Theory of Disaster: Earthquakes and Floods as Examples of Disasters

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
General Definition
Earthquakes and Floods as Examples of Disasters
Dombrowsky Reaction to Alexander, Cutter, Jigyasu and Britton Definitions
Conclusion
Work Cited

Introduction

The question that has been asked severally is what the term disaster really means. This makes the statement that the term ‘disaster’ has only temporary significance. This essay will discuss Dombrowsky’s view that language is structuring our perception of the world. With reference to the term ‘disaster’, the essay will be focused on the diversity of perspectives incorporated in different definitions that have been used by different theorists.

General Definition

Disasters can be said to be the tragic occurrences that human beings have no control over. When such occurrences happen, the outside force is usually too much that no amount of human effort can stop them. They are usually as a result of natural forces. The results of disasters are the changes in the predictable events and the nullifications of the efforts that had been previously made. There is usually loss of property as well as human life Oliver (1998:185). The survivors tend to be impaired in one way or the other in either the physical being or the psychological and emotional state of the person and often they leave people disappointed and frustrated. Sometimes, disasters are predictable while in other times the disasters just happen without prior signs of their coming. Even in instances when a disaster is predictable, preventive measures cannot be taken Russel (1993:62). The disasters include the instances of floods, prolonged droughts, earthquakes, instances of tornadoes among others.

Earthquakes and Floods as Examples of Disasters

Most scientists for example Cutter refer to disasters as the Social Vulnerability. The try to categorize the disasters according to the way they are approached. There is a group who prefer the definition that was used by the UN Disaster Relief Organization and which appeared to be more of an engineers’ approach methodology Barton (1989: 289). They look at disasters or the social vulnerability as the potential to lose life and damage of the properties. In the approach human being is considered a single element among many others although the extent of the risk tends to vary Bryman (1978:236). They also look at the structural damages where they include the buildings, the infrastructure, and the already established systems such as in the health care among others.

The social vulnerability does not always result from the direct impact of the disaster though there are times when it does for example in the instances of floods or earthquakes when the human beings are drowned or buried alive resulting to death or serious impairment Bryman (1997:127). In some other cases they suffer not as a result of their direct impact on the human life itself but on the resources that make the human life worth such as when the foods are destroyed and in case the health care facilities are interfered with or so is the system, the resultant victim is the people who require the facilities for their survivor. A good example is in Los Angeles where if there could be another earthquake, about a half of the hospitals would end up being closed down. The gas pipes may be damaged causing leakage of dangerous gas which in turn puts the human life at a risk. The groups that use the approach formulate ways of minimizing the damages that may be caused by the disasters Bankoff (2003:24). When using the term vulnerability it is to do with the issues outside a particular group of persons but on the issues related to things such as infrastructure, water systems and other forms of systems for example administrative, water among others.

The second category is that of those people who put their focus on the effects of the social vulnerability or the disasters to the society or to the people who are likely to be the victims of the disaster Mario (1998:97). It is also referred to as the taxonomic approach. The group is generally concerned with the voicing for the people who have limited access to the necessities that would lead to an individual living a normal life Cutter (2004:432). The groups focus on the individual differences in the way the victims of a disaster handle the difficulties involved. They also look at the way the disaster has done to the individuals such as the loss of life, the extent of the body damage to the body either physically or emotionally and if the persons will be able to cope with the problem or they may end up dying.

Some of the factors that incapacitate people are the lack of economic ability; the overuse of land while at the same time it is not well taken care of, inaccessible to the required information thus lacking knowhow, existence of political oppression, and some culture may lead to people being rendered to some kind of physical weakness and many more Cutter (2001: 98). Those factors may as well be categorized into the economic, the social well being of the individuals, the levels of the education among other issues.

The approach seems to concentrate on the categorizing the vulnerability to various classes such as in economically where the individuals live under financial constraints, socially the persons are discriminated for various reasons which are not genuine such as poverty, color among others, environmental is the cases where people in marginalized areas or areas that are prone to disasters and many more Dombrowsky (1989:243). They look in to the particular needs of the group of people such as the poor, elderly, people with health difficulties, women and children, the minority groups that are likely to be discriminated and many more.

The third category deals with factors that are more complicated than the taxonomies. They so much concentrate on the gains that may result from a certain situation thus called the situational method. It analyzes the security position of the individuals. There are three categorized vulnerabilities which include the social, seasonal changes and the complex interactions (Russel). The social is in the cases whereby the individual must change to fit in a particular situation such as in cases of floods people have to break even their customs and traditions to save their lives. For example the Muslim women in places such as in Bangladesh are not allowed to climb on trees or to move in places and as such it is reserved for men. In times of floods more women are at risk of drowning than the men and sat the same time they are forced to adapt to the climbing of high places.

