Can Disasters Be Unnatural? A Sociological Discussion on the “Naturalness” of Disasters
Fatma Levent, Temmuz Gönç ŞavranDisaster is attracting more and more attention as an interdisciplinary field of study. In recent years, both the assertion that disasters are not a natural phenomenon but a social one and the criticism of this assertion have become more widespread. This article is a compilation study prepared to discuss these claims and to show how the interpretations, meanings, and connotations associated with disasters direct social dynamics from the perspective of critical sociology. The study highlights how concepts are constructed within discourses and used to construct certain truths, how definitions of disaster have changed based on the hazards paradigm, the vulnerability paradigm, and critical approaches, and discusses the risks and conceptual confusion that can be created by using the concept of “natural disaster”. In essence, the blaming of nature solely for disasters removes human influence from the equation and promotes the idea that humans are at war with nature. This reinforces the belief that human beings will fail in the face of nature no matter what they do, but it also prepares the ground for the implementation of disaster policies and laws that favour the interests of one group while ignoring others. The concepts employed contribute to the reinforcement of this ground, even if the individuals using them are unaware of it. The discourse produces information on which population requires assistance and is at risk, as well as which form of assistance will be provided to whom. However, these processes are not independent of power. Social institutions shape discourse by framing it with ideology and reproducing it. Thus, the problematic use of language within the discourse that points to a particular paradigm can legitimise one type of knowledge and interest while rendering the other invisible. In this framework, it is important to approach the use of the term “natural disaster” critically as it carries certain risks.
Afetler Doğal Olmayabilir mi?: Afetlerin “Doğallığı” Üzerine Sosyolojik Bir Tartışma
Fatma Levent, Temmuz Gönç ŞavranDisiplinler arası bir çalışma konusu olarak afet giderek daha fazla ilgi görmektedir. Son yıllarda hem afetin doğal değil toplumsal bir olgu olduğu yönündeki iddialar hem de buna yönelik eleştiriler yaygınlaşmaktadır. Bu makale bu iddiaları tartışmak ve eleştirel sosyoloji perspektifinden hareketle afete ilişkin yorum, anlam ve çağrışımların toplumsal dinamikleri nasıl yönlendirdiğini göstermek amacıyla hazırlanmış bir derleme çalışmasıdır. Çalışmada kavramların söylemler çerçevesinde inşa edildiği ve belirli hakikatleri oluşturmak için kullandığı vurgulanmakta, tehlikeler paradigması, kırılganlık paradigması ve eleştirel yaklaşımlardan yola çıkarak afete ilişkin tanımların nasıl değiştiğine değinilmekte ve “doğal afet” kavramını kullanmanın yaratabileceği riskler ve kavram karmaşası tartışılmaktadır. Afetlerden yalnızca doğayı sorumlu tutmak insanın doğayla savaş hâlinde olduğu ve insanın doğa karşısında ne yaparsa yapsın başarısız olacağı düşüncesini güçlendirir, bu düşünce bir grubun çıkarını gözetirken diğerini görmezden gelen afet politika ve yasaları için de zemin hazırlar. Hangi nüfusun yardıma muhtaç ve risk altında olduğu, kime hangi yardımların yapılacağı tartışılırken kullanılan kavramlar bu zemini güçlendirebilir. Toplumsal kurumlar söylemi ideolojiyle çerçeveleyerek şekillendirip ideolojiyi yeniden ürettiği için belirli bir paradigmaya işaret eden söylem içindeki dilin problemli kullanımı bir tür bilgiyi ve çıkarı meşru kılarken diğerini görünmez hâle getirebilir. Bu çerçevede “doğal afet” kavramını kullanmak da benzer riskleri taşıdığı için bu kavrama eleştirel yaklaşmak gerekmektedir.
Nowadays, the frequency and effects of natural events such as climate change, fire, flood, earthquake, etc. are increasing in relation to each other, and therefore the subject of disaster has attracted the attention of many disciplines. Considering this interest, this article is a review study focusing on how the interpretations, meanings, and connotations of disaster direct social dynamics from a critical sociology perspective. The aim of the study is to examine the concepts of disaster and natural disaster by following the discussions within the hazards paradigm, the vulnerability paradigm and critical approaches and to try to support the claim that disasters are not natural but social phenomena. For this purpose, it is first shown how discourse produces knowledge and meaning, how discourse, which is surrounded by ideology, is shaped by social institutions and how it can make one type of knowledge visible while concealing others. It is then emphasised that the discourse inherent in language determines which words/terms are chosen, and that language can thus, on the one hand, construct meaning and, on the other, erroneously support oppressive social norms.
Disaster cannot be understood separately from society and culture, because historically, different meanings have been attributed to disaster in every culture and belief. The fact that it is understood together with natural phenomena has deepened the belief that disasters have astrological and divine causes. Over time, the expert knowledge that accompanies explanations of physical phenomena largely replaced this belief. Since disaster research has developed in the West and found the opportunity to be researched in the West, it is a field in which Western terminology dominates to a great extent. Today, researchers from many countries are trying to contribute to the field of disaster, but Western terminology continues to dominate the field. This is controversial because there are no words in other languages that can fulfil the nuances of English and the meaning may change. Along with the debates, the terms and definitions used have changed over time. In this study, to trace the historical process, the sociological literature on disasters is utilised and the change of meaning accompanying the definitions of disasters in two main paradigms and the criticisms directed to these paradigms are traced.
The hazards paradigm developed in the United States in the 1950s, shaped by the Cold War, and dominated early disaster sociology. In order to observe the civilian reactions to a nuclear attack, the United States of America encouraged the research conducted during this period. With expert knowledge, the focus is more on civil defence and first response. Within the hazards paradigm, disaster is defined as a violent natural external factor and the population is considered passive beings despite this violence. Later researchers criticised the hazard paradigm for considering disasters as limited by time and space. Criticisms of the hazards paradigm led to the popularisation of the vulnerability paradigm in the 1980s.
The vulnerability paradigm emphasised that the hazard-centred approach should be abandoned and argued that disaster is not related to geographical processes but to poverty, inequality and other related factors. With this approach, the definition of disaster has also changed and it is stated that disaster cannot be mentioned unless vulnerabilities and hazards interact. In this period, concepts such as vulnerability, resilience and risk began to accompany disaster research, and disaster sociology broke away from the positivist tradition. According to the vulnerability paradigm, while the hazard may be natural, the disaster is social. In the case of different groups, the same hazard may turn into a disaster in one group and not in the other, depending on which group is vulnerable. Depending on the circumstances, one group may be more vulnerable than another. Women, blacks, the poor, the homeless, etc. can become more vulnerable when they do not have access to the regular resources and means of protection available to members of the upper classes. Therefore, vulnerability points to how inequality is distributed within society. However, the rulers can label some groups as vulnerable and use the resulting situation for their own interests. In this study, the first focus of the discussions gathered under a separate heading as critical approaches is on the production of the vulnerability of some groups with the discourse of vulnerability. According to critics, sovereigns first make a part of the population vulnerable and then develop aid policies that work in their own interests within the discourse of tropicality, developmentalism or vulnerability. In most cases, these policies are far from serving the actual population at risk. Vulnerability will only be called vulnerability when there is something against it, when it has a cause. Communities need the distribution of food and shelter to survive. When the conditions are not equalised, vulnerabilities are created.
Disaster policies and the discourse of naturalness attributed to disasters can conceal the real causes, just like developmentalism and tropicality. Critical researchers support their claim that natural disasters are not natural by emphasising that populations are made vulnerable by social, political and economic relations. The concept of natural disasters paves the way for labelling one part of the world as dangerous for the rest. In this way, various interventions are legitimised that are far from being in the best interest of those in real need. On the other hand, the questioning of the naturalness of disaster is continued by emphasising that in many cases, the danger that is considered a disaster for one part of the world does not mean the same for another.
When the definitions of natural disasters are examined in this study, it is seen that people and institutions are positioned in a war against nature and it is evoked that institutions and people have little to do when it comes to strong nature. Nevertheless, the concept of “natural disaster” continues to be used by the media, decision makers, and researchers. The term “natural disaster” continues to be used to distinguish between natural and man-made hazards or to increase its popularity. However, this basically harbours two risks: Nature, which is constructed as dangerous, being a force that can only be dealt with by a state with experts, and the development of a disaster industry dominated by the free market.
Researchers who argue that natural disasters are not natural also face various criticisms. The first is that the occurrence of disasters cannot be predicted and prevented with modern technology, and therefore it is inconvenient to attribute blame to nature. However, in this criticism, disaster is handled as a physical phenomenon, contrary to what is supported in the study. The second criticism is that human beings are also a part of nature and therefore there is no harm in using the concept of “natural disaster”. However, this criticism also renders social sciences meaningless as a whole. The last criticism comes from those who argue that a distinction should be made between natural hazards such as earthquakes and man-made hazards such as nuclear explosions. However, this distinction ignores the fact that disaster is a social phenomenon.
Instead of using the concept of “natural disaster”, critical researchers have also made different suggestions for its use. The concept of a socio-natural disaster to express the intersection of a natural hazard and a socially constructed disaster is one of these suggestions. There are researchers who completely reject the use of the term disaster, regardless of whether it is natural or social, and propose to use the concept of risks, and there are also researchers who propose to use only the concept of disaster without adding naturalness to disaster.
In disaster research, just like in the social sciences, not all concepts have clear definitions. However, the concepts chosen and used may paradoxically lead to the concealment of social problems or trivialisation by remaining in the background. Adopting a critical perspective and participating in new discussions will contribute to the development of the field by adopting a critical perspective in order to expand definitions in order to address and examine locality, culture and social structure in research and to reveal hidden meanings.
