The Nature-Culture Distinction in Disaster Studies:The Recent Petition for Reform as an Opportunity for New Thinking?

• 作者: Gideon van Riet
• 来源期刊: 国际灾害风险科学学报（英文版）
• 年，卷（期）: 2021,（2）
• 所属期刊栏目: ARTICLES
• 页码范围: 240-249
• 页数: 10页
• 语种: 英文

摘要

This article constructively challenges the often cited distinction between the so-called hazard and vulner-ability perspectives in disaster studies. In a context of increasingly intertwined, dense, and complex socioeco-logical dynamics, disaster scholars often hold onto an apparently untenable distinction between nature and cul-ture, manifested as either a hazard or a vulnerability approach. This article maintains that the typically unde-sired approach (the hazard approach) is inherent to the preferred (vulnerability) perspective. The article builds on Oliver-Smith's (2013) critique of the magnitude of requirements placed upon practitioners given the full implications of the vulnerability perspective. Although critical of the vulnerability perspective, this article does not fundamentally disagree with the validity of its claims. Instead, by drawing on the pragmatist philosophy of Rorty (1989) and by demonstrating the potential value of posthumanism for disaster studies, I wish to argue for greater pragmatism within disaster scholarship. The article considers the recent petition or manifesto for disaster studies (Gaillard et al. 2019) for more inclusive disaster research as a potential opportunity to challenge the afore-mentioned nature–culture distinction in the field, as the petition signed by a number of disaster scholars outlines various concerns over the asymmetrical power relations between local and external researchers. These power rela-tions have adverse consequences for the appropriateness of knowledge production in many contexts. I am primarily concerned with the very local level of disaster occurrence, where posthumanism might be most valuable.