multidisciplinary – American Disasters

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

The Discipline of Disaster Studies

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

Jonathan Bergman’s article “Disaster: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” traces the development of the study of disaster. His approach to the discipline is broader than our class’s focus on natural disasters, encompassing “supernatural occurrences” (934). This difference in understanding of the parameters of a disaster touches on the difficultly in defining a disaster, which we experienced firsthand in class. Bergman touches on this on page 935 of this article.

Bergman points out the multidisciplinary nature of disaster studies, presenting scholars who have approached it through historical, sociological and ecological approaches, among others. This multidisciplinary nature adds to the difficulty in creating a universal definition of disaster, by bringing in many different scholars who have differing opinions, adding to the controversy. However, disaccord surrounding definitions is a not unique to the study of disasters, it is also present in other fields, such as genocide studies. He briefly examines many secondary works, drawing on a broad spectrum of disasters and the literature surrounding them, to illustrate his points.

Bergman mentioned several articles that illustrate how disasters highlight and aggravate the fissures in society, which substantiates the point that was made in class yesterday. One example that Bergman cited was the socioeconomic and racial components of the decision to open levies in the aftermath of Katrina to save the property and assists of the more wealthy neighborhoods. However, he does mention that a buffer of a certain period of time is needed between the event being studied and the scholar who is studying it, which is an idea that is pertinent point to the study of history as a discipline.

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

What’s it’s place?

The name of this course first interested me because of its seemingly ambiguous connection to historical thought and traditional historical research. The definition of disaster, the category of disaster and the scholarly research of disaster were all foreign to me and until Bergman’s reading, very unclear in their applications. Bergman spikes my mind when he claims that the study of disaster was carried on by a variety of disciplines, including geography, anthropology, ecology, meteorology, psychology, sociology, and, more recently, history (935). It immediately took me to the beginning of class on Tuesday when we were all introducing ourselves and our interest in the course. Unlike more traditional history classes with possibly more distinct and popular topics and curriculums, this class garnered a much different response. These responses directly reflected Bergman’s overview of the history of this study and the intrigue behind the study of disaster.

These student responses garnered interests from historical perspectives, anthropological perspectives, environmental perspectives, and health and international relief views. The unclear nature of this study and its defined role as a certain discipline, lends itself to so much study and comparison. These differing interests in class represent all the different ways disaster can be interpreted and therefore, studied. Because disaster has no common creed currently, it is relatively up in the air and has the ability to lend its research to many different fields of study. My point is that this class opens up a whole new way of thinking about disaster. Because this field is so multi-dimensional, it can enhance so much research in so many different fields of inquiry. The potential for this field is massive and probably why is it getting so much attention as of late.

However, as a history major, I must explain the interest it stirs in the field of history. Beyond its role as a category of analysis is it’s even more important influence on the study of history, its use as a tool of historical study to enhance conventional historiographies and shine a fresh light on traditional topics (940). This field could have an enormous effect on new historical scholarship. This new angle of research will allow historians to go and view topics that have been somewhat exhausted and write about it from a new perspective. History is all about how you view it and perspective, this new category allows historians to delve into a very different and unique subsidiary viewpoint. It could even continue into a new sub-category is history which has yet to be named. Atlantic history or disaster history have been mentioned and, in my opinion, deserve some serious attention and seem like pretty cool inquires of new study.

January 14, 2014December 16, 2020

Defining disasters and their study: a topic of multidisciplinary interest

In this week’s readings, both Bergman and Hewitt ponder the characteristics of disasters: how are they defined? What are their prominent elements? What are their implications? How do they fall within the delineations of academic inquiry?

I found Hewitt’s analysis succinct and focused, and therefore more useful. Perhaps most usefully, Hewitt distinguishes between the routine–highway, smoking, lifestyle related deaths–and the more unexpected ‘extreme events’ (Hewitt 5). These fall into the major categories of natural, technological, and war-related disasters. He also suggests some important characteristics of disasters such as their concentrated death and injury; their wont to catch individuals or societies unaware, and perhaps represent a new, previously unknown, threat; and their natural tendency to overwhelm previously functional societal and governmental systems.

Bergman’s work, more so than Hewitt’s, is a historiographical analysis. Analyzing, or at least mentioning, a wide variety of historiography on disasters, Bergman asserts clearly that disasters are necessarily social and human. Furthermore, he argues that those analyses which separate the human from the exogenous cause of the disaster are incomplete. Indeed, I believe this to be true: in their history of the disasters and upheaval in reformation Europe, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation Europe, Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell argue the illogic of trying to find every early modern disease’s contemporary counterpart. Convincingly, they write that the disease is no more the bacterium or virus that causes it than it is the experience of the disease itself. For example, syphilis in 2014–many years after penicillin–bears little resemblance, in terms of experience, to syphilis in 1500. Likewise with disasters: the greatest earthquake or flood is no disaster without the human experience, regardless of its other effects.

Compellingly, one might argue that this definition is more inclusive than it might seem at first. Human compassion may include many disasters which cost no human lives, directly or otherwise: the Exxon-Valdez spill comes to mind.

Eventually, it seems the definition of a disaster will lack some specificity, such that it may include the wide variety of events which the humans who experience them deem disasters. I believe that to be acceptable: historians (and geographers) can continue their study of those events that they, or others, deemed disasters in their own experience.