
    churches, and convents, the cause of the death of so many people and
    of the flames that devoured such vast treasures, are your abominable
    sins, and not comets, stars, vapors and exhalations, and similar
    natural phenomena." (Dynes 1997, 17; citing Kendrick 1956, 89)[^5]

-   For those students interested in additional reading, Dynes tells an
    interesting story of how the **Marques de Pombal**, "who was given
    the responsibility for the emergency response and reconstruction of
    Lisbon after the earthquake" (Dynes 1997, 6), "**used his political
    skill to under-cut the traditional interpretation that the
    earthquake was a signal of God's displeasure.**" (Dynes 1997, 3)

-   **Amongst Pombal's concerns** was that, in the words of Dynes:

    **"...the call for devotional repentance might lead to personal
    withdrawal at a time when the city needed everyone for the tasks
    remaining."** (Dynes 1997, 15)

    "...Pombal saw danger ...in the religious practices and
    interpretations which might inhibit or delay the reconstruction
    process." (Dynes 1997, 16)

    **(Visual Aid 10)**

    "The Lisbon earthquake was the first modern disaster in which the
    state accepted the responsibility for mobilizing the emergency
    response and for developing and implementing a collective effort for
    reconstruction and in order to accomplish that, traditional notions
    of supernatural causation were opposed, rather harshly." (Dynes
    1997, 28)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Of course, the **view of disasters as acts of nature did not take
    over immediately** and everywhere, as the previous point on the
    Scottish railway accident of 1879 as well as more recent examples
    would attest. Nonetheless, as Dynes notes, **a turning point was
    reached.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   By the time of the **first few decades of the Twentieth Century**,
    natural disasters were thought of **almost exclusively as physical
    agents**.

    **(Visual Aid 11)**

    "The earliest workers in the area, including myself, with little
    conscious thought and accepting common sense views, initially
    accepted as a prototype model the notion that disasters were **an
    outside attack upon social systems that "broke down"** in the face
    of such an assault from outside." (Quarantelli 1998b, 266).

    **(Visual Aid 12)**

    "The traditional view of natural hazards has ascribed all or almost
    all responsibility for them to the processes of the geophysical
    world. This approach has meant that the **root cause of large-scale
    death and destruction has been attributed to the extremes of
    nature** rather than encompassing the human world." (Tobin and Montz
    1997, 8.)

    **Thus:**

    ". . . Burton and Kates (1964)[^6] defined natural hazards as those
    elements of the **physical environment harmful to man** and **caused
    by forces extraneous to him**." (Tobin and Montz 1997, 6.)

    "A *disaster* is usually defined as **an event that has a large
    impact on**

    **society**." (Tobin and Montz 1996, 6.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Ted Steinberg**:

> "Natural disasters have come to be seen as random, morally inert
> phenomena \-- chance events that lie beyond the control of human
> beings. In short, the emphasis has been on **making nature the
> villain**." (Steinberg 2000, xxiii)

-   In similarity with later thinking on disasters as acts of God,
    disasters as acts of nature have been viewed as "**stuff that
    happens" -- get used to it**.[^7]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Thus, just as in the "disaster as an agent of the Fates" or "God,"
    disaster as "an agent of Nature" is susceptible to **fatalism** --
    "being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

    **(Visual Aid 13)**

    ***Bottom Line -- Mother Nature is to blame.***

    **Objective 5.3 Describe and discuss disaster theory \# 3:**

(3) **Disaster as** **intersection of society and nature --**

    **impersonal societal construct.**[^8]

-   Dombrowsky writes that **Carr (1932)** was "the **first** in the
    **field to try to understand disasters in terms of social action.**"
    (1998, 24.)

    **(Visual Aid 14)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Carr** wrote in 1932:

    "Not every windstorm, earth-tremor, or rush of water is a
    catastrophe. A catastrophe is known by its works; that is to say, by
    the occurrence of disaster. **So long as the ship rides out the
    storm, so long as the city resists the earth-shocks, so long as the
    levees hold, there is no disaster. It is the collapse of the
    cultural protections that constitutes the disaster proper**."[^9]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Dombrowsky** on Carr:

    "Carr's conclusion signifies that **disasters are the result of
    human activities**, not of natural or surpranatural forces.
    Disasters are simply the collapse of cultural protections; thus,
    they are principally man-made. Deductively, **mankind is responsible
    for the consequences of his actions as well as of his omissions**."
    (Dombrowsky 1998, 24--25.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many years later, disaster researcher and sociologist **Enrico
    Quarantelli** picked up the thread first wove by Carr -- by
    **removing the focus from the event** to its **intersection with
    society and its effects**.

