The sociology of disasters

Résumé du document

It is customary to consider the disaster or a catastrophe as a phenomenon essentially tied to the vagaries of nature or as a byproduct of human activities. In both cases, it is approached through a perspective of emergency that rarely leaves room for interpretation on the functioning of social systems. Recently, the prevailing public opinion has begun to look at these events with different eyes. In the wake of scientific, political programs and social mobilization around climate change, people have begun to consider the natural disasters in terms of social effects that the change climate may cause. However, natural disasters are not just for social events that produce the effects on the dynamics and relationships of a company, but they are also social phenomena by their very definition, origin and scope. In other words, they are essentially social from the sociological perspective.

Extraits

[...] Conclusion The sociological approach to the study of disasters is therefore important both because it allows us to assess what conditions which may offset the dangerous effects of a disaster, reducing stress and caused the crisis of social community (Durkheim believed that the anomic condition could originate after periods deep political crisis, military or social - as the case of Hurricane Katrina), and because looking at the situation of crisis tries to explain its functioning. In other words, to make the perspective of the sociology of disasters innovative and useful is its own particular point of view, which addresses the phenomenon not only as an emergency, but as resources, such as magnifying glasses to better understand our small world. Reference Lars Clausen: "Social Differentiation and the Long-Term Origin of Disasters", Natural Hazards No p. 181-190, ISSN 0921-030X Enrico Quarantelli What Is A Disaster? [...]

[...] Earlier what was said was not enough to know the number of victims or the value of damaged property to determine if we were faced with a disaster or not. In fact, if the disaster is a social product and a mental construction / cultural, then it means that we impose such a meaning to the experience of things (or disaster) through symbolic dimensions: how the sense of vulnerability, the adequacy of the interpretations available and adequate to explain the event and, finally, the social representation of death in the community. [...]

[...] The Discovery The first sociologist to study the disaster was Prince, who linked the importance of these phenomena in relation to social change. Studying the famous explosion of 6 December 1917 a French ship laden with explosives near the port of Halifax, Prince called the disaster "as an event that causes the subversion of order or system of things." In other words, for the student the disaster represented an interference with the normal balance of society, namely social change. This first explanation is crucial in the future sociological perspective; as we shall see below, find their common denominator is precisely on this basis. [...]

[...] Conclusion vii. Reference Abstract It is customary to consider the disaster or catastrophe as a phenomenon essentially tied to the vagaries of nature or as a byproduct of human activities. In both cases, it is approached through a perspective of emergency that rarely leaving room for interpretation on the functioning of social systems. Recently, public opinion has begun to look at these events with different eyes: in the wake of scientific, political programs and social mobilization around climate change, has begun to consider the natural disasters in terms of social effects that the change climate may cause. [...]

[...] Parallel to this process of increased attention and coverage information, even sociology has begun to approach to disasters, emphasizing and concentrating on its social dimension, with the approach of the framework defines the disaster itself and makes them feel as such. Quarantelli and Dynes, for example, believe that the disaster is essentially a social phenomenon and is therefore identifiable in social terms. The two authors, the physical or spatial epicenter as the magnitude of an earthquake, are simply properties of space rather than in the means by which to define or even explain the phenomenon. [...]