Susanna Hoffman Chen Mei Peng Wenbin

（1.Department of Anthropology， University of San Francisco，2130 Fulton Street，

San Francisco， CA94117-1080，USA ; 2.University of Massachusetts Boston，Boston，

MA 02169，USA; 3.Institute of Asian Research， UBC， Canada）

JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY， VOL. 6， NO.4， 29-35， 2015 （CN51-1731/C， in Chinese）

DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2015.04. 05

Abstract：

Like Professor Anthony Oliver-Smith， I wish to speak to the theories and analyses of disaster from an anthropological perspective. While Professor Oliver-Smiths paper covers the history of the anthropological concern， the ecological paradigm， reconstruction， and other positions， the intent of mine is to zero in on what anthropologists consider the foremost factor in the creation， the unfolding， prevention and mitigation of disaster， and that is culture.

Since the inception of the field of anthropology， the concept of culture has been its main innovation and core explanatory tool.It is a peoples cosmology， spirituality， beliefs， explanations， and it is very significantly， a guide to a peoples perception. Every human absorbs the culture of the group in which they are raised from childhood on up， and by and large lives their lives by its grid （Tyler， 1871;Kroeber 1952 and 1963; Boas1911 and 1940）. That doesnt mean that culture doesnt change. It does， but it is sluggish and conservative. Nor does it mean that all the people of a society live exactly according to their cultures dictates. They dont， but the degree of their variance is rather like the stretch of a rubber band： limited.It also doesnt mean that at times people dont contest their culture. They do， but their contestation emerges from the reflective comprehension of their own life ways （Steward 1955; Frake 1962; Harris 1968）.

Over the decades， anthropologists have continued to explore the depth and nuance involved in human culture from the overarching to the local level. Unfortunately， being such an facile way of accounting for diversity， the concept of culture has often been co-opted by other institutions who apply the concept in a less-than-profound fashion. We commonly now hear about “corporate culture，” “organizational culture” and more.It is， however， culture in its most discerning sense that has proven to be the key to understanding why and how various people worldwide deal with risk and disaster. It is cardinal to how people calculate peril， how they experience catastrophes， and how they recover. Or， dont recover. Or， dont protect themselves. It has further been identified as the essential underpinning of vulnerability， and how that vulnerability is manufactured. Yet， instilling the knowledge of culture， in its profound connotation， into disaster aid and prevention， into the policies and practices of international， national， and non-governmental agencies dealing with disaster has proven stubborn， often leading to the severe detriment of vulnerable populations and survivors. （Hoffman and Oliver-Smith， 2002）.

As I present my discussion here， I will cite examples; some from the United State， some from other countries， and some from China. But， before I turn to details about culture， let me outline a few definitions. I start with a bold， but generally agreed upon， one，“There is no such thing as a natural disaster. They are all human constructed at some level” （Hewitt， 1983; Squires and Hartman， 2006; OKeefe， Westgate and Wisner.1976）.Therefore， they are all in one way or another， social/cultural.

Now let me define and describe for you from a social science point of view what a disaster is. “A disaster is：“A process/event combining a destructive agent/force from the natural，modified， or built environment and a population in a socially and economically produced condition of vulnerability that results in the disruption of social needs for physical survival， social order， customary satisfactions， and meaning” （Oliver-Smith and Hoffman 2002：4）. By their very constitution， therefore， disasters spring from the nexus where environment， society， and technology come together; the point where place， people， and human construction—material and non-material—meet.Moreover， as disasters unfold，they re-implicate the same three vectors， a locale and its embedded issues， such as a fault line; a human socio-cultural system and how it is structured; and what has been done to the locale a people occupy by its own or outside inhabitants.That includes not just the buildings that have been erected， like houses and bridges， but also how the surrounding have been modified， that is， what people have done to their environment， like damming rivers or digging out mountains （Oliver-Smith and Hoffman， 2002：5-6）.

Disasters were thought of as unpredictable and extreme happenings that fell upon human communities like“bolts from the blue”. Thus， most early concern over disasters concentrated on the physical agents of events and focused on ways to counteract them， usually by constructing some sort of physical deterrent， such as a levee.This early focus also included the management of affected populations. The idea of recovery was to fix damage， end duress， and return people as quickly as possible to a pre-disaster status quo. Little historical perspective and scant social-cultural patterns were taken into account. About 1980， however， when for a number of reasons— cost， failure， long lasting aftermaths— the topic of disasters rose to critical interest and a new position emerged.Disasters， and the hazards leading to them， were re-evaluated as basic， often chronic elements of particular environments， and，more crucially， whether natural or technological， as happenings humans themselves to a large degree manufactured. （Oliver Smith， 1996;Oliver-Smith and Hoffman， 2002：3-22; Hoffman and Oliver-Smith， 1999：1-18）.

