The Characteristics and Importance of Japanese Disaster Sociology: Perspectives from
Regional and Community Studies in Japan
Rinpei Miura
Summary This article aims to establish the position of disaster sociology in Japan—
primarily conducted by sociologists in the field of regional and community studies—as asignificant reference for disaster research, worldwide. The literature on resilience, which
is an important thematic component of disaster research, is a significant area ofcontribution within Japanese disaster sociology. This article provides an overview of theresearch on resilience within disaster sociology, followed by a discussion of four related
dimensions: (1) economic development, (2) information and communication, (3)community competence, and (4) social capital. Subsequently, the article focuses on two
characteristics of Japanese disaster sociology—a heuristic approach and a social vision—that are typically applied in resilience research. Both of these characteristics provide
clues for bridging the discontinuity between the broader discipline of sociology anddisaster sociology.
１．Introduction
As a seismic country, Japan has weathered severe earthquakes during the last 20
years. The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake that occurred in 1995 was one of thestrongest earthquakes to hit an urban area within a developed country. In 2011, theGreat East Japan Earthquake, which was the most powerful quake recorded in Japan,
and one of the four most powerful in the world, devastated an even larger area andclaimed more lives. This was because of the meltdowns resulting from the earthquake
and tsunami-compromised reactor cooling systems, and subsequent hydrogen explosions
in Fukushima.
As a subject of study, disasters in Japan carry wider global implications for all othercountries (Kingston 2012). It is likely that no other country has the level of experienceand preparedness for dealing with such disasters as Japan does. Thus, acquiring an
understanding of how the Japanese, ranging from individuals to communities and local
governments, have dealt with these disasters is an important area of inquiry within
disaster research.
Disaster research has tended to focus mainly on the US, Thus, it is important tounderstand how Japan’s disaster responses differ from those of the US, given variationsin the geographical areas, economies, risk management practices, and institutions of thetwo countries. Considering the experiences of other nations will be beneficial for building
disaster theory.
Indeed, Japanese disaster research per se should be recognized as an important bodyof literature. In particular, disaster research in which Japanese sociologists working in
the field of regional and community studies have played a key role, will provide valuable
insights for disaster sociology. The reason is that disaster research in Japan not only
shares a number of common themes with foreign research, but it also provides clues forsolving problems raised by researchers in other countries.
Focusing on recovery, which is a central theme within disaster research, this article
clarifies the important contribution of regional and community studies in Japan. 1 The
second section discusses how current studies can be positioned to contribute to the newresilience paradigm. The third section of the article focuses in detail on two characteristic
approaches applied in Japanese disaster sociology that typically feature in research on
resilience. These are: a heuristic approach and a social vision. The first aims to unravel
institutional issues through an analysis of the problem. The second highlights the agency
of movements that attempt to find solutions to this issue in the process of shaping adesirable society.
These characteristic approaches offer us clues regarding appropriate solutions foraddressing the problem of discontinuity between the broader discipline of sociology anddisaster sociology. As the fourth section emphasizes, resolving this issue has been
deemed an important research task. Japanese sociologists in the field of regional andcommunity studies have reexamined sociological theses relating to civil society and theconcept of publicness by focusing on an issue that was not fully explored within previous
sociological theses. These studies will provide valuable perspectives for sociology in
general.
2. How has Recovery been Discussed?

2.1 A Sociological Definition of Recovery: Processes toward Developing a New Society
Within disaster research, recovery is the least-understood phase of the disaster cycle(Rubin et al. 1985; Berke, Kartez, and Wenger 1993; Berke and Beatley 1997; Mileti
1999). However, a number of researchers have attempted to share insights on postdisaster issues, mainly in the US (Haas, Kates, and Bowden 1977; Drabek and Key 1984;
Oliver-Smith 1986; Bates and Peacock 1993; Chang 2010; Jordan and Javernick-Will
Japanese disaster sociology includes various studies conducted on pre-disaster issues
and emergency management (Iwasaki et al. 1999). However, the present work focuses
only on post-disaster research.

1

2014; Richardson, Siebeneck, and Shaunfield 2014; Johnson 2014).
My review of this body of literature indicates a need to revise the concept of recovery
employed within previous research. In particular, the perspective that equates “recovery”
with post-disaster reconstruction of the physical environment is becoming problematic(Tierney and Oliver-Smith 2012:125).
A number of researchers have attempted to develop a definition that frames recovery
as a set of processes toward fostering a new society. Recovery may thus be viewed as an
adaptive process that negotiates the tension between the re-establishment of predisaster systems and significant post-disaster alterations of those same systems (Tierney
and Oliver-Smith 2012).
Japanese recovery-focused disaster sociology can provide a substantial reference fordisaster research that is guided by this new definition of recovery. This is because
recovery has been conceptualized by Japanese sociologists not as a return to the statusquo ante, but as a series of processes toward fostering a new society (Ooyane 2007).
This approach is influenced by the difficult experiences relating to the Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake. Whereas many victims hoped for a return to a normal life after the disaster,“developmentalism” or the use of money to restore infrastructure actually led to thedissolution of several communities. Many victims had to leave the disaster-affected areas.
This kind of recovery-related issue was again observed after the Great East Japan
Earthquake.
The issue here is the prevailing assumption that the first priority is restoration of
infrastructure, whereas the foremost post-disaster concern of victims is rehabilitation of
their lives. Moreover, Japanese disaster sociologists recognize that recovery is somethingthat each victim and community should independently discuss with respect to forging adesirable consensus-based society. There is a wealth of literature in Japan that considers
recovery as a process toward building a new society, thus contributing to resilience theory.

