Catastrophe in the Making: The Engineering of Katrina and the Disasters of Tomorrow

ing and Indexing: Please visit http://cs.sagepub.com and, under the “More about this journal” menu on the right-hand side, click on the Abstracting/Indexing link to view a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed. Copyright Permission: Permission requests to photocopy or otherwise reproduce material published in this journal should be submitted by accessing the article online on the journal’s Web site at http://cs.sagepub.com and selecting the “Request Permission” link. Permission may also be requested by contacting the Copyright Clearance Center via their Web site at http://www.copyright.com, or via e-mail at info@copyright.com. Advertising and Reprints: Current advertising rates and specifications may be obtained by contacting the advertising coordinator in the Thousand Oaks office at (805) 410-7772 or by sending an e-mail to advertising@ sagepub.com. To order reprints, please e-mail reprint@sagepub.com. Acceptance of advertising in this journal in no way implies endorsement of the advertised product or service by SAGE, American Sociological Association, or the journal editor(s). No endorsement is intended or implied. SAGE reserves the right to reject any advertising it deems as inappropriate for this journal. Change of Address for Non-Members: Six weeks’ advance notice must be given when notifying of change of address. Please send the old address label along with the new address to the SAGE office address above to ensure proper identification. Please specify name of journal. Cover art by Tina Burke; coloration advice by Jennifer Norton. Additional work by Kristin Kerns, Casey McManus, and Carrie Wakeley. Printed on acid-free paper EDITOR’S REMARKS THE COURAGE TO PUBLICIZE ONE’S CONVICTIONS Over the last few months the journal has received a disturbing set of unrelated emails from scholars who promised to review a book for CS. They have not all originated from one part of the United States, nor even from one country. These unwelcome messages convey the following information: ‘‘I, the reviewer, have read the book that was sent to me some months ago, and have concluded, after much agonizing, that I do not wish to write the review I promised to write,’’ or, worse still, ‘‘I have written a review but will not send it because the tone or substance of the review displeases me. ’’ When only one of these showed up, it was not cause for alarm, but now that a handful have been sent, suggesting that more might be on the way as part of a new social movement of circumspection, I thought it was wise to preempt such future missives by addressing the problem immediately. Scholars always give reasons for their actions, even if spurious, improbable, inaccurate, or inscrutable. It is not enough simply to say, ‘‘I do not want to review the book because I am not so inclined. ’’ One is reminded of Melville’s ‘‘Bartleby,’’ who was persecuted in 1853 for saying ‘‘I would prefer not to. ’’ But Bartleby’s special form of rhetoric is no longer in vogue. The reasons I have been given are (1) the book is not very good in some ways, and even though it is sound in others, I would prefer not to review it negatively, since (1a) I know that the department in which the author works is undergoing external review, and do not want to abet those who wish it ill, (1b) I have learned that the author is going through a rough patch right now and I don’t want to worsen the situation, (1c) I have very good reasons which are so sensitive that I cannot reveal them. Less mysterious are these reasons: (2) when I began the book, I had great hope for it based on its author(s) and subject-matter, but have discovered that it fell short of my expectations, and so I cannot work up the energy to write about it, and wish I had not accepted the review assignment. There is also: (3) this book is so tedious and uninspired that I cannot think of any way to write about it that would interest the CS audience, even though I have tried several gambits, none of which seem to work. Or, more dramatically, (4) this book treats a tragic condition of life which I, too, experienced once, and the book brought back to me too forcefully my sad situation in those days, so I find that I am existentially incapable of assessing the book objectively. I also heard that (5) the book dealt only with U.S./ English language sources regarding its chosen topic, and since it neglected a copious literature in other languages, it does not measure up to the reviewer’s standards, and therefore does not deserve review, at least in CS. For the sake of politeness and collegial good-will, let us assume that all of these reasons/excuses/rationalizations for not turning in a review are absolutely true, and that the would-be reviewers told me exactly what they honestly thought regarding the books in question. (Is it surprising to note that oftentimes the expiatory email is very nearly as long as the assigned review would have been? And that my response has several times been simply this: ‘‘Add a few paragraphs and send in your email as the review, please,’’ a plea which occasionally works, but not often enough.) Aside from the Old School issues revolving around apothegms like ‘‘a promise is a promise,’’ ‘‘duty above all else,’’ and so on, there is a far more practical issue. The specifics are these: Let us say a book arrives in the CS office in January; it will immediately be processed and stored, and within 1 or 2 months, the Editorial Board will be asked for reviewer nominations. After 2 or 3 more months under the best circumstances, reviewers will begin to be asked. Another month or two might elapse before a reviewer is found who agrees to evaluate American Sociological Association 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0094306110386712 http://cs.sagepub.com 655 Contemporary Sociology 39, 6 the book. So by now it is May or June. The book is sent out immediately upon receipt of the reviewer’s promise to review, and the reviewer is normally given two months to send us useable material. It is now July or August. Typically reviewers do not abide by the 2-month deadline and sit on the book for a while longer, until they tire of hearing from us, repeatedly. It is entirely possible that we will not see a review until September or later. So the book has been in our ‘‘care’’ for 9 or 10 months. Obviously, if a reviewer balks at the very end, we must start over practically from the beginning, especially if we have exhausted the finite list of potential reviewers nominated by our Editorial Board. Since timeliness matters, this situation hurts the author and publisher of the book under review, the internal workings and schedules of the CS staff, and probably the ozone layer. But there is, of course, a larger question about this inability to deliver the goods that transcends mere schedule-busting. Most of the hesitation seems to originate in a dread of angering or displeasing someone whom, in most cases, is personally unknown to the reviewer. What is the source of this timidity? CS would never allow a gratuitously meanspirited review to appear in its pages. But is it not a platitude in the Academy that lively, constructive, polite debate is the foundation of intellectual advance? Or is that too much a premodern notion in a postmodern world, a print-era practice which our screen-driven existence has expunged since it exhibits too much in-your-face-ism? One could also talk about generational shifts, of course. What was ‘‘collegially proper’’ in 1910 was entirely crushed by 1925 via looser norms, and for good reason. So perhaps there is abroad a new set of interactional rules which prohibits straightforward disagreement or challenges to a stated scholarly position. Taken to its extreme, this would mean that journals like CS will cease to exist (until, inevitably, they are revived) since reviewing means by definition taking a position, explaining it, approving or disapproving of the book under review, and not being afraid to say whatever requires saying under one’s own name—not in anonymous reviews of the kind that used to appear in literary magazines. If it is, as I have argued in a previous editorial, a duty for scholars to carry out reviewing as part of their professional persona, then it follows that submitting a review one has agreed to write is equally dutybound. Short of debilitating illness, personal tragedy, or war, sending in the review one has promised to write, even if late (a common and forgivable occurrence), makes scholarly discourse at the highest levels possible. Riley Dunlap was instrumental in assembling the symposium on Freudenburg et al., and CS would like to thank him for his help. 656 Editor’s Remarks Contemporary Sociology 39, 6 A SYMPOSIUM ON CATASTROPHE IN THE MAKING: THE ENGINEERING OF KATRINA AND THE DISASTERS OF TOMORROW Canal to Hell: Elite Strategies as Blunder and Mayhem