While those are only surface examples of how a disaster can be defined, the argument that I found the most accurate \u00a0is his\u00a0approach to studying disasters in American history. How Bergman points out how a disaster is caused and the effects that the disaster has both socially and economically in society. Bergman cites Karen Sawislak’s novel and ideas about the Great Fire in Chicago of 1871. In her argument she finds how “‘social difference’ shaped the ‘destinies’ of those affected by the fire” (938). This was shown in the efforts of rebuilding and how social disorder ensued. This aspect of social hierarchy is also shown in Kenneth Hewitt’s article when he addresses the Titanic. After the disaster of the Titanic, while there were more poor people on the ship more of the wealthy were able to survive due to their status they were able to get preferential life boats which ultimately saved their lives. How society reacts after a disaster ensues, whether it is a plague, a hurricane or a human error, is a way to analyze the faults in the system. The argument that I found to be the most convincing was Stephen Biel’s explanation of a disaster. According to Biel the meaning of disaster “can be found not only in cultural and political ideology, but in the evolution of relief regimes, engineering principles, and the news media” (939). This point felt the most persuasive because looking at the response or preparation of a disaster can help to advance society. I agree with the notion that disasters can be both “destructive and constructive” by regulating society naturally and manually.<\/div>\n