2.2. Resilience as a Series of Processes
Contemporary disaster research has yielded an extensive body of literature on
resilience, which has emerged as a new paradigm in relation to recovery. This entails an
increasing focus on what affected communities can do for themselves and how best to
strengthen them (Manyena 2006).
Unlike the concept of “vulnerability,” which is applied to identify weak points andproblems hidden within a social structure, the concept of resilience has entailed focusing,assessing, and promoting latent possibilities that exist within the social structure.
Regional and community research in Japan is compatible with the concept of resiliencefor assessing community competence, given its coverage of independent anti-disasterorganizations.
Nonetheless, resilience remains an ambiguous concept that can be misunderstood tomean a return to the pre-disaster status quo. It would, therefore, be productive forsociological research on recovery to consider resilience as a process that entails adapting
to changes in the environment and shaping a “desirable” society (Urano et al. 2007;
Urano 2010; Izumi 2015). Such a perception is aligned with the recent trend in disaster
research of shifting from a predominantly outcome-oriented approach to a more processoriented approach, in relation to disaster resilience (Manyena 2006). Consequently, thisarticle considers resilience as a process of gathering and integrating various resources
for fostering a desirable society.
Many scholars have put forward different opinions on what resources constituteresilience. Norris et al. (2008) have developed an excellent classification systemcomprising four dimensions of resilience: economic development, information andcommunication, community competence, and social capital. 2
Each dimension has been examined within Japanese disaster sociology. This includes,for example, how individuals have moved forward in concert with their communities andlocal governments toward developing a resilient society, and identifying problems andpossibilities, albeit without explicitly applying the concept of resilience. The following
subsections provide an overview of research on the above four dimensions withinregional and community studies.
2.2.1 Economic Development: Objectification of the Moral Economy
The capacity to distribute post-disaster resources to those most in need of them is a
crucial aspect of community resilience. However, there are few empirical studies
available as references. A large number of researchers lack a complete understanding of
the roles played by private capital, professional groups, and nonprofit organizations(NPOs), as well as of the means of distributing resources to meet local needs. These gaps
have been described as “zones of uncertainty” (Smith and Birkland 2012:152). Moreover,a study conducted by Klein (2007) to clarify the important role of private capital has notbeen corroborated within the literature. The contribution of these networks of private
capital and nonprofit organizations to recovery levels in the US has not been examined.
In the context of Japan, Nitagai (2015) has noted how civil society distributes private
Norris (2008) considered these four dimensions to be overlapping and interrelated
rather than exclusive. He also described them as culturally specific to the US. Therefore,
observing whether these resources exist within other cultures would be an importantresearch task.
2

capital and nonprofit derived funds to vulnerable victims based on the concept of a“moral economy.” However, his definition of a moral economy contradicts pre-capitalistic
morals.
[The moral economy comprises] economic activities and practices motivated by norms
and principles, that entail a perception of social support for releasing people from
pathos as a natural thing [for] human beings and a natural duty as a member of society
when people find it difficult to become independent, as in the case of disasters. (Nitagai
2015: 5, translation mine)
For Nitagai, it is necessary for a local community to have access to various forms of“economy” to achieve independence. He subsequently classified the following types of
economy during times of disaster: a public economy, a market economy, and a moral
economy. He found that a civil society produced and supported a moral economy forvulnerable victims.
Goods, specifically fukko (recovery) goods, or the outputs of victims engaged in
activities that help them to reach definite goals in their lives, have constituted a concrete
research subject. Such goods include hand-made stuffed dolls, woodworks, andornaments. Unlike market goods, fukko goods are priced for charity. Consumers buy
them to support victims striving to achieve “independence”. Nitagai explored thepossibilities and tasks relating to the moral economy by investigating how thisenterprise was sustained. 3
2.2.2 Information and Communication

According to Norris (Norris et al. 2008), information and communication are vital for

fostering community resilience. Communication, in this context, refers to the creation ofcommon meanings and understandings, as well as the provision of opportunities formembers to articulate their needs, views, and attitudes. 4

In the field of economics, similar activities entailed in the concept of a “gift economy”
have been studied (Nagamatsu 2006, 2008). However, a gift economy is conceptualized
as simply having complementary role that help usher a return to the previously
established market economy. By contrast, activities entailed in a moral economy areviewed not as temporary, but as starting points of the process toward building a newsociety that encompasses vulnerable groups.
4 Although Norris did not refer to cultural aspects as resources for developing
community resilience, culture can be located in the information and communication
arena. Japanese disaster sociology has revealed the importance of culture for fostering aresilient society. For example, Mugikura and Yoshino (2014) highlighted the importanceof symbols for looking forward to a common future and for sustaining hope. Kanabishi
3

The most effective means of communicating risks and recommendations to the public
have also been the focus of a number of previous studies. Much of our understanding of
human responses to warnings stems from older research that has been based primarilyon theories of persuasive communication. This linear model, which assumes a top-down
flow of information to the public, now needs to be revised (Dash and Hugh 2007;
Solensen and Solensen 2007).
In particular, the function of information and communication as resources cannot be
attributed solely to governmental management. Indeed, information assumes abidirectional flow: how the government and professionals understand the situation, how
the media reports the situation, and how victims receive and grasp information.
There has been less discussion on this theme within Japanese regional and community
studies. However, after analyzing evacuation procedures during the Great East Japan
Earthquake, Tanaka (2013) clarified that the methods applied within a governmentcentric, top-down system in which warnings are issued from a centralized authority andcommunicated to civilians, are not sufficiently effective. Instead, evacuation proceduresthat rely on the competence of groups, such as schools and communities, are actuallymore effective. Thus, whereas recipients within the previous communication model wereconsidered as “individuals in a social vacuum in reality, they were located within social
networks. Disaster-planning paradigms should consequently be revised to account forsocial networks in relation to the flow of information. This finding applies not only during
times of emergency, but also in the aftermath of disasters.
However, the nuclear accident in Fukushima presents complications in this respect.
At the time, information concerning the nuclear accident had had the quality of being
not well known. Its flow, as well as understanding regarding Fukushima, led to a difficult
situation. Yamashita (2013) has clearly described this complicated situation. The firstproblem is one of trust, as the government did not provide sufficient information at theoutset. Yamashita has described the center-periphery system that prevailed during thedisaster in terms of a kouiki (expanded) system. He has further highlighted the following
issues concerning information and communication at that time.
・Important decision making and the information flow were centrally executed.
・Although the government implemented a recovery plan in the stricken areas, theneeds of the victims (livelihood rehabilitation, regional revitalization, and health)were not considered.
(2014) noted that mourning the deceased within a community, instead of grieving within
the bereaved family, results in congregative experiences and feelings. It also prevents
the bereaved family from being isolated. Such a culture, formed within the community,
plays a vital role in fostering community resilience.

