disaster narratives – American Disasters

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

Blog Post 8 (for Thursday, 3/27)

In his article “Smoke and Mirrors,” Ted Steinberg describes a struggle between “those seeking to capitalize on the disaster’s entertainment value against California’s business class” (104). The former hoped to capitalize on peoples’ fascination with disaster by distributing reports, images and videos. One of the videos we watched in class on Tuesday was a dramatic recreation of the San Francisco fire, meant for consumers’ viewing across the country, for example. The latter hoped to preserve San Francisco’s reputation as a center of economic activity, worthy of investment. To that end, they sought to deemphasize the destructive capability of earthquakes in the Bay Area, and emphasize the many opportunities it offered in rebuilding. For example, John Marsh wrote in his blog post: “Rozario quotes a writer for the Times who noted that San Francisco’s natural advantages (its location as a hub of trade for the entire west coast) ensured its recovery.”

During the 19^th century we often think of capitalism as driving towards a single, specific goal— perhaps Machiavellian utilitarianism, or just ruthless efficiency? I’m not really sure how to sum it up. But in most narratives, capitalism seems uniformly against something, whether it be workers’ rights, environmental preservation, or something else. In the Johnstown Flood, for example, the poorly maintained dam was symbolic of the lack of concern that capitalists had for their workers, and their disinterest in quality, so long as the job got done. Interestingly enough, the struggle that Steinberg describes demonstrates capitalism at odds with itself— both groups had money on their minds, but their means of acquiring it conflicted. It is apparent that there wasn’t a single way to capitalize on the destruction in San Francisco.

I’m not quite convinced of Steinberg’s argument— or “conspiracy theory”— that the San Francisco earthquake and fire has been memorialized incorrectly because of some scheming businessmen. But this article has merit because it demonstrates how disaster narratives during the 19^th century were shaped by the push and pull of economic forces. With two distinct groups struggling to warp the San Francisco earthquake and fire into vastly different stories makes this phenomenon particularly clear.

As we have consistently seen, religion tends to have a significant impact on the interpretation of disasters. From Father Pernin’s narrative of the Peshtigo Fire, to the interpretation of the Chicago fire as cleansing, religious interpretations of disasters abound. Given both the often complex nature of disasters, coupled with the wanton destruction, disasters seem to almost request the meaning which religion may ascribe to them. Furthermore, disaster almost always inspires community unification and religion has often facilitated such unity.

I would like to examine a specific disaster and the religious response which it elicited from the community, on a local or perhaps wider scale. What were the religious or other interpretations of this disaster and its significance? How were interpretations of this disaster shaped by religious leaders and the religious community? How did religious disaster narratives shape the recovery from this disaster? How did the religious landscape change as a result of the disaster or the concomitant changes? In what ways were religious disaster narratives productive or counterproductive, in terms of rebuilding community in the wake of this disaster?

I think that the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire might be particularly interesting to examine, for a variety of reasons. Foremost, the scale of the disaster, which was substantial, would have accentuated any effects that such a disaster might have on a populace or community. Yet, this alone does not distinguish San Francisco’s disaster from some others. Though fires were the most destructive element in this case, they were secondary to an earthquake, in terms of cause. Earthquakes present a particularly interesting disaster in that they are—much more than Mrs. O’Leary or her cow—open to religious interpretation. The trembling of the very earth beneath our feet lends itself to religious interpretation. Moreover, San Francisco in 1906 was a city of cultural clashing, with significant divides between the white and Chinese communities. Doubtless, such cultural conflict played out in the context of religious thinking.

Local and community newspapers will be a great source for this examination, especially if they cater to a specific religious community within the city. I do not, necessarily, need to limit myself to local newspapers but can look on a national and state scale as well, since those have potential to be sources of religious interpretation as well. Within newspapers, I expect editorials to be a particularly good source. Journals or correspondence, though rare, have the potential to be great sources of religious thinking or interpretation, especially that which people might not say publicly. Perhaps there are records of sermons that were given in the aftermath of the disaster or during the recovery that address the disaster in a religious context.

Tag: disaster narratives

How Capitalism Can Shape Disaster Narratives

Fire and Brimstone: Religious Interpretations of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake