Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Simply put, there is no unique or correct way for anyone to classify and approach the general term of disasters. As stated in both the class discussion and throughout the readings, disasters can be technological, natural, man-made, or some intricate hybrid. Disasters are such a unique aspect of our culture because their uncertainty allows for interpretation and debate. As Bergman mentions, there is no one disciple that disaster study is limited to. Based on this initial first day of reading, it has become clear how this simple term has so much more complexity than I originally thought. Throughout the readings, both Hewitt and Bergman demonstrate that in history each disaster is unique and requires specific analysis. As people try to generalize all disasters as a singular term, the more question emerge. While both Hewitt and Bergman have different thesis, they are both right because their analysis is a historical overview rather than a specific theory. Hewitt’s argument about uniqueness and an understanding through cultural immersion based on context is very much valid. We cannot compare disasters from different time periods, different locations, or different cultures because every disaster has a unique impact on time and space. This theory blends well with Bergman’s idea that there can be no evolution into a disaster classification. Disasters are unexplainable in a modern sense and our understanding can only be completed through analysis and historical research. Essentially these theories blend together, in my mind, in that every “disaster” is unique and can only be fully understood when the full ramifications are felt and analyzed.
This combined interpretation of the readings troubled me as I recollected a section early on in Hewitt’s introduction. Hewitt mentions the media and radical rise disaster classifications between 1989 and 1993. By his research the media identified about 110 technological disasters and 50 natural disasters. (page 7) What troubles me was not that the have been a vast spike in disasters but the idea that the media now has such an impact on modern history. Today, our society has accepted the media’s focus on “disasters” and developed strong interests in conflict and despair. However, does the media too easily magnify any event into a disaster and as a society do we accept it? Certainly there is strong evidence correlating modern technology and the destruction of environment, but does the modernization of our society create every disaster or are we too easily classifying anything unexpected under this broad term of disaster? Having done no prior primary source research about Gilded Age disasters, this semester will provide a unique opportunity to compare the modern media against early newspapers and publications. I am looking forward to seeing if the United States has always magnified every event or if this trend of inflated dramatization is truly a modern response for societies’ new interest.