・Victims were forced to determine whether to go back to the affected areas without
being provided with sufficient information.
・Victims were divided by generation, profession, and their evacuation situations. In
this regard, summarizing options should have been a priority task.
Second, Yamashita has insisted that the understanding of victims was in fact “nonunderstanding,” which entails “believing in the understanding [at face value]” asopposed to misunderstanding. As this type of understanding has prevailed among those
professionals and Japanese people located outside of the stricken areas, theircommunication with victims consequently suffered (Yamashita et al. 2013).
Accordingly, Yamashita and Sato analyzed discussions that took place at the town
meeting held to facilitate communication among victims within their community (Sato2014). The victims grasped the fact that this activity constituted a vital step toward
recovery. 5 The characteristics of this town meeting differed from those of meetings heldin the US in the following ways. First, membership was limited to residents, and second,grouping was done according to generation or attributes. The aim of the Japanese town
meeting was to promote conversations among victims who shared the same
circumstances, while also indicating how they were divided, situated, and incapable ofcommunicating. Indeed, town meetings need to be examined in terms of their functionof building community resilience.
2.2.3 Community Competence
A turning point in the development of community resilience occurs when at-risk
communities, after learning about the threats they face, along with their options, enjoin
members to work together flexibly and creatively to resolve problems. Studies incountries such as the US and Europe have shed light on community efforts to reducerisks and resource inequities, engage locals in planning, create organizational linkages,
and boost and maintain social support (Ganor 2003; Perez-Sales 2005). 6
According to a report, victims did not engage in a collective behavior during theChernobyl incident, because they did not have access to the appropriate resources(Abbott et al. 2006). In the case of Fukushima, supporters promoted collective behavior
and communication among victims by providing resources from the outside.
6 In the same way, Japanese research on disaster sociology has led to the expansion ofa body of literature on community competence. Researchers have clarified why such
efforts are needed, what problems confront communities, and what outcomes
communities can expect. Special attention has been given to community planning forrecovery within research. Moreover, efforts to forge a community of diverse people—for
example, foreigners, the disenfranchised, and people with disabilities—following theKobe Earthquake have been analyzed in detail (Moon 2000; Itou 2000; Shimizu 1998,
2002, 2004).
5However, there has been a lack of discussion on the underlying conditions of an
altruistic community in the field of disaster research (Richardson et al. 2014). Within
Japanese regional and community studies, this research has been characterized by ahesitation to presuppose the existence of an altruistic community.
An ideal community cannot be presupposed to exist within contemporary society,which continues to experience fast-paced urbanization and privatization (Shimizu 2008;
Yoshihara 2015). Japanese disaster sociologists have instead focused on the social
processes that define a community’s character and the norms, logics, and practices that
affect communities. Contrasting with international research, problem setting inJapanese research centers on an examination of the functions and significance ofcommunities within contemporary society through the study of disaster cases.
For example, a study by Ryo Shimizu (1998) that investigated community planning for
promoting recovery in Kobe City revealed that community organizations tended toadhere to “a logic of residence.” This entailed the goal of ensuring that local residents
could return to their community, that is, of making communities as “returnable” aspossible. The study further showed that a “logic of ownership,” applying rhetoric andevents, was used to persuade land owners to readjust land for renters and tenants.
Institutional problems that constrain the development of an altruistic community havealso been clarified. It has been found that a uniform institutional framework does notaccount for local variety, and that partnerships do not delegate authority to local
governments or victims (Miwa and Sato 1999; Kimura and Urano 1999; Urano 1999).
Mugikura and Yoshino (2014) concluded that determining a common land use is the mostimportant element within community planning. These problems and tasks would beshared by many communities within disaster-affected areas.
2.2.4

Social Capital, Community Bonds, and Social Support

Social capital is a highly relevant theme relating to the development of a theory ofcommunity resilience (Aldrich 2012). However, it has not been broadly discussed within
Japanese disaster studies. Rather, the focus has been on community bonds and social
support, both of which are components of social capital (Norris et al. 2008).
Japanese regional and community studies have tended not to presuppose the existenceof community bonds. As in the case of community competence, the literature has tended
to focus on a detailed analysis of the background context and functions of community
bonding For example, Matsui (2011) found that bonding engendered mutual support foraiding recovery when the concept was reassessed with disaster as a turning point.
Yoshihara (2013) has insisted on making a distinction between the discourse of