    Gilbert (1998, 13) states:

    "At the conceptual level, **Quarantelli triggered the emergence of
    new modes of approaching disasters, based on an analysis of
    communities, and not only of destructive external agents. . . .**

    "As a partial result of this shift in the conceptual approach to
    disaster, **destructive agents are no longer seen as a cause, but as
    a precipitant for crisis and disaster behavior directly related to
    the social context."**

    **(Visual Aid 15)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Tobin and Montz (1997, 11--12) describe how **Hewitt** (1983)
    **castigated hazards** **researchers for the overwhelming attention
    devoted to geophysical processes and neglect of societal forces."**

    Hewitt stressed three points:

    **(1)** Natural **hazards are neither explained by nor uniquely
    dependent upon the geophysical process** that may initiate damage.

    **(2) Human awareness of and response to natural hazards are not
    dependent solely on geophysical conditions.** Hazards are more
    dependent on the concerns, pressures, goals, and risks of society.

    **(3) The causes, features, and consequences of natural disasters
    are not explained by conditions or behavior particular to calamitous
    events.** The important parameters are social order, its everyday
    relations to the habitat, and larger historical circumstances that
    help shape society.

**(Visual Aid 16)**

-   In the words of **Dennis Mileti** of the **Natural Hazards Research
    and Information Center** at the University of Colorado at Boulder:

> "What is most wrong in this country in the area of natural hazards is
> that **we do not own up to our problems and responsibilities \-- we
> blame nature or God**." (Mileti, 2001)

**(Visual Aid 17)**

-   A former Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
    **James Lee Witt**, has voiced similar views:

> The large disaster losses we have experienced during the past decade
> "has been the result of a lethal combination of fierce nature **and
> human decisions**." (Witt, 2001)

**(Visual Aid 18)**

***Bottom Line -- Humans putting themselves in the way of hazards are to
blame.***

**Objective 5.4 Describe and discuss disaster theory #4:**

(4) **Disaster as avoidable human creation and prism**

    **highlighting societal injustice and growing vulnerability.**[^10]

    **(Visual Aids 19, 20)**

-   **Defining disaster from the social creation and societal injustice
    perspective includes:**

    **(1)** Focusing on the **vulnerability** of people to hazards.

    **(2) View**ing as **amoral the scientific (traditional)
    approaches.**

    **(3)** Looking at disaster **subjectively through the eyes of
    victims.**

    **(4)** Viewing the people who experience disaster as the **victims
    of powerful interests** who have created the conditions leading or
    contributing to their hazard vulnerability.

    **(5) Searching for blame.**

    **(Visual Aid 21)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Steinberg** (2000):

    "My argument is not simply that natural disasters bear a strong
    human component, but that those in power (politicians; federal,
    state, and city policymakers; and corporate leaders) have tended to
    view these events \[disasters\] as purely natural in an effort to
    justify a set of responses that has proved both environmentally
    unsound, and socially, if not morally, bankrupt." (xii)

    **(Visual Aid 22)**

    "...remember that there is no iron law of calamity, that disaster is
    not destiny, and above all, that one person's act of God is---viewed
    from the perspective of history---**just one more instance of man's
    inhumanity to man**." (201)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Quarantelli** (1998a, iv) refers to this as the **"Postmodernist
    framework"** wherein

    "**behavioral aspects of disasters can only be understood by looking
    at**

    **them subjectively \-- particularly from the viewpoint of
    victims**."[^11]

    **(Visual Aid 23)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Thus, Cannon (1994, 14) asserts that it is most useful to understand
    how social systems act in causing unequal exposure to risk:

    ". . . the explanation of disaster causality is only possible by
    understanding the ways in which **social systems themselves generate
    unequal exposure to risk** by making some groups of people, some
    individuals, and some societies more prone to hazards than others. .
    .

    ". . . **disasters are not 'natural'** (not even sudden ones)
    **because hazards affect people differently within societies** and
    may have very different impacts on different societies. . .

    ". . . **Inequalities in risk** (and opportunity) are largely a
    function of the principal **systems of power** operating in all
    societies, which are normally analyzed in terms of **class, gender,
    and ethnicity**."

    "The **economic system and class structure** allocates \[sic\]
    income and access to resources, and this **has an impact** in terms
    of people's ability to cope with hazards (their **nutritional level,
    physical resilience and subsequent access to resources**), all
    affecting their potential for recovery." (Cannon 1994, 18.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Tobin and Montz contend that,

    "It is no longer merely a matter of **building to specific**
    **standards** or of **disallowing development** in hazardous areas.
    . . . They **are not likely to have much impact until such problems
    as poverty, land and income distribution and equity issues are
    resolved."** (1997, 45.)

    "Thus, when we see newspaper headlines like 'Hurricane Kills 39' or
    'Earthquake Leaves Thousands Homeless,' **we cannot lay the blame on
    the physical event, which is only the agent.** It is within the
    **socioeconomic environment that we can usually find the causes of
    disastrous effects.**" (Tobin and Montz 1997, 45.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In answer to the question "**why are the poor still the most
    vulnerable**" to disasters, Luis Duran (Center for Co-ordination for
    Disaster Prevention in Central America) answers that "**nature is
    not to blame**" but that "**disasters are caused by weaknesses and
    factors present before and during the disaster that are still
    present today with no end in sight**." (Duran 1999, 16-17)

    **(Visual Aid 24)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "Studies have shown that in **general it is the weaker groups in
    society that suffer worst** from disasters: the poor (especially),
    the **very young** and the **very old, women,** the **disabled**,
    and those who are **marginalized by race** or caste." (Twigg 2001,
    2)

    "To the extent that most **natural disasters are indeed social in
    origin**, it also follows, as experts agree, that their burden falls
    disproportionately on those already most economically disadvantaged,
    both on an international level...and domestically. **The poor**
    within each society are forced to live in substandard structures on
    more dangerous land, and have fewer resources to lessen their own
    risk and vulnerability." (Hooke 1999, 283)

    **"Earthquakes happen. But the disaster follows because of human
    action and inaction."** (Wisner, 2001)

    **(Visual Aid 25)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   White, Kates and Burton (2001, 87), view the perspective just noted
    as **"the extreme" of the social construction theory of hazards:**

    "A second view \[of hazards, Acts of God being the first\] seeks to
    find human culpability as the root cause. There are many variants on
    this underlying idea. These range from the search for careless
    mistakes or errors of judgment to suggestions of deliberate and
    malevolent or self-seeking choices on the part of individuals or
    groups. The most common explanation favored in the recent literature
    under review is that underlying social forces and processes are to
    blame. At the extreme, these include broad causative designations
    such as feudalism which it is claimed is responsible for forcing the
    poor and powerless members of the community into the most dangerous
    locations...to capitalism and neo-colonialism, which may have the
    same end result for those with the lowest incomes or political
    power. Less ideological views along similar lines tend to associate
    disasters with the impersonal workings of social and economic forces
    \[Theory No. 3\]....There is a trend in much of the reviewed
    literature for the interactance view to be overshadowed by the
    enthusiasm for blaming society for its own vulnerability."

    **(Visual Aid 26)**

    ***Bottom Line -- Human Culpability --***

    ***Disasters are brought upon some humans***

    ***By other humans.***

    **Objective 5.5: Briefly explore significance and implications of
    disaster perspectives.**

    **Note:** *You may want to ask the students their opinion on these
    various ways of perceiving*

    *disasters and then ask -- **does it matter**?*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Ted Steinberg**:

    "Of course, sometimes disasters do 'just happen,' no matter what
    steps people have taken. Nevertheless, the view that chance
    geophysical factors are the primary culprit has led to the
    **apathetic political atmosphere** surrounding natural hazards
    policy." (Steinberg 2000, 22)

    **(Visual Aid 27)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Quarantelli** on whether theories of or perspectives on disaster
    matter:

    **"If workers in the area do not even agree on whether a "disaster"
    is fundamentally a social construction or a physical happening,
    clearly the field has intellectual problems."** (Quarantelli 1998a,
    3.)