What， then， lies behind how disasters occur？At the core of how disasters take place is the factor of vulnerability. Vulnerability is a key concept of the social science， and even the physical science， approach to disaster study today. Heres a definition： “The conjunction of a human population and a potentially destructive agent does not inevitably produce a disaster.A disaster becomes unavoidable in the context of a historically produced pattern of “vulnerability，” evidenced in the location， infrastructure， sociopolitical organization， production and distribution systems， and ideology of a society”（Oliver-Smith and Hoffman， 2002：3）.The importance of vulnerability continues：“A peoples vulnerability is not only causal， it conditions the behavior of individuals and organizations throughout the unfolding of the entire disaster scenario far more profoundly than will the physical force of the destructive agent” （Oliver-Smith and Hoffman， 2002：3）.

The pertinent issue is to illuminate the factors that produce vulnerability. I already mentioned that culture determines peoples perception of color， sound， touch （Berlin and Kay， 1969）. Culture also determines an element at the core of a disastrous occurrence： a peoples perception of risk.Due to their culture， people manipulate appraisals of their physical milieu to suit their lifestyle， their means of subsistence， and their safety by sculpting the risks they acknowledge. Another cultural factor in determining vulnerabilityis how a people arrange the space they inhabit （Feld， et. al， 1996; Low and Lawrence-Zuniga， 2003）. ?And， highly crucial to disaster understanding is how， according to their culture， people calculate time. Another cultural factor that affects peoples vulnerability is the model of disaster that a culture imparts. Such models emanate， and are maintained， in the expressive， or symbolic， aspect of culture， something few agencies consider.

There are yet more cultural issues that contribute to a peoples vulnerability. It is essential to realize that a society does not make itsentire people equally vulnerable. Many nuances contribute to what could be called “different shares of safety”. There is the matter of social class， that is， how a society structures its social divisions. It can be based on wealth or power， race， ethnicity， caste， or even a persons skin tone. And many cultures sustain biases against particular segments that place them in more danger.The issue of gender is a highly causative matter in vulnerability. Some cultures mandate the economic and social suppression. Others prevent women from having the skills for survival， or stipulate dress that inhibits movement. Age is also a factor， for instances， unprotected street urchins and the elderly （Hoffman， 2004）. So is a peoples social structure. Of great importance is the kinship system， and its rules. Indeed， it is highly relevant and often neglected. Moreover， occupation， unity or disunity of community， and a cultures religious mandates are also factors.Also contributing are pressures within the culture to conform. There is yet a further factor of major import， and that is place attachment， which is perhaps the hardest issue to mitigate in disaster.

In looking at not only disasters themselves but preparation and mitigation， it is necessary also to recognize something I havent yet mentioned. Culture actually has two aspects. It has a macro-expression that comes from the great traditions of shared language and ancestral heritage. But culture is also always local. Every little village， town， city and enclave has its own tinkered cultural variation， and heeding both levels of culture is central to how a people anticipate and recover. It is the mantra now to stress that all disasters are in essence local， and， all are， therefore， different， and it behooves any mitagater to learn local culture， knowledge， and desires.

Considering all these cultural issues and more， in terms of preparation and mitigation， the question then arises， can culture be changed？ It is the all-important crux to risk reduction （Hoffman， 1999）.As with every question， once again a number of components comeinto play. The first is whether the change is attempted before or after a disaster has occurred. This is because it is far easier to change a peoples mind set and practices after a disaster than before one. As I mentioned， culture is conservative. Change is slow and difficult. Before a disaster occurs， undoubtedly， education is key. Once a disaster happens， there is often what is called a “window of ?opportunity” in which change is more readily possible.Depending on the disaster， however， there are certain elements that more facilitate change （Hoffman， 1999）.

The topic of cultural change， of course， brings up whether or not resilience can be built into communities. Resilience has become the latest， “hot” term in disaster work. It is not my favorite concept. I worry that it is a “gloss” that is largely teleological in outlook， that is， it has credence looking backward. It tends to put the responsibility for prevention， and somewhat also the blame， on the victims themselves. It has become politicized， lacks means of measurement， and gives people involved in risk reduction a ready excuse to evade profound implementation. Most importantly， it is not the opposite of vulnerability. Still， I believe if a peoples culture is deeply apprehended and applied， risk reduction and disaster recovery can be strengthened， and far more resilient communities will result.

Key Words： disaster; culture; vulnerability; anthropological perspective

References：

See P34-35 in this journal.