community bonds and actual communities. Specifically, Yoshihara has critiqued thecreation of “self-government[s] in line with national policy” (Yoshihara 2013:103) inrelation to community bonds, as this discourse does not adequately respond to the needsof victims and may even delay recovery. He then assessed communities’ efforts to create“another community-government” and establish networks involving various subjects forresponding to the needs of victims in a positive light. In a subsequent paper, referring to
Delanty (2003), Yoshihara (2015) concluded that during the recovery phase, a “spatially
fixed community” could not respond to the diversifying needs of victims. He highlighted
the importance of creating “community as belonging” through the interactions of various
individuals.
Turning now to social, support, as previously mentioned, Norris used the term “social
support” to refer to social interactions that provide individuals with practical assistanceand embed them within a web of social relationships perceived to be loving, caring, andreadily available in times of need (Norris et al. 2008).
Various researchers have explored volunteerism in Japan, focusing on volunteers toclarify their roles and achievements following the Kobe Earthquake. However, in the US
context, although the importance of volunteers during disasters has been recognized(Tierney, Lindell, and Perry 2001), discussion on them has been limited. The disastervolunteer is considered solely as a subset of volunteerism in general. Consequently no
special attention has been paid to disaster volunteers within the wider body of researchon volunteers (Atsumi and Goltz 2014).
Japanese disaster research has contributed significantly in this respect. Various
researchers have discussed the roles of volunteers related to disasters and recovery
outcomes (Asano and Aragaki 2000; Yamashita and Suga 2002; Suga, Yamashita, andAtsumi 2008; Nishiyama 2005; Nitagai 2008). Studies have elucidated the factors that
influence the responses of disaster volunteers, on behalf of responsible institutions, tothe various needs of victims.
Although volunteers’ activities tend to be considered as synonymous with emergency
responses, Japanese studies have revealed their post-disaster significance, especially foraiding community recovery. In particular, volunteerism has the social effect of fostering
relationships between volunteers and vulnerable victims. Such social relationships havebeen theoretically conceptualized as indicators of civil society supporting the lives ofindividuals.
A typical argument relates to the “subsistence” thesis propounded by Nishiyama(2005), who provided the following definition.

[Subsistence refers to the] fundamental activities concerning human existence [that]adhere to each person’s individuality [by] thoroughly involving other people.
(Nishiyama 2005: 38)
For Nishiyama, social support is not unidirectional; rather, it fosters a mutually
supportive relationship. Such a relationship affirms the mutual existence of individuals
and transcends a relationship entailing general support. Through mutual affirmation,
victims come to conceive of a mutual relationship as one that entails independence. 7
Nishiyama found that volunteers’ activities in support of such independence were
influential in shaping a desirable civil society.
As stated above, Japanese research on disaster volunteers has focused on thepossibility of volunteers who do not presuppose the need for institutions in theirvolunteerism. In other words, they view institutions as a problem, because these
institutions cannot respond to individuals’ needs. Thus, vulnerable groups cannot be
helped solely by institutions (Shimizu 2002; Mitsui 2014).
Nonetheless, the literature does not totally negate the role of institutions andinstitutionalization. The fact that networks of volunteers have been institutionalized topromote civil activities since the enactment of the NPO law (1998) merits someappreciation.
However, in the process of institutionalization, a number of NPOs have become
dependent on government subsidies, seemingly unable to survive without them.
Consequently, after the Great East Japan Earthquake, a number of NPOs prioritized the
procurement and consumption of subsidies, as mandated by the institutional framework,
rather than supporting vulnerable groups who tend to be excluded from institutionalized
support. Indeed, a number of researchers identified the problem of insufficient support
provided by institutionalized NPOs after the Great East Japan Earthquake (e.g., Suga
2014; Yamashita 2014).
Hence, Japanese disaster researchers have explored how disaster volunteers havecovered areas that seem to be beyond the reach of institutions. Such efforts are
considered a crucial form of social support for building community resilience.
3. Perspectives from Disaster Sociology within JapanAs discussed above, regional and community studies in Japan have examinedresources that are important elements for fostering resilience. These elements are:This aspect relates to the problematic assumption of independence relating to a “single
active subject who can do anything” within the social sciences.

7

economic development, information and communication, community competence, andsocial capital.
However, there are two perspectives that enable transcendence over the resilience
thesis in problem setting. The first is a perspective for problematizing institutions inrelation to the pathos of victims who are not accommodated by these institutions. The
second is a perspective for anticipating the possibilities of social movements within the
non-institutional domain. These perspectives are characteristic of disaster sociology inJapan, and offer clues for connecting disaster sociology with the broader discipline ofsociology.

3.1 The Perspective on Institutional Problematizing

Using survey data, Japanese sociologists engaged in regional and community studies

have tended to focus on the problem of emerging gaps in institutional disaster
responses. 8
The focus on institutional problems has not been limited to the recovery phase, but

has also extended to other disaster response phases.
For example, studies have revealed that the institutional problem of moving victims
into temporary housing, thereby separating them from their established social networks
results in kodokushi (dying alone). Studies have also addressed the issue of urban
planning that prioritizes redevelopment for disaster recovery (Itou 1998; Ooyane 1999;
Urano 1999; Oohori 2012), as well as that of institutional subsidies, which entail
prioritization of formal equality rather than correction of disparities (Tsuji 2001).
After the Great East Japan Earthquake, more than the absence of a fundamental law
relating to comprehensive recovery of the affected areas, the most serious problem
resulted from the fact that institutions were not created from the victims’ standpoints,
thereby producing disparities between them (Kuroda 2014). Asano (2015) has critiqued
the national recovery plan for its assumption of “selection and concentration” from theperspective of national interests and capital accumulation, as well as for ignoring
affected areas that happened to be farming and fishing villages. The policy entailed
partial choices (“go back prepared for exposure to radiation” or “immigrate by oneself,”
as it was based on a “hurry back and realize recovery” goal. Thus, the policy itself wasan obstructive factor for the recovery of communities.
Japanese sociologists engaged in regional and community studies have focused on
Evidently, a heuristic approach, per se, is not an original perspective. Many
researchers share this perspective. For example, Berke and his colleagues (1993: 98)
attempted to elucidate the recovery process, to uncover ways of improving recovery
outcomes, and to define the factors that influence outcomes.

