|
A Un Official, Pieter Bult, Coordinator of the UN Team for
Recovery Support, while felicitating the Tamil Nadu Task Force for
Community-Based Disaster Management at Chennai on the 07 Sep 06,
described disaster management as a "complex puzzle with many colours
and dimensions"(The Hindu;Chennai, Sept. 7 (PTI)). What prompted Peter
Bult to state that cannot be asserted with full certainty, but it can
be presumed that Peter was alluding to the intricate and labyrinthine
characteristics (and also the consequences) of a disaster.
I take this quote of Peter Bult to
conceptualise a social process perspective of disasters rather than
limiting it to mere natural or manmade phenomenon.
The UN defines disaster as “a serious
disruption of the functioning of society, causing widespread human,
material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the
affected society to cope using its own resources”. And so disasters
are classified according to the speed of onset (sudden or slow) or
according to their cause (natural or manmade).
While this is the documented definition worldwide (with slight
variations), and serves well as the basis for disaster preparation,
response and relief, it has serious limitations if the world has to
face disasters and their consequences. This definition only alludes
to physical events be it they natural phenomenon/events, or manmade or
technological and their catastrophic effects, and thus presents an
incorrect and incomplete
visualization. The dynamics and conception
of the social construct that make certain phenomenon or events a
disaster are not perceived or visualized.
An analysis of the perceived but changing origins and
sources of disasters is important to fathom the inadequacies in the
present perception of disasters. An accurate definition is required to
guide not only the interventions that follow a disaster but also to
direct efforts at reduction in disasters. While ‘reduction in
occurrences’ requires manipulation of the natural systems and
phenomenon and could be a distinct possibility aided by scientific
rigueur and accomplishments, ‘reduction in disasters’ is a clear
possibility even now, if our interventions are directed in the right
construct.
The human race has
faced natural and manmade disasters since it has evolved. With the
industrial age and subsequent technicalisation of societies, it has
also to contend with technological disasters. Historically the human
race has been changing it perceptions of the major source of
disasters. In the prehistorical and much of historical times up to a
few centuries ago, disasters were seen as the results of astrological
and supernatural forces. Thus the word ‘disaster’ etymologically
entered the English language from the French word ‘deastre’ which is
derivation of two latin words ‘dis’ and ‘astro’, which combined
roughly translate to ‘formed on a star’. This referred to the
negative effects resulting from a star or a heavenly body.
In time, the word disaster was applied more
to physical disturbances such as earthquakes, mudslides and floods,
fires etc, events attributable to the supernatural, which the humans
had no control on and could do nothing about. This fatalistic
perception of disasters as “Acts of God’ did not allow for any
arrangements to adjust to or to deal with disasters.
With the development of science, a different perception of the
source of disasters emerged. Plate tectonics were interpreted as
source of earthquakes and mudslides, floods were seen as result of
abnormal precipitation. Instead of “Acts of God’ disasters were being
seen as “Acts of Nature’, with the responsibility being shifted from
the sacred to the scientific and secular view. Even this perception
and understanding held that disasters could not be eliminated or
prevented. However the greater understanding of what was involved
allowed the human race to take actions to weaken the impact of the
many disasters. Avoiding vulnerable areas, low level areas, building
habitats in high ground to avoid floods etc were the collective and
organized social actions that could lessen the negative effects of the
occurrences.
With technology came the slow appearance of technological accidents
and mishaps. These disasters were seen as resulting from the actions,
rather the inappropriate actions of human beings. With these
realisation was the understanding that these technological
disasters resulting from human action could be prevented and
their/or negative effects mitigated or reduced. Extension of such a
view and perception to all kinds of disasters was natural and as a
result of half a century of study we have increasingly come to see
disasters as ‘Acts of Human Beings’; ie, that disasters result
directly and indirectly from the actions, intended or otherwise, of
human beings.
The changed historical perceptions of disasters illustrate that the
visualization of disaster is related to how we react to such
phenomena, or put inversely the visualization of the ways that can
be taken to prevent or to respond to disasters, depends on the
perception of the dynamics of the phenomena in the first place.
The collective and organised actions that can be taken by society to
deal with the threats and dangers to lives, property and everyday
routine depend upon a complete and accurate analysis of the source and
origin of disasters.
The present analysis remains somewhere between ‘Acts of Nature’ and
‘Acts of Human Beings’ and is what guides our intervention in disaster
management. We need to raise this level of analysis from the level of
behavior to the level of social systems. Disasters are inherent social
phenomena, not merely ‘Acts of Human Beings’. Disasters occur when one
or more of the social cultural systems that a population depends on
fails to provide an adaptation to the environmental conditions which
surround it, or when one of these systems produces, from within its
own technological order, an event that threatens the population. This
formulation implies that disasters are ‘Acts of Society’ i.e a ‘social
process causation’ as different from ‘Acts of Human Beings’.
Attempting to change the decision making and behaviors of human beings
is one thing. Making changes in the very structure of social systems
is a rather different matter. As the world continues to industrialise
and to urbanise it is continually creating conditions for more and
worse disasters. Rapid changes in the social processes that are
happening now will increase the number of potential disaster agents
and enlarge the vulnerabilities of communities and population that
will be at risk. A stark example is the growing dependence of
societies on computers, which will result in new disaster agents from
computer system failures. A developing disaster agent is already
staring societies in the realm cyberspace.
Overdependence of
societies in cybernetics and use of the cyberspace to replace physical
infrastructure, manufacture food products, control production and
output cycles etc, could cause widespread loss of life and property in
the event of a failure, leading to paralysis of the affected society.
How do we prevent and deal with such disasters?
Evidently we need to understand the
macro level processes of social changes or societal development to
find an answer to our question, and it is in this light that we may
run into severe problems if we do not change our perception of
disasters, and find a more accurate definition that places disasters
in a social process perspective. |
