In the eyes of the beholder: technological and naturalistic interpretations of a disaster

An assumption shared by most literature on calamities is that blame assigna tion occurs in technological but not natural disaster situations. In this study of a major urban flood, 65% of the sample assigned responsibility for the disaster to human agents and technological failures. Those who attributed economic and psychological losses to human agency believed that natural disasters are controllable and that it is the responsibility of government to control nature through the use of technology and regulation. If natural disasters are increas ingly being interpreted in technological terms, collective responses are likely to call for technological means to assess and minimize risks.

[1]  Assignment of Responsibility and Flood Hazard in Catahoula County, Louisiana , 1985 .

[2]  Russell R. Dynes,et al.  Community Conflict: Its Absence and Its Presence In Natural Disasters , 1971 .

[3]  Robert P. Wolensky,et al.  The Everyday Versus the Disaster Role of Local Officials , 1981 .

[4]  Enrico L Quarantelli,et al.  What Is Disaster? The Need For Clarification In Definition And Conceptualization In Research , 1985 .

[5]  E. L. Quarantelli,et al.  What Should We Study?: Questions about the Concept of Disasters (Presidential Address) , 1987 .

[6]  Lloyd Timberlake,et al.  Natural Disasters: Acts of God or Acts of Man? , 2021, Environmental Conservation.

[7]  J. S. KROLL-SMITHt,et al.  A Chronic Technical Disaster And The Irrelevance of Religious Meaning: The Case of Centralia, Pennsylvania* , 1987 .

[8]  A. Barton Communities in disaster : a sociological analysis of collective stress situations , 1970 .

[9]  E. Quarantelli What Should we Study? Questions and Suggestions for Researchers about the Concept of Disasters , 1987, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[10]  Laura M. Davidson,et al.  Natural Disaster and Technological Catastrophe , 1983 .

[11]  T. J. Blocker,et al.  Political Responses to Natural Hazards: Social Movement Participation Following a Flood Disaster , 1991, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[12]  E. Elliott Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers , 1983 .

[13]  K. Hewitt,et al.  Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology , 1984 .

[14]  Darrel A. Regier,et al.  Role of Perceived Control in Coping with Disaster , 1989 .

[15]  Allen H. Barton,et al.  Communities in Disaster , 1971 .

[16]  Martha Wolfenstein,et al.  Disaster: A Psychological Essay , 1957 .

[17]  Joanne M. Nigg,et al.  Technological Disaster and the Nontherapeutic Community , 1987 .

[18]  E. Quarantelli,et al.  Scapegoats, villains, and disasters , 1967 .

[19]  Robert P. Wolensky Power Structure and Group Mobilization Following Disaster: A Case Study. , 1983 .

[20]  R. Bucher,et al.  Blame and Hostility in Disaster , 1957, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  Stephen R. Couch,et al.  What is a Disaster? An Ecological-Symbolic Approach to Resolving the Definitional Debate , 1991, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[22]  K. Deaux Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. , 1987 .