This article constructively challenges the often cited distinction between the so-called hazard and vulnerability perspectives in disaster studies.In a context of increasingly intertwined,dense,and complex socioeco-lo...This article constructively challenges the often cited distinction between the so-called hazard and vulnerability 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 culture,manifested as either a hazard or a vulnerability approach.This article maintains that the typically undesired 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 aforementioned 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 relations have adverse consequences for the appropriateness of knowledge production in many contexts.I am primarily ISI Gideon van Riet Gideon.vanriet@nwu.ac.za 1 School for Government Studies,North-West University,Potchefstroom 2531,Northwest Province,South Africa concerned with the very local level of disaster occurrence,where posthumanism might be most valuable.展开更多
文摘This article constructively challenges the often cited distinction between the so-called hazard and vulnerability 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 culture,manifested as either a hazard or a vulnerability approach.This article maintains that the typically undesired 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 aforementioned 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 relations have adverse consequences for the appropriateness of knowledge production in many contexts.I am primarily ISI Gideon van Riet Gideon.vanriet@nwu.ac.za 1 School for Government Studies,North-West University,Potchefstroom 2531,Northwest Province,South Africa concerned with the very local level of disaster occurrence,where posthumanism might be most valuable.