    **". . . studies in the sociology of knowledge suggest that after a
    certain period of pioneering work, a developing field will flounder
    unless there emerges some rough consensus about its central
    concept(s)." (Quarantelli 1998a, 2.)**

    And, certainly, the **term, "disaster" is one of the central
    concepts** in hazards management.

    **Others are not bothered** by this lack of consensus and argue that
    it should neither be too surprising nor too alarming.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   For example, Sociologists Kroll-Smith and Gunter (1998, 63) point
    out that:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Anthropologists** cannot agree on a definition of culture.

-   **Political scientists** continue to debate the meaning of power.

-   **Psychologists** cannot agree on a common definition of memory.

-   **Sociologists** continue to debate about what is a community. . .
    alienation. . . and, of course, disaster.

    **(Visual Aid 28)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The writer disagrees and posits that **how one perceives disaster
    has a bearing on what, if anything, one does** **about disasters**.
    For example:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If disasters are **Acts of God** \-- then **do nothing.**

-   If **Acts of Nature** -- then**, depending on one's proclivity to do
    something** and **knowledge base,** either

(1) **Combat, control nature** -- i.e., use technology, engineering, and
    money to

> build dams, dikes, levees, warning systems, etc.

"Some believe today that technology will provide a 'silver bullet' for
all of the disaster problems that confront us. Satellites,
communications equipment, and improved engineering are all that is
required for preparedness and mitigation." (McEntire, forthcoming, 8-2)

**Or**

**(2) Do nothing**

\-- If one **does not wish to engage** this issue, or

\-- Is **fatalistic**, or

\-- **Does not believe that there is much or anything one can do**.

Disaster educators are familiar with this phenomenon:

"Some claim that the Big One \[CA earthquake\] would be like an asteroid
impact or a direct hit from a nuclear bomb -- 'We hope it doesn't
happen, but we are helpless to do anything about it if it does'." (Yeats
2001, 25)

**(Visual Aid 29)**

-   If **Intersection of Society and Nature** -- then **develop human
    adjustments** -- i.e., regulations for building in floodplains, land
    use management, etc.[^12]

    "Secure societies are those that have learned to live with their
    land, as well as from it. Disaster reduction strategies will have
    succeeded when people -- governments, specialists, leaders and
    citizens -- understand that a 'natural disaster' is more a failure
    of foresight or evidence of their own neglected responsibility
    rather than the presumed consequence of natural forces or some
    other-worldly act of god." (ISDR 2002, 8)

-   If **Human Culpability** -- then **address the root causes** of
    societal injustice and human vulnerability to hazards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Thus, **Russell Dynes** (1993, 197) states:

    "The fact that 'natural' disasters are social, rather than natural,
    phenomena has a number of implications.

1.  Prevention and mitigation must stress social rather than physical
    solutions.

2.  Disaster planning is not primarily the search for the implementation
    of technological solutions.

3.  Emphasis on the social allows for proactive, rather than reactive
    strategies. Thus, it is possible to take actions prior to the
    appearance of the physical agent.

4.  Emphasis in planning can be on internal, rather than external,
    factors. The potential threat is not 'out there,' but resides in the
    'internal' flaws within the social system.

5.  The view of disasters as social phenomena allows such happenings to
    be incorporated as a part of the nation's development process."

-   **Tierney, Lindell and Perry** (2001, 152) address this question as
    well and state:

    "...most Americans consider natural disasters to be 'acts of God' or
    'acts of nature' whose effects are more or less random and
    accidental. Because disaster impacts are defined as involving fate
    rather than choice, it follows that victims are blameless and should
    be assisted in recovering from their losses by the government,
    private sector organizations like the Red Cross, and insurance."
    (2001, 222)

    However,

    **(Visual Aid 30)**

    "As knowledge about the social sources of hazard vulnerability is
    becoming increasingly widespread, members of the public are becoming
    more aware than before of the ways in which the actions of others
    can cause disasters or make their impacts more severe. An instance
    of victimization that may once have been seen as resulting from an
    act of God, the uncontrollable forces of nature, or sheer bad luck
    may now be seen as having been caused by some party's negligence.
    These new interpretations can in turn lead to conflict, criticism of
    organizational performance, and in some cases litigation. Moreover,
    members of the public may now expect more from government when
    disasters strike than they once did."