8institutional problems, offering practical insights that are not limited to disaster
research. They have studied individual social problems that are caused by institutions.
Consequently, an important perspective entails anticipation of the possibilities of social
movements that problematize institutions and complement gaps in the non-institutional
domain.

3.2 A Social Vision Perspective for Anticipating Possibilities of Movements within the

Non-Institutional Domain

Japanese sociologists have turned their attention to possible movements thatproblematize institutions and support victims who have been excluded in the disaster
responses of institutions. Such movements are deemed an important catalyst forbuilding a desirable society.
This perspective considers a social movement to be an agent involved in solving
current institutional problems. It is anchored in an accumulated body of research onsocial movements (resident movements) that has critiqued state-led urban development.
Since the 1970s, studies on resident movements have problematized the social structurethat causes upheaval the lives of residents. Such movements have been conceived as astarting point for changing the social structure. Researchers have endeavored to shedlight on the opportunities and tasks related to this change.
This perspective has influenced disaster research in Japan. Above all, with the Kobe
Earthquake as a benchmark, the distance between the movement and the researcher
has decreased. They have come to deepen mutual understanding and to share theproblems.
This change has been influenced by the practical question that was raised after the
Kobe Earthquake, namely: What can sociologists do for victims? Thus far, sociologists
have clarified institutional problems, as well as discussed the effects of movements
within the non-institutional domain, consequently insisting on their theoreticalimportance. However, the role of sociologists themselves requires a reexamination in thecurrent context.
Various sociologists have attempted to contribute by rejecting the established notionthat researchers expect movements to be initiated, one-sidedly, from the outside. As
reported by Ooyane and Atsumi (2007), disaster-related surveys differ from those
conducted within general social research. Victims and volunteers tend not to accept
temporal relationships with researchers, resulting in a one-sided understanding ofresearchers. To establish a rapport with research subjects, the researcher has tointerpret the problems and tasks of research subjects, thereby going beyond theestablished mechanics of a researcher–research subject relationship.
Nitagai’s (2008) concept of “common act” is relevant to this discussion. Specifically,
Nitagai has asserted that observing and recording a victim’s “unsetting action” for hopeand then discovering opportunities to realize this “unsetting action,” commonly throughinteractive communication, provide a role for sociologists to support victims 9. Shimizu(2014: 64–65) understood this approach to entail not “just listening to [the] researchsubject” but also “sharing the task of movements by sharing time and space with [the]research subject, and deepening mutual understanding.”
This type of survey, which can be compared to an “active interview” (Holstein andGubrium 1995), offers researchers an opportunity to acquire a deeper understanding of
the thoughts of the research subject and the tasks that they face. More importantly, theresearcher can consequently revise his or her concepts and thesis. Yamashita (2013: 291)
further noted that by thinking with the research subject, the researcher has theopportunity to share and rethink his or her own knowledge.
To deepen such mutual understanding, Japanese sociologists have begun to support
the practices of research subjects. 10 For example, after the Great East Japan
Earthquake, Nitagai and Shimizu (2015) supported organizations that listened to
victims through “footbath” activities or fukko goods. Yamashita and Sato (2013) also
supported town meetings held to facilitate communication on resettlement and othermore general future-related issues. Further, various researchers and professionals haveestablishednetworks

foraddressing

varioustasks.

These

have

included

institutionalization preferences that entail linking research outputs with policies(Kuroda 2015).
Such plans and practices serve to critique previous perspectives that consideredvictims as simply passive subject[s]. This critique also applies to the broader disciplineof sociology.
Above all, these contemporary perspectives highlight a crucial difference between
Japanese disaster sociology and international disaster research. Stallings (2007) insisted
that the researcher should not be involved with the research subjects to ensure
The victim’s “unsetting action” means the action aimed at overcoming hopelesssituation. It is not sure whether the action would bring hope, but it is worth to do suchactivity.
10 This stance has been critiqued by a number of sociologists. For example, Asano (2015)
has expressed misgivings regarding research conducted on social support in which theresearcher assumes a position of equality with the other parties. Both the researcher
and the other parties inevitably experience a gap. Thus the one planning the “common
act” is presupposing that sustainers and not parties are equal subjects. At any rate, therelationship between sustainers and research subjects is an important avenue of query.
9

objectivity regarding the information gathered on the disaster. This view seems to havebeen the basic stance employed in disaster research so far. Although not necessarily
misguided, the “one-sidedly discussing from [the] outside” stance would not be useful forsolving the problem relating to disaster research, which is discontinuity between the
broader discipline of sociology and disaster sociology.

4. Conclusion: Toward Connection with the Broader Discipline of Sociology
In recent years, an identified problem within disaster research is indifference tosociological theses (Quarantelli 2005: 330). For example, Tierney concluded as follows:
Disaster researchers must stop organizing their inquiries around problems that aremeaningful primarily to the institutions charged with managing disasters and instead
concentrate on problems that are meaningful to the discipline. They must integrate
the study of disasters with core sociological concerns, such as social inequality, social
diversity, and social change. (Tierney 2007: 520)
Numerous sociologists engaged in regional and community studies have examineddisasters with the intention of connecting disaster research with sociological theses.
They have conceptualized disasters as typical events that reflect the various problems
entailed in the social structure. These include: loss of bonding, economic decline,
depopulation, and disparity.
The two perspectives, discussed above, are aimed at forging a connection between
disaster sociology and sociological theses. First, the heuristic approach brings
opportunities for reframing problems arising in disaster situations as societal problems
relating to the social order, social structure, social relations, and civil society. When aproblem emerges that cannot be explained in terms of established theses, then the earlier
theses need to be improved or modified.
For example, the institutional issue relating to residents’ cards (Watado 2014) 11 andthe problem of “self-government in line with national policy” (Yoshihara 2013) havecompelled a rethinking of the “principle of settling” that is implicitly entailed in theconcept of community. Thus, by attending to the fluidity that characterizes a modern city,a viewpoint that contextualizes the previous community thesis emerges. Such a
In Fukushima, victims suffered various disadvantages if they did not change theaddresses on their resident cards to that of the place of refuge. However if they didchange their address, they were not entitled to receive compensation for medical
expenses provided to those under 18 years old.
11

perspective would innovate urban sociology. Indeed, disaster research would benefit froma perspective that enables the discovery of problems on site, extraction of themes, andsubsequent innovation of the previous thesis.
Second, the perspective that positively assesses new practices and movements as animportant step toward a desirable society would bring about a much-needed
reexamination of theses relating to civil society and publicness. This raises importantquestions such as: In what situations do such new practices emerge? How could suchpractices be assessed from the perspective of the previously established theses on
publicness and civil society? Such queries would facilitate a conceptual re-examinationof earlier theses.
As an example, a study by Nitagai et al. (2008) considered the practices of volunteers
as a fundamental indicator of publicness. Volunteers supported those victims who could
not be reached through standard institutional responses. In doing so, they supported
each individual’s life, recognizing his or her uniqueness. Such activities were expected tocontribute toward the victim’s independence and the community’s recovery. Referring to
Arendt’s “space of appearance,” Nitagai concluded that: “The relationships and activities
which emerge on each occasion, concretely, temporarily, topically to support [the]individuality of life are the root of publicness.”(Nitagai et al 2008: xx) He insisted on
modifying the earlier thesis on publicness. Thus, a concept of publicness that
presupposes a diversity of lives serves as an alternative to the Habermasian concept of
publicness in which civil publicness is constructed by specifying commensurable
elements. 12
However, there is also a differing conceptualization of publicness. Yamashita (2008:4757) identified a form of publicness that was unique to Japan. He conceived of
publicness as being shared by the public. A movement aimed at sharing the burden ofresolving an emerging problem though collective cooperation would play an importantrole in fostering publicness.
In other words, the difference derives from the area of focus. Nitagai focused on theimportance of variability in the non-institutional domain, whereas Yamashita focused on
the importance of uniformity in the institutional domain. In either case, it is importantto recognize that regional and community studies in Japan offer a wealth of insights forlinking disaster studies with sociological theses. The existing body of research within
this field would provide valuable perspectives for disaster sociologists in other nations
Consequently, Nitagai (2012b) has argued that it is the task of contemporary civilsociety to expand such activities and networks among various professionals, tomutually support those who are vulnerable. The role of professionals and researchers
should be reexamined from the civil society thesis.
12and for the field of sociology in general.
References
Abbott, P. et al, 2006, “Chernobyl: Living with risk and uncertainty”, Health, Risk &Society, 8(2): 105-121.
Aldrich, D.P., 2012, Building Resilience—Social Capital in post-disaster recovery,
University of Chicago Press.
Asano, S. and M. Shingaki, 2000, “Hanshin awaji daishinsai hisaisha no seimei-seikatsu
katei to boranteia”, chiiki shakai gakkai nempo, 12: 119-137.
Asano. S, 2015, “Higashinihon daishinsai ga tsukitsukeru toi o ukete”, chiiki shakai
gakkai nempo, 27: 45-59.
Atsumi, T. and J. D. Goltz, “Fifteen Years of Disaster Volunteers in Japan: A
Longitudinal Fieldwork Assessment of a Disaster Non-Profit Organization”,

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 32(1): 220-240.
Bates, F. L. and W. G. Peacock. 1993, Living Conditions, Disasters and Development:

An Approach to Cross-Cultural Comparisons. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Berke, P.R. and T. Beatley, 1997, After the Hurricane: Linking Recovery to Sustainable

Development in the Caribbean. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore andLondon.
Berke, P.R., J. Kartez and D. Wenger, 1993, “Recovery after disaster: achieving
sustainable development, mitigation and equity”. Disasters, 17(2): 93–109.
Chang, S. E, 2010, “Urban Disaster Recovery: A Measurement Framework and Its
Application to the 1995 Kobe Earthquake.” Disasters, 34(2):303–27.
Dash, N. and G. Hugh, 2007, “Evacuation Decision Making and Behavioral Responses:
Individual and Household”, Nat. Hazards Rev.,8(3), 69-77.
Delanty, G. 2003, Community, Routledge: London.
Drabek, T. E. and W. H. Key. 1984, Conquering Disaster: Family Recovery and Long

Term Consequences. New York: Irvington.
Fothergill, A. and L. Peek 2004, “Poverty and Disasters in the United States: A Review
of Recent Sociological Findings”, Natural Hazards 32: 89–110.
Fritz, C., and H. Williams, 1957, “The human being in disasters: A research perspective”.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 309: 42–51.
Ganor, M., & Ben-Lavy, Y., 2003, “Community resilience: Lessons derived from Gilounder fire”, Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Winter/Spring, 105–108.
Haas, J.E. and R. Kates and M. Bowden, 1977, Reconstruction Following Disaster.
Cambridge: MIT Press.

Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium J.F, 1995, The active interview, Sage: London.
Itou, A, 1998, “Kobe shi no toshi seikatsu to shinsai fukko innashitei mondai o chushinni”— chiiki shakai gakkai nempo, 10: 37-54.
Itou, A., 2000, “fukko machizukuri no tenkai to machizukuri kyogikai no kanosei”,
shakaigaku zasshi, 17: 117-136.
Iwasaki N et al., 1999, Hanshin awaji daishinsai no shakaigaku no.1, showado.
Johnson, L. 2014, “Developing a Local Recovery Management Framework: Report on the
Post-Disaster Strategies and Approaches Taken by Three Local Governments in the
U.S. Following Major Disasters”, International Journal of Mass Emergencies andDisasters, 32(2): 242-274.
Jordan, E. and A. Javernick-Will, 2014, “Determining Causal Factors of Community
Recovery”, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 32(3):405-427.
Kanabishi, K, 2014, “samayoeru tamashii no yukue -- saigai shi no saiteii to kajona
komyunitei”, Ogino, M, and S. Araragi, 3.11 izen no shakaigaku－－hanshin awaji

daishinsai kara higashinihon daishinsai he, seikatsu shoin, 35-62.
Kimura, A. and M. Urano, 1999, “Jutaku / seikatsu saiken to kyodo purojiekuto”, Iwasaki
N et al., Hanshin awaji daishinsai no shakaigaku no.1, showado, 79-100.
Kingston, J. ed. 2012, Natural Disaster and Nuclear Crisis in Japan, Routledge.
Klein, N., 2007, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York:
Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.
Kuroda, Y, 2014, “Kaidai -- higashinihon daishinsai ： fukko no kadai to chiiki
shakaigaku”, chiiki shakai gakkai nempo, 26: 5-9.
Kuroda, Y, 2015, “post 3.11 no chiiki shakai no seika to kadai”, chiiki shakai gakkai
nempo, 27: 5-11.
Manyena, S. B., 2006, “The concept of resilience revisited”, Disasters, 30(4), 434-450.
Matsui, K., 2011, Shinsai fukko no shakaigaku, riberuta shobo.
Mileti, D. S. and T. E. Drabek and J. E. Haas, 1975, Human Systems in Extreme

Environments: A Sociological Perspective. Boulder, Colo: Univ.
Mileti, D.S, 1999, Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the UnitedStates. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC.
Mitsui, S., 2014, “Futsu no koyuna hito to toshite no saigai jakusha -- shien to seidoka
no aida de --”, Ogino, M, and S. Araragi, 3.11 izen no shakaigaku—hanshin awaji

daishinsai kara higashinihon daishinsai he, seikatsu shoin. 122-136.
Miwa, Y. and A. Sato, 1999, “Sogoteki shisaku to fukko machizukuri no hatten”, Iwasaki
N et al., Hanshin awaji daishinsai no shakaigaku no.1, showado, 59-78.
Moon, J., 2000, “Shinsai to esunishitei – kobe shi nagata no kemikaru shuzu sangyo nosaisei to kyosei no machizukuri”, chiiki shakai gakkai nempo, 12: 55-78.
Mugikura, T. and H.Yoshino., 2014, “Iwate ken ni okeru bosai to fukko no kadai”,
shakaigaku hyoron, 64(3): 402-418.
Nagamatsu,S., 2006, “Chiiki keizai no fukko no kagi ha nanika? : joyo keizai to shijo
keizai ni kansuru kosatu yori”, ron — hisai kara no saisei, kansai gakuin daigaku
shuppankai, 211-231.
Nagamatsu S., 2008, gendai seisaku ron nyumon, kobundo.
Nishiyama, S., 2005, “boranteia katsudo no ronri”, toshindo.
Nitagai, K., 2008, “Futatabi kyodo koi he — hanshin awaji daishinsai no chosa kara”,
Nitagai K ed., 2008, Jiritsu shien no jissen chi, toshindo, 31-46.
Nitagai K ed., 2008, Jiritsu shien no jissen chi, toshindo.
Nitagai, K., 2012a, “Disaster-time Economy and an Economy of Morals : A Different
Economic Order from the Market Economy under Globalization”, International Journalof Japanese Sociology, 21: 77-83.
Nitagai K, 2012b, “Jissen chi to shite no kokyosei”, K. Seiyama et al (eds), Kokyo

shakaigaku 1, tokyo daigaku shuppankai.
Nitagai, K., 2015, “moraru ekonomi to boranteia keizai – saigai ji keizai no mohitotsu no
keizai chitsujo--“, Nitagai, K, and N. Yoshihara, Shinsai to shimin 1 -- rentai keizai tokomyunitei saisei, tokyou daigaku shuppankai, 3-23.
Norris F. H. et al, 2008, Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities,
and Strategy for Disaster Readiness, American Journal of Community Psychology,
41(1): 127-150.
Oliver-Smith, A, 1986, The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in the Andes. Albuquerque,
NM: The University of New Mexico Press.
Oliver-Smith, A, 2010, “Haiti and the Historical Construction of Disasters”, NACLA

Report on the Americas, 43:32-37.
Oohori K., 2012, “Okina machizukuri no ato de--kamaishi no fukko ni mukete—“,Akasaka, N., and E. Oguma(eds), henkyo kara hajimaru tokyou/tohoku ron, Akashi
syoten.
Ooyane J., 1999, “nishikita ekimae shotengai fukko to saikaihatsu jigo”, Iwasaki N et al.,Hanshin awazi daishinsai no shakaigaku no.1, shouwadou, 21-40.
Ooyane J., 2007, “Hisaichi ni okeru komyunitei no fukko to ha?” Urano, M. and J. Ooyane,
and T. Yoshikawa (eds), Saigai komyunitei ron nyumon, kobundo, 17-22.
Ooyane J., and K. Atsumi., 2007, “Saigai shakaigaku ni okeru kenkyu jissen”, J. Ooyane
et al (eds), Saigai shakaigaku nyumon, kobundo, 258-263.
Perez-Sales, P., Cervellon, P., Vazquez, C., Vidales, D., & Gaborit, M, 2005, “Post-

traumatic factors and resilience: The role of shelter management and survivors’
attitudes after the earthquakes in El Salvador”, Journal of Community and AppliedSocial Psychology, 15, 368–382.
Richardson, B. K. and L. K. Siebeneck and S. Shaunfield, 2014, From ““No Man’s Land”
to a “Stronger Community”: Communitas as a Theoretical Framework for Successful
Disaster Recovery”, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 32(1),194-219.
Rubin, C.B., M.D. Saperstein and D.G. Barbee, 1985, Community Recovery from a Major