The seasonal changes results from the occurrences that come from the time we are born to the time we die. In life there instance when accidents, occupational diseases among other forms of misfortunes. The other instance is whereby the issues involved are complex and are often overlapping. They in most cases affect the marginalized groups Cutter (2001:129). The situational analysis ensures that there is heterogeneous organization to have all people being together to avoid some from facing issues outside their control when they are out of the reach. The fourth approach entails individuals appropriating the given resources especially by the government through struggle thus causing damage to them and to the property.

Dombrowsky Reaction to Alexander, Cutter, Jigyasu and Britton Definitions

Wolf Dombrowsky is one of the scientists who have discussed the issue of disaster. To him he says that not all the moves take people forward. He proposed the theory to criticize the proposals by Alexander, Cutter, Jigyasu and Britton. He looks into the question on how best the term disaster may be interpreted to mean. Despite the research that has been done for many years, there has not been a very clear definition on what the term best refers to. There is found to be only small bits of sociology on the issues of disaster and most of it has been derived from the Science subjects and the science practitioners. The scientists prefer to adapt to the theory that best fits in their practical needs and the experiences that they have gone through in their researches.

Definition of disaster has been looked in phases and every stage is usually ideological in itself Dombrowsky (2005: 216). The stages successes each other in a sequence hence implicating that even reality follows a certain sequence and is usually in a specific arrangement where by individuals are more adapted to coping with the situation as well as controlling the extent of the action.

The theorists proposed the definition of disaster basing their arguments from the various disciplines in the Sciences such as the definition by Turner who derived the meaning from physics to mean that a disaster is the wrong quantity of energy that has been erupted at the misappropriated timing and wrong venue. We can not all agree to the Turner’s ideas since if we are to argue scientifically, backing evidence from some researched evidence from some sociological explanations.

Defining disaster as being an occurrence that has been concentrated somewhere at a specific time brings the aspects of volume and links it to the geographical concepts. Another theorist like Jigyasu derives the meaning of disaster from the resource ideas where he argues that it is the missing of a thing Norton (2001: 370). This concept forms its roots on the economic whereby a disaster can be contributed by the demand and the supply ratio. In this case there are some shortages which in the long run bring many unrelated happenings.

Dombrowsky argues that it is very important to borrow concepts and the views from other disciplines. He goes ahead to admit that he agrees with Cutter’s on the issues of isolation of the knowledge researchers and those the ignorance among the people. Dombrowsky says that research on the sociological disaster is supposed to be founded on the scientific research and evidence so that its originality is traced. The references should be in such a way that it is not self formulated or based on a particular profession but that it should help in the solving of the issues that affect the society as a whole Dombrowsky (1998:23). Cutter also had the same idea that it can only be said to be valid if it has the capability of solving of problems.

He however disagrees with Alexander, Cutter, Jigyasuand and Britton that the theoretical knowledge of the problem solving ideas is not enough to offer a proper explanation. He says that that can only be used to measure their contributions with no solid explanation to support their views. Alexander has not borrowed from the other disciplines inappropriately but just as he explains, he is interpreting what other sociologists thought. His ideas leave the reader with the theoretical knowledge and a picture to help understand the concept. His contributions however lack the power of changing the world as it is supposed to be Bankoff (2003: 394). Although Alexander has done so much research and written a number of books on the Disaster, he failed in that he never went beyond seeking the definition or the interpretation of the term disaster. He has also incorporated so many things on the issue of disaster such as catastrophe, the issues of calamity, definitions of the terms terrorism and the corruptions whereby he has generalized them into the term affliction to stand for all the phenomena that brings affliction to the human life.

Alexander does not give scientific back up on what the definition of disaster would be. He feels that the definition depends on the occurrence and that the significant points about an occurrence best define it Dombrowsky (1989:234). He also argues that disasters are multi faceted in such a way that it would be difficult to formulate a theory that would best suit all the faces in that occurrence or in the different occurrences Erode (2002:211). He has also not been able to bring out his ideas in that he has left the reader with a lot of questions that has not been well answered for example in his use of the word multi faceted, he has not bothered to explain any of the faces, there is also the use of the term mind set which is not explained among other pending points Burby (1998: 233). Looking at the term mind set, he assumes that it is a fixed event of which disaster can not be said to be a fixed event. He also claims that it is a definition that requires to be interpreted after every occurrence of a disaster so as to fit in the society in which we are living.

Cutter looks at our vulnerability to a disaster other than looking at the definition of the term disaster. She looks at the environmental dangers and other unexpected dangerous events. Dombrowsky feels that it is not proper to answer a scientific by rephrasing the question and likens it to being asked the definition of a car and instead one goes ahead and looks at the danger of driving at excess speed or the dangers that the cars are likely to cause. Through the redefinition of the term, cutter has simplified her way and is able to tackle the issue of disaster more systematically. She is able to explain the four approaches but is not able to explain the system theory that she is expanding on. Dombrowsky agrees on some aspects on Cutter’s findings but differs in the conclusion arguing that it was not explicit enough to be understood. Her talking of the ignorance by the communities is not clear on the relationship to the science perspectives. Her argument is a kind of evidence on the suspicions that she possesses on her perception to the philosophical science. In reality Cutter has looked at the theoretical aspect of the argument while in the practical terms she has not proved to be achieving Cutter (1994:324). Just as Alexander she has also tried to bring the incompatible aspects together such as the terrorism, catastrophe among others. They have done this simply because they do not understand the facts that the development of origins cannot be changed whether in the contemporary society or in the older time.

Dombrowsky agrees that they are complex emergencies that can be controlled while others are impossible to control, he however feels that there are no more complicated explanations on whatever issues that can be used by the human beings to explain the role of human beings to change the cause of the threats that are likely to result into disasters, to change or to make the human beings be able to detect chances of occurrence of disasters, and to make the individual develop mechanisms that would help them to cope with the problems Dombrowsky (2005:456). In contrast to Cutters ideas the human beings find that they increase their carelessness, irresponsibility among other factors and that make decisions and wills is a matter of self referential.

Jigyasu’s contributions were a little more complex for Dombrowsky to criticize. This is because his ideas were closely related to his thinking. In the second instance, he was not well acquainted to the topic since he had never done the studies of philosophy and especially the philosophy of the Eastern. Looking at his work was more entertaining because he had the chance to expand his knowledge in the other fields. He was however not happy because to him he was more concerned with the disaster and getting to more knowledge in the field of disaster thus he was not satisfied with the works of Jigyasu’s. He did not want to lose touch with reality and to him reality was getting the knowledge on the issues of disaster. Having been from Western, he had the privilege of undergoing through the arguments of Paul who used to pose the question on the real definition of the term definition Hewitt (1997:317). He also realized that Jigyasu’s was kind of living out of reality in that he based all his arguments on the religious perspective. He differed from Cutter and Alexander in that he failed to answer the question that he had personally posed to himself. He was not concerned with the relationship of the human beings to the world they were living in or in the other terms to the disasters and misfortunes and the unexpected happenings that may come as a result. To Dombrowsky this was kind of losing touch with reality thus avoiding facts in that there is no other ways of coping with disasters other than facing it. He asserts that disaster is not bound by any form of tangible bounders. In the first place, disaster cannot be termed as a reality in any way Douglas (1982: 279). It can be referred to as an occurrence that in most cases brings destruction of some magnitude and at certain time. Disasters often leave heritages and in most cases the heritages are normally permanent. Jigyasu in one way or the other is imparting some force to our thinking in that he wants people to change from the Western way of thinking. He however says that abstract ways of thought is universal thus it is considered human and he also feels that he ought to consider it human.

Britton on the other poses the personal question on the constituent of a word and more so chooses it as the title to address his issues. He is the only one of the four theorists who was to look at ontology as he wanted to explore on the real definition of the term disaster. He feels that it should be looked in terms of the differentiating features that it has. Since it has unique features, it implies that those distinctive features should be well brought to the surface Aguirre (2000:124). He feels that in case this distinction fails, then it follows that it was not a unique occurrence and that it has its tags on the mutual associations.

Dombrowsky argues that Britton did not clearly give the distinctions of phenomenon and the other aspect he brought out of concept. He says that the assumption is that the unique occurrence was meant to be the ‘real’. He says that claiming that Britton did not bring out any difference would be equating him to people like Alexander who was infinite in the way he brought out his ideas especially when he talked of various facets Barton (1969:348). He argued that uniqueness is seen in case the distinction is brought out in the way it is expressed or described. The description will be considered as distinctive if it is based on scientific ground and not on some said disciplines which are to be regarded as facets.

Britton asserts that originality is a very important factor in the explanation of the notion of uniqueness. He finally concludes that if it is impossible to classify the uniqueness then it implies that it is not a distinctive science Buckle (2003:109). It also implies that it bases its claims on other related and accepted sciences. Therefore it is true to say that sociology adopts even the definitions from other disciplines such as in biology where they say that disaster is the occurrence of diseases, geography is the other field whereby they borrow the definitions.

Britton argues that unlike the other sciences such as the in the physics, the sociologists seems to accommodate all the definitions of the term disaster. Dombrowsky feels that the way Britton argues on the pure and relational definitions is closely related to the Alexander’s arguments Miller (1998:34). This is because he prefer to use the relational explanation as a temporally definition.

Dombrowsky again claims that they had narrowed their minds to some form of distinctive intellectual discipline. Britton was not right when he argued that you can argue the facts about disaster based on all science disciplines which cannot be true and will always remain impossible. The other question that Dombrowsky poses is if they base the argument on the subject of sociology where they claim that of the uniqueness. They would however need to look at the day to day events.