    **Note:** *This subject will be picked up again in the "Technocratic
    vs. Social Vulnerability Approaches" section of the "What is
    Emergency Management" Session.*

    **References**

Alexander, David. "Nature's Impartiality, Man's Inhumanity: Reflections
on Terrorism and World Crisis in a Context of Historical Disaster." *The
Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy and Management*, Vol. 26. No. 1,
March 2002, pp. 1-9.

Burton, Ian, Robert Kates, and Gilbert White. *The Environment as
Hazard* (2^nd^ ed.). NY: Guilford Press, 1993.

Cannon, Terry. "Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of 'Natural'
Disasters." Chapter 2 (pp. 13-30) in *Disasters, Development and
Environment*, A. Varley (ed.). London: Wiley, 1994.

Dombrowsky, Wolf R. "Again and Again -- Is a Disaster What We Call a
'Disaster'." Chapter 3 in *What Is A Disaster*. E. L. Quarantelli (ed.).
London and NY: Routledge. 1998.

Duran, Luis Rolando (Center for Co-ordination for Disaster Prevention in
Central America). 1999. \"The Social Impact of Disaster.\" Pp. 16-18 in
Ingleton.

Dynes, Russell R. 1993. "Disaster Reduction: The Importance of Adequate
Assumptions about Social Organization." *Sociological Spectrum*, Vol.
13, pp. 175-192.

Dynes, Russell R. 1997. *The Lisbon Earthquake in 1755: Contested
Meanings In The First Modern Disaster*. Newark, DE: University of
Delaware, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Disaster
Research Center, Preliminary Paper 255. Downloadable from:
<http://www.udel.edu/DRC/preliminary/255.pdf> (32 pages)

Erikson, Kai. *A New Species of Trouble -- The Human Experience of
Modern Disasters*. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1989.

Gilbert, Claude. 1998. "Studying Disaster -- Changes in the Main
Conceptual Tools." Chapter 2 in *What Is A Disaster?* E.L. Quarantelli
(ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Hasten, Mike. "Foster Says State Saved By 'Divine Intervention'."
*Lafayette Advertiser* (LA). October 4, 2002.

Hooke, William (National Science and Technology Council). 1999.
\"Progress and Challenges in Reducing Losses From Natural Disasters,\"
pp. 280-283 in Ingleton.

Horlick-Jones, Tom, and G. Peters. "Measuring Disaster Trends Part One:
Some Observations on the Bradford Fatality Scale." *Disaster
Management*, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1991, pp. 144-148.

ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2002. *Living with
Risk -- A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives* (Preliminary
Version). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations ISDR. Downloaded from:
<http://wwwunisdr.org/unisdr/Globalreport/htm>.

Martinet, Michael E. "Book Review: Acts of God." Pp. 9-10 in *IAEM
Bulletin*, Vol. 19, No. 4, April 2002.

McEntire, David A. (in progress). *Disaster Response Operations and
Management.* FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project
Instructor Guide. FEMA: Emmitsburg, MD. Downloadable from (when
available): http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/aem_courses.htm

Mileti, Dennis. 2001. \"Risk Assessment.\" Presentation given April 1,
2001, *National Symposium on Mitigating Severe Weather Impacts\--Design
for Disaster Reduction*, Tulsa Convention Center, Tulsa OK, March
31-April 5.

Quarantelli, E.L. 1987. "What Should We Study? Questions and Suggestions
for Researchers About the Concept of Disasters." *International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* (March), Vol. 5, No. 1, 7-32.

Smith, Keith. *Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing
Disaster.* London and NY: Routledge, 1996.

Steinberg, Ted. 2000. *Acts of God \-- The Unnatural History of Natural
Disaster in America*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tierney, Kathleen J, Michael K. Lindell and Ronald W. Perry. 2001.
*Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United
States.* Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Tobin, Graham A. and Burrell E. Montz. 1997. *Natural Hazards:
Explanation and Integration*. New York and London: The Guilford Press.

Toft, B. "The Failure of Hindsight." *Disaster Prevention and
Management*, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1992, pp. 48-60.