Natural Disaster. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Sato, A., 2014, “Gempatsu hinansha no mondai o torimaku kozo — taun miteingu

jigyo

no torikumi kara mietekitakoto—“, shakaigaku hyoron, 64(3): 439-459.
Shimizu, R., 1998, “Shinsai fukko no machizukuri to tochi riyo”, chiiki shakai gakkai
nempo, 10: 19-36.
Shimizu, R., 2002, “Mondai no seidoteki kaiketsu to hi seidoteki kaiketsu”, chiiki shakai
gakkai nempo, 14: 36-52.
Shimizu, R., 2004, “Mondai kaiketsu katei ni miru chiiki no tayoka”, chiiki shakai gakkai
nenpou, 16: 23-37.
Shimizu R., 2008, "kyoju no ronri ni motozuku komyunitei keisei", Nitagai, K(ed), Jiritsu

shien no jissen chi, toshindo, pp157-196.
Shimizu, R., 2014, “Daikibo saigai ji ni okeru chiiki shakaigaku no kanosei”, chiiki syakai
gakkai nempo, 26: 61-74.
Solensen, John H. and Solensen, Barabara Vogt 2007, “Community Processes: Warningand Evacuation”, Rodriguez H. and E. L. Quarantelli and R. R. Dynes eds., Handbookof disaster research, Springer, 183-199.
Smith, G.P. and D. Wenger, 2007, Sustainable Disaster Recovery: Operationalizing An
Existing Agenda, Rodriguez H. and E. L. Quarantelli and R. R. Dynes eds., Handbookof disaster research, Springer, 234-257.
Smith, G.P. and T. Birkland, 2012, Building a Theory of Recovery: Institutional
Dimensions, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 30(2): 147-170.
Stallings, R.A. 2007, “Methodological issues”, Rodriguez H. and E. L. Quarantelli and R.
R. Dynes eds., Handbook of disaster research, Springer, 55-82.
Suga, M. and Y. Yamashita. And K. Atsumi, 2008, Shinsai boranteia ron nyumon,
kobundo.
Suga, M 2014, “Saigai boranteia — tasukeai no aratana sikumi no kanosei to kadai--,
Ogino, M, and S. Araragi, 3.11 izen no shakaigaku — hanshin awaji daishinsai kara

higashinihon daishinsai he, seikatsu shoin, 90-121.

Sullivan, M. 2003, Integrated recovery management: A new way of looking at a delicate
process, The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 18(2): 4-27.
Tanaka S. “Higashinihon dai shinsai o fumaeta bosai paradaimu tenkan”, shakaigaku
hyoron, 64(3): 366-385.
Tierney K. and M. K. Lindell and R.W. Perry, 2001, Facing the unexpected: Disaster

preparedness and response in the United States, Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Tierney K., 2007, “ From the Margins to the Mainstream? Disaster Research at the
Crossroads” , The Annual Review of Sociology, 33: 503-525.
Tierney K. and A. Oliver-Smith, 2012, “Social Dimensions of Disaster Recovery”,

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 30(2): 123-146.
Tsuji, K., 2001, Saigai katei to Saisei katei—hansin awazi dai shinsai no syou zyozishi,kouyou syobou.
Urano, M., 1999, “Awaji shima ni okeru kukaku seiri jigyo no konmei”, Iwasaki N et al.,Hanshin awaji daishinsai no shakaigaku no.1, showado, 101-111.
Urano, M et al., 2007, Fukko komyunitei ron nyumon, kobundo.
Urano, M., 2010, “Saigai kenkyu no akuchuaritei--saigai no zeijakusei / fukugen =kaifuku ryoku paradaimu o ziku to shite--, kankyo shakaigaku kenkyu16: 6-18.
Watado, I, 2014, “Higashi nihon daishinsai to toshi / chiiki shakaigaku no kadai :gempatsu hisaichi / hinansha no mondai o chuushin ni”, meisei daigaku shakaigaku
kenkyu kiyou, 34: 49-75.
Yamashita Y. and M. Suga, 2002, Shinsai boranteia no shakaigaku, mineruba shobo.
Yamashita Y., 2008, “Boranteia・Shimin katsudo to kokyosei”, Suga, M. and Y. Yamashita.
And K. Atsumi, 2008, Shinsai boranteia ron nyumon, kobundo, 48-58.
Yamashita Y. and T. Ichimura and A. Sato 2013, Ningen naki fukko—gempatsu hinan to

kokumin no hurikai o megutte—, Akashi shoten.
Yamashita Y., 2013, Tohoku hatsu no shinsai ron—shuhen kara kouiki shistemu okangaeru, chikuma shinsho.
Yamashita Y., 2014, “Boranteia ・ Shimin katsudou o meguru hanshin awaji daishinsai
to higashinihon daishinsai—Fukushima daiichi gempatsu jiko no shien to fukko otoinaosu kotokara--, shakaigaku nempou, 43: 65-74.
Yoshihara N., 2013, Gempatsu sama no machi kara no dakkyaku--ookuma machi kara

kangaeru komyunitei no mirai--, iwanami shoten.
Yoshihara N., 2015, “Kizoku to shiteno komyunitei”, Nitagai, K, and N. Yoshihara,

Shinsai to shimin 1 rentai keizai to komyunitei saisei, tokyo daigaku shuppankai, 207225.