Disaster sociology has not yet been come up with some indicators that can be used to measure the accomplishments of disaster managements. There are still only the bench marks that are still used as indicators. The modern method focuses more on the managements of the results of disasters than on the emergencies Devereaux (2000: 379). The other assumption is that he never went beyond the definition limiting the reader to the scope of the definition itself Dombrowsky (1998:245). It should however be that the researchers should equip the readers with the knowledge of what disaster entails so that they may be in a position to organize themselves in the preparations to cope with the problem of disasters.

Dombrowsky argues that out of the four articles by the four theorists, although by different individuals seemed to be lacking and also they appeared to have a lot of similarities. Out of the four authors, none of the theorists seemed to argue scientifically or at least grasp the western culture thus liberalization. All the four theorists fought back on the accusations that were made by Dombrowsky. Dombrowsky feels that taking disaster in terms of economics. Taking it as the imbalances in terms of what has been supplied and what is needed, thus it fails to address all the issues that do affect what may be described as a disaster. When Alexander talks of mind set he claims unlike Dombrowsky argument on the issue of mindset, he talks of the flow of disaster. The four theorists have done a lot to be justified by Dombrowsky however, though they try to justify it they still do not come out clearly.

Conclusion

Dombrowsk has been fighting to have the researchers dwell on the issue of disaster and to have them exhaust on the subject Erode (2000:257). He has taught, and researched on the subject over a long time. Many researchers came forth to tackle on the subject although to him, they did not meet his expectation and finds faults in their definition though he agrees on some of the aspects. He feels that they should come out more clearly and explain their findings more clearly with more grounded ideas and basically scientifically backed up other than some general assumptions. The four theorists have come forth to challenge and to answer the questions as well as to settle the doubts that were in the mind of Dombrowsky. The efforts have borne some success although in great extents many questions are still left unanswered.

Work Cited

Aguirre, Barsky. Can sustainable development help us? International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 20 (2002): 111-125.

Erode, Alexander, D. Confronting Catastrophe: New Perspectives on Natural Disasters. Harpenden, UK: Terra Publishing, 2000.

Erode, Alexander, D. From civil defense to civil protection and back again. Disaster Prevention and Management.) 11.3 (2002): 209-213.

Bankoff, Gibson. Rendering the world unsafe: ‘vulnerability’ as Western discourse. Disasters. 25.1 (2001): 19-35.

Bankoff, Gibson. Cultures of Disaster: Society and Natural Hazard in the Philippines. London: Routledge. 2003.

Barton, Allen. H. Communities in Disaster. A Sociological Analysis of Collective Stress Situations. New York: Doubleday. 1969. Print.

Barton, Allen. H. Taxonomies of Disaster and Macrosocial Theory. (G. A. Kreps Ed.). Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 1989. Print.

Bryman, Turner. A. Man-made Disasters. London: Wykeham, 1978.

Bryman, Turner, A. and Pidgeon, Nertiffa.F. Manmade Disasters. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann. 1997.

Buckle, Phillip. Some contemporary issues in disaster management. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 21. 2003: 109-122.

Burby, Raphael. Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land Use Planning for Sustainable Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998.

Cutter, Susan. L. Environmental Risks and Hazards. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994.

Cutter, Susan. L. American Hazardscapes: The Regionalization of Hazards and Disasters. Washington DC: The Joseph Henry Press, 2001.

Cutter, Susan. L. A research agenda for vulnerability science and environmental hazards. IHDP Update, Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change 2 (2001): 8-9.

Cutter, Susan. L. The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93.1 (2003):1-12.

Devereaux, Stephen. Famine in the Twentieth Century. Sussex, UK: Institute of Development Studies, 2000.

Dombrowsky, Wolf. R. Katastrophe und Katastrophenschutz. Eine soziologische Analyse. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. 1989.

Dombrowsky, Wolf. R. Again and again: Is a disaster what we call “disaster? International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 13 (2005): 241-254.

Dombrowsky, Wolf. R. Again and again: Is a disaster what we call a disaster? (Quarantelli, E. L. Ed.). London. Routledge, 1998.

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1982.

Hewitt, Kelvin. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Harlow, Essex: Longman, 1997.

Mario, Bunge. Social Science under Debate: a philosophical perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Miller, David. Network Exchange Theory. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.

Norton, Clifford. “Physical geography: the naughty world revisited,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 26.4 (2001): 387-389. Print.

Oliver, Smith, A. Global changes and the definition of disaster. (Quarantelli, E.L. Ed.). London: Routledge, 1998. Print.

Russel, Curtis and Benigno, Aguirre. Collective Behavior and Social Movements. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1993. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!