The Four Fundamental Theories of Disasters

The Four Fundamental Theories of Disasters

Kenneth J. Costine

American Military University

The Four Fundamental Theories of Disasters

The following paper will discuss the four fundamental theories of disasters and how do

these theories affect decisions made in planning.

There have been four fundamental theories about disasters. These four theories have

conceived of disasters as, acts of God, acts of nature, joint effects of nature and society, and

social constructions. Early usage referred to these occurrences to unfavorable or negative events,

usually of a personal nature, resulting from unfavorable alignment of the stars and planets. When

applied to major physical disturbances thereby the referred to four fundamental theories about

disasters evolved and developed to their present understanding within civilized society.

Disaster as “Act of God”. “Earliest (and continuing) usage suggests that Acts of God

were viewed as divine retribution for human misdeeds and failings.” (White, et al., 2001) In the

beginning of human history when a disaster occurred, it was blamed on God, in one way, shape

or form without a logical answer, people would attach their own misdeeds or misunderstanding

on the effect of a disaster which was beyond the scope and control of those who thought they

controlled nature and the weather, an example would be ancient priests and shamans blaming

God when a disaster befell those around them. In the days prior to printing and the Age of

Enlightenment, disaster was interpreted as divine retribution of God against society for some

aggrieved violation in light of exposure to the truth. What is striking is that many people still

believe that disasters are divine retribution as illustrated in the following, from sermon of Dr.

Begg, in reference to the Sunday, December 28, 1879 collapse of Railway Bridge over the River

Tay in Scotland, killing 75….. “If there is one voice louder than others in this terrible event it is

that of God! Determined to guard his Sabbath with jealous care, God does not afflict except with

good cause. The Sabbath of God has been dreadfully profaned by our great public companies.

These wicked people are actually going to have the audacity to rebuild this bridge. Is it not
The Four Fundamental Theories of Disasters

awful to think that they (the passengers) must have been carried away when they were

transgressing the law of God.” (Toft, 1992)

Acts of God in a more latter modern view came to be viewed as it just the way things

were and part of God’s plan, not to be understood by humans and we need to just accept and get

on with it. Disasters happen and people are the innocent victims. Still later into the modern era

acts of God were used as an excuse to avoid responsibility. An example cited would be, “Soon

after the black wall of water and debris ground its way down Buffalo Creek, attorneys for the

local coal company involved called the disaster an ‘act of God.’ When asked what that meant, a

spokesperson explained helpfully that the dam was simply ‘incapable of holding the water God

poured into it.’ (Erikson 1976) In the previous example, and more so in corporate America

today, disasters are used as an excuse to avoid responsibility to claimants after the fact of the

disaster. The bottom line is God (fate), or human sin is to blame for disasters.

Disaster as Act of Nature. “The traditional view of natural hazards has ascribed all or

almost all responsibility for them to the processes of the geophysical world. This approach has

meant that the root cause of large-scale death and destruction has been attributed to the extremes

of nature rather than encompassing the human world.” (Tobin and Montz, 1997) In the previous

example, over time, increased scientific knowledge led many people to change natural causes for

unnatural ones. As science developed and progressed the acts of God contention for the cause of

disasters began to be understood using the scientific method which coldly and statistically

attributed a disaster to the effects of nature and natural causes. The example would be when it

rains a lot, rivers overflow, and there is flooding, equating to simple cause and effect. A good

definition of natural disaster refers to “an outside attack upon social systems that ‘broke down’ in

the face of such an assault from outside” (Quarantelli, 1998, p. 266). The prevention then to an
The Four Fundamental Theories of Disasters

act of nature type of disaster would be to rein nature in by damming rivers, building levees,

cutting fire breaks, etc…. The bottom line is, regardless, Mother Nature is to blame.

Disaster as Joint effects of nature and society. “Not every windstorm, earth-tremor, or

rush of water is a catastrophe. A catastrophe is known by its works; that is to say, by the

occurrence of disaster. So long as the ship rides out the storm, so long as the city resists the

earth-shocks, so long as the levees hold, there is no disaster. It is the collapse of the cultural

protections that constitutes the disaster proper.” (Carr, 1932)

Still later, it was proposed that hazards arise from the interaction of a physical event

system and a human use system. When human beings build infrastructure, and populate areas of

the earth that are historically, and physically the realm of nature, i.e. wilderness forests, or sub-

arctic regions the percentage of averages is weighed against them that a disaster will occur. “It

takes both a hazardous physical event system and a vulnerable human use system to produce

disasters. If either one is missing, disasters do not occur.” (Carr, 1932, p. 211)

This view postulates that if human beings are not in the nature system, then a disaster

does not matter. Nothing could be further from the truth as natural occurrences that can and have

occurred in one area of the earth, can and do affect, other areas of the earth, like a landslide in an

uninhabited area that would obstruct a river or change the course of a river and direct the flow of

that river into a populated area. In any human construct, the failure to anticipate changes in the

environment, either terrestrially or climatically can have detrimental effects to those who

habituated areas considered unsafe for human populations. Bottom Line is humans put

themselves in the way of hazards are to blame.

The Four Fundamental Theories of Disasters

Disaster as Social Constructions. A good example of this type of disaster was the

March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that enveloped eastern Japan, whereas the disaster was

heightened in its danger and effect by having the Fukishima nuclear reactor melt down and the

continuing effects of radiation contamