Disciplinary Perspectives on Disaster

In the past half a century social sciences researchers from fields such geography, sociology, anthropology, economics, public health, regional planning , etc have made contributions to the development of knowledge and understanding in disaster study and research. In doing so, they have advanced their own disciplinary perspectives to understand disaster causes and peoples’ perceptions and responses to disaster impacts. This section presents the main disciplinary perspectives on disaster study.

Having reviewed the general literature on disaster, Alexander (1993) identified six schools of thought on natural hazards and disaster studies (Alexander, 1993 cited in Nasreen, 2004).

These include the geographical, anthropological, sociological, the development studies, the disaster medicine and the technical approaches. In the following the main focuses and the substantive areas of each disciplinary approach are briefly described.

i. The Geographic Approach: This approach is represented initially by the works of geographers like Barrows (1923) and White (1945) (cited by Nasreen, 2004; Bankoff, 2003).

It deals with the human ecological adaptation to the environment. It focuses on the “spatial-temporal” distribution of hazard impacts, vulnerability and people’s choice and adjustment to natural hazards. Geographers perceive disasters to be the product of natural phenomena that are rendered hazardous precisely because human societies have failed to sufficiently adapt to them (Smith, 1996; Chapman, 1994; and Alexander, 1993, quoted in Bankoff, 2003:23). Thus population are subsequently assessed as to whether they are “at risk”, a notion determined by the degree of hazards and their level of vulnerability (Alexander, 1997:291, quoted in Bankoff, 2003:23).

iii. Anthropological Approach³⁸: In this approach the works of Oliver-Smith (1979, 1986, 1994, 1996); Hansen and Oliver-Smith (1982) are worth mentioning (cited by Henry, 2005;

Nasreen, 2004). This approach emphasizes the role of disasters in guiding the socio-economic evolution of populations and it searches for reasons why communities, especially in ‘third world’ fail to provide basic requirements for their people’s survival. It also expounds on marginalization of disadvantaged groups in developing countries. Henry (2005) summarized the main concerns of anthropological approach to disasters as follows:

…in studying disasters, […anthropology…] calls attention to how risks and disasters both influence and are products of human systems, rather than representing simply isolated, spontaneous, or unpredictable events. [...the special concern…] is how cultural systems (the beliefs, behaviours, and institutions, characteristic of a particular society or group) figure at the centre of that society’s disaster vulnerability, preparedness, mobilization, and prevention. Understanding these cultural systems, then, figures at the centre of understanding both the contributing causes to disasters as well as the collective responses to them (Henry, 2005:1).

Oliver-Smith (1996:303) developed three general topical areas as major trends in anthropological research on disaster: (i) a behavioural and organizational response approach;

(ii) a social change approach; and (ii) a political economic/environmental approach focusing on the historical-structural dimensions of vulnerability to hazards, particularly in the developing world. Oliver-Smith contends that disaster in the developing world occurs at the interface of society, technology, and environment and is fundamentally the outcomes of the interactions of these characteristics. Anthropological approach attempts to focus on the complex interrelationships between humans, culture, and their environment, and examines human actions that may cause or influence the severity of disaster.

iii. Sociological Approach: Disasters have long been objects of study by sociologists (Dynes, 1970; Quarantelli, 1978; Mileti, Drabek and Haas, 1975; Drabek and Boggs, 1968; Drabek, 1986, as cited in Drabek, 2005). Indeed prior to the 1980s the research literature was dominated by sociologically oriented analyses, followed by geographers (Drabek, 2005:2).

The sociological approach focuses on impacts of disasters upon the patterns of human behaviour and the effects of disaster upon community functions and organization.

For many years sociologists have studied mainly community responses to and impacts of disasters (Quarantelli and Dynes, 1972, 1977; Quarantelli, 1978, 1984; Dynes et al., 1987, Drabek et al., 1983 quoted in Blaikie et al., 2004:114 and in Drabek, 2005). Sociologists have argued that disasters may expose the key values and structures that define communities and the societies they comprise. Thus core behaviour patterns and social factors are considered in the study of disasters. And cultural differences are found to be associated to substantial variation in responses. But studies examining ‘root causes of disaster’ have been very limited as compared to post event assessments (Drabek, 2005). Sociologists are concerned almost exclusively with the structures, functions and activities of formal human organizations and the

38 Within anthropological approach, Henry (2005) also identified two approaches from the works of other authors: (i) a typological approach, categorizing disasters by their logical type, such as drought, flood, cyclone, earthquake, chemical disaster, etc. (Franke 2004), and (ii) a “processual” approach, which highlights that pre-disasters, pre-disasters, and relief are continuous events which serve as instigators of social interactions, transformations, and reorganization (Hoffman and Lubkemann 2005) (as cited in Henry, 2005:1) .

impact of disasters upon them; and generally accorded the environment only a minor role (Quarantelli and Dynes, 1977 quoted in Bankoff, 2003:23). They eschew the idea of vulnerability and favour instead definitions that frame disasters in terms of human behaviour at a spatially specific moment and location (Bankoff, 2003:23). In this context disasters are often reduced to “an array of socially derived effects” (Oliver-Smith, 1999:4 quoted in Bankoff, 2003:23).

Some writers (Nasreen, 2004:1; Quarantelli, 1994:5) argued that application of sociological approach to disaster research is very limited, even though the current sociological paradigm is that disasters are inherently social phenomena, and that the source of disaster is rooted in the social structure or social systems. Quarantelli (1994:6-13) added that these notions are not taken as seriously as sociologist should, because:

i. in looking at the temporal and spatial aspects of disaster, the concepts of social time and social space³⁹ are not used,

ii. lack of conceptual clarity ( e.g. disaster),

iii. failure to take larger social context into account (despite massive social changes in political, economic, familial, cultural, educational and scientific areas),

iv. the dysfunctional assumptions (i.e. belief in the “badness” of disasters is very widespread);

v. the ignoring the relevant basic theoretical orientations. Despite many theoretical models and frameworks, sociologists in disaster study area have used very few of them (e.g. symbolic interactionism).

In general despite this rich and expansive legacy, it is noted that sociologists have done little in theorization of disaster, conceptual clarification, application of existing theories and scope of coverage. Citing such scholars as Pelanda (1982) and Gilbert (1992), Dombrowsky (1995:242) also noted that “from European perspective there is still lack of sociology in sociological disaster research”.

Therefore, in recent works some authors (Stallings, 2002; Quarantelli, 1994) suggest the suitability of some sociological theories for guiding sociologists engaged in contemporary disaster studies. These include “Weber’s political sociology”, “symbolic interaction”,

“construction theory of social problems” (Stallings, 2002:300); “attribution theory”⁴⁰,

“diffusion theory” “chaos theory” (Quarantelli, 1994: 14-15); “social capital theory” (Dynes, 2002). For instance Stallings suggests that Weber’s work, in particular political sociology can

39 This is to say (i) instead of talking about chronological time space and geographic space, to use sociology of time framework in order to explore how past events surrounding a disaster were reconstructed to have meaning and utility for the present. Disaster recovery will be better informed if we take the general notion that it is not the passing of chronological time or the placement in geographic space crucial in the process, but that of social time and social space; (ii) in linking disasters to development processes (or disasters rooted in social changes) and to better explain the sources and locus of resistances to disaster mitigation measures,… the social dynamics and processes of communities/societies are where answers should be sought, rather than looking at the psychological make-up or attitudes of realtors, community planners or policy makers (Quarantelli, 1994:5-6).

40 This theory says that practically everyone commits the "fundamental attribution error," that is, explaining the behaviour of others on the grounds of personal disposition to behaviour in particular ways across a variety of situations, rather than - as we interpret our own behaviour - as a response to circumstantial and contextual pressures Quarantelli (1994:3).

be relevant for guiding sociological researches on disaster as it represents: (i) the core concern of the discipline, (ii) a complement to traditional research approaches, and (iii) compatible with recent emphasis on inequality and its consequences (Stallings, 2002:299).

In summary the key issues confronting sociologists who are studying disaster pertain to conceptual clarification of the concept ‘disaster’ (i.e. what it constitutes and what to include or exclude under the rubric of disaster concept) and to the paradigm shift or adoption of appropriate theory for sociological disaster research. Most sociologists do not elabourate the theoretical perspectives that might be guiding their fieldwork, although elements of functionalism, structuralism, and symbolic interactionism frameworks can be identified. This calls for more work in the disciplinary perspective⁴¹ with regard to concepts, models and theories to take sociology as scientific enterprise (Quarantelli, 1994). Moreover, in disaster studies some authors have proposed a paradigm shift reflecting a focus on the concept of vulnerability (Blaikie et al., 2004). Some reasons for this shift include, (i) we have control over vulnerability, not natural hazard; (ii) vulnerability occurs at the intersection of the physical and social environment, (iii) variables of vulnerability exhibit distinct patterns (Mileti, 1999; Geis, 2003 quoted in Drabek, 2005:5). This suggests that there seems consensus on ‘social vulnerability approach’ or paradigm which differs from “the dominant view” of disasters, and social vulnerability perspective focuses on socio-economic and political factors rather than the physical processes of hazard and the goal is to reduce vulnerability rather than damage. The key notion of this approach is that “social systems generate unequal exposure to risks by making some people more prone to disaster than others and that these inequalities in risk and opportunities are largely a function of the power relations operative in every society” (Bankoff, 2003:6). The premise of this approach is compatible with Weber’s political sociology⁴², as Stallings (2002:300) suggested, it can be anchored in the future disaster research.

iv. Development Studies Approach: It has been concerned with the problems of distributing aid and relief resources particularly to developing or “third world” countries. The approach focuses on such activities like refugee management, health care and avoidance of starvation (Nasreen, 2004:3).

v. The Disaster medicine and Epidemiological Approach: This approach focuses on the management of mass causalities. It entails the treatment of severe physical traumas and other diseases which may occur after disaster (Nasreen, 2004:3).

vi. The Technical Approach: This is mainly dominated by natural sciences such as seismology, geomorphology and volcanology. It focuses on geophysical approaches to

41 Quarantelli (1994:3) noted that some researchers from fields of anthropology, geography and public administration are bringing their disciplinary perspectives to bear on their studies. Quarantelli remarked that it is not to say that maintaining territorial boundaries or claiming for supremacy of some disciplinary, or downgrading what sociologists have done so far. Rather disciplinary perspective allows one to see much and brings with it a depth of understanding.

42 Stallings (2002) notes that Weber’s political sociology offers sociologists a framework for investigating how inequalities in class, status, and power (Bendix and Lipset, 1966) affect disaster victimization and recovery that avoids both the reductionism of Marx and the tendency toward tautology in newer frameworks such as vulnerability analysis (e.g., see the cautionary reminders in Blaikie et al., 1994:12–13).

disaster and seeks engineering or technical solutions. This approach seeks structural remedial measures (e.g. building embankments for flood and, for earthquakes and seismic events introducing building codes and standards) to cope with disasters (Nasreen, 2004:3).

As can be seen in above section each disciplinary field focuses on its area of concern.

However, the fact that the concepts of ‘disaster’ and ‘vulnerability’ are too complex, their understanding goes beyond the disciplinary focuses and perspectives. Moreover, disasters are the conjuncture of social and environmental processes or natural events. This calls for holistic approach that considers social and natural systems to explain disasters. Oliver-Smith described the complexity of disaster as follows:

Considering the multiple use of the terms vulnerability and disaster, and the multidimensionality of their expression, today it has been become ever more challenging to develop theory that has application or relevance to the ever expanding concerns they encompass. The occurrence of interactions between natural and technological hazards increases, making disasters more complex. The multidimensionality of disasters is at the crux of the problem. Disasters exist as complex material events and, at the same time, as a multiplicity of interwoven, often conflicting, social constructions. Both materially and socially constructed effects of disasters are channelled and distributed in the form of risk within society according to political, social, and economic practices and institutions (Oliver-Smith, 2004:10-11).

Oliver-Smith’s description suggests that disasters are complex and integral parts of both environmental and human systems. Thus disasters are viewed as the consequence of a process that involves a potentially destructive agent (risk) and a population in a socially produced condition of vulnerability (Hoffman and Oliver-Smith, 1999 quoted in Bankoff, 2003).

Therefore, Oliver-Smith states that vulnerability is fundamentally a “political ecological concept” or “conceptual nexus that links the relationship that people have with their environment to social forces and the institutions and the cultural values that sustain or contest them” (Oliver-Smith, 2004:10). Oliver-Smith suggests that vulnerability provides a theoretical framework, since it encompasses the multidimensionality of disasters and translates that multidimensionality into the concert circumstances of life that account for a disaster.

Citing Oliver-Smith’s works (1996, 1999), Bankoff (2003:23) noted that “as distinct from geographers and sociologists, anthropologists regard disasters as embedded in the daily human conditions and define them in terms of a seamless web of relations that link society to environment to culture”. In recent years, thus, “the interplay between environmental and social systems has been widely accepted by practitioners from all disciplinary backgrounds”;

and the debate is more often to do with the relative weight accorded to the various key social and environmental factors rather than to substantive divergence over what constitutes the definitional nature of disasters (Oliver-Smith, 1999 quoted in Bankoff, 2003:23).

Oliver-Smith (2004:12) stated that disasters come into existence in both the material and the social worlds and, perhaps in some hybrid space between them. Thus according Oliver-Smith, to have way of theorizing that hybridity is a “theoretical challenge” to researchers in disaster study. Then Oliver-Smith suggests that the concept of vulnerability may prove to be a key in this effort for meeting that challenge.

In the preceding section attempt has been made to discuss theoretical concepts, general disaster theories and disciplinary perspectives based on literature survey. The review of literature has revealed that concepts are defined in numerous ways by different users, and various approaches/perspectives have been developed to understand disasters in general terms. As indicated earlier disasters vary in type and pattern both spatially and temporally, and their causal factors as well. Therefore, the current direction is to apply the “theory of social vulnerability” for explaining disasters and preventing risks.

The present research is concerned with vulnerability to famine/food crisis in drought prone pastoral community. Thus it is important to review “famine theories” present in literature. The subsequent sections discuss relevant famine theories, disaster study frameworks and (social) vulnerability approach.