Twigg, John (Benfield Greg Hazard Research Centre, University College
London). 2001. \"Physician, Heal Thyself? The Politics of Disaster
Mitigation.\" Disaster Management Working Paper #1. http://bghrc.com.

Von Kotze, Astrid. "A New Concept of Risk?" Pp. 33-40 in A. Holloway
(ed.), *Risk, Sustainable Development and Disasters*. Cape Town, South
Africa: Periperi Publications, 1999.

White, Gilbert F., R. W. Kates and Ian Burton. "Knowing Better and
Losing Even More: The Use of Knowledge in Hazards Management."
*Environmental Hazards*, Vol. 3, Numbers 3-4, September/December 2001,
pp. 81-92.

Wisner, Ben. \"Same Old Story.\" *The Guardian*, 1 February 2001.

Witt, James Lee. 2001 (April 3). Keynote Presentation, Session III,
*National Symposium on Mitigating Severe Weather Impacts\--Design for
Disaster Reduction*, Tulsa Convention Center, Tulsa OK, March 31 to
April 4, 2001.

Yeats, Robert S. 2001. *Living With Earthquakes in California: A
Survivor's Guide*. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.

[^1]: As White, Kates and Burton put it "This distinction between
    natural disasters as caused by forces external to human beings and
    caused by human actions has characterized the search for explanation
    for millennia. Thus, the old biblical idea of disasters as Acts of
    God include the notion of a God acting in response to human
    failings. Disasters were not simply visited upon humans in a
    capricious and random way but were seen as an expression of a
    vengeful or wrathful God justifiably displeased with human behavior.
    The same pattern of ideas persists in some quarters today as seen,
    for example, in explanations of the epidemic of HIV, which some
    fundamentalists argue is just punishment for behavior they see as
    immoral." Alexander (2002, 5) notes how Johann Sussmilch "chaplain
    in the Prussian Army and a founder of the science of demography,
    whose intellectual influence spread throughout Europe, saw the
    Lisbon disaster \[1755 "catastrophic" earthquake\] as God's way of
    controlling the relentless rise of population."

[^2]: Alexander (2002, 5) notes how Johann Sussmilch "chaplain in the
    Prussian Army and a founder of the science of demography, whose
    intellectual influence spread throughout Europe, saw the Lisbon
    disaster \[1755 "catastrophic" earthquake\] as God's way of
    controlling the relentless rise of population."

[^3]: See, also, U.N. ISDR 2002, 31.

[^4]: The "Objective Phenomenon" terminology comes from Tierney, Lindell
    and Perry (2001, 13).

[^5]: T.D. Kendrick. 1955. *The Lisbon Earthquake*. London: Methuen and
    Co., Ltd.

[^6]: I. Burton and R.W. Kates. 1964. "The perception of Natural Hazards
    in Resource Management." *National Resources Management*, 3,
    412--414.

[^7]: Astrid von Kotze makes a similar point when, referring to how some
    perceive disasters as "natural", "unavoidable", and "inevitable",
    she states that "as long as risk is defined in terms of the 'hazard
    out there', no one can be held responsible, and nobody will be
    accountable. Risks, understood as observable and definable
    vulnerabilities, can be linked to decisions and decisionmakers." ("A
    New Concept of Risk" (p. 39), in *Risk, Sustainable Development and
    Disasters: Southern Perspectives*, A. Holloway (ed.). Cape Town,
    South Africa: Periperi Publications, 1999).

[^8]: Tierney, Lindell and Perry (2001, 16-17) refer to this as the
    "Social Constructionist Approach." See also p. 247.

[^9]: L. Carr. 1932. "Disasters and the Sequence-Pattern Concept of
    Social Change." *American Journal of Sociology*, Vol. 38. pp.
    207--218.

[^10]: Tierney, Lindell and Perry (2001) refer to this as the
    "political-ecological perspective" at one point (p. 16), and as the
    "vulnerability perspective" at another (p. 23).

[^11]: For a very brief critique of postmodernist disaster research see
    Quarantelli 1998b, pp. 267--268.

[^12]: See, for example Russell Dynes (1993, 175 & 178), "I argue that
    disaster is a social, rather than a 'natural' happening. Thus, any
    effort at disaster reduction involves planning and action by various
    social units...The direction of that planning effort will depend on
    the nature of the social unit, not on the nature of the physical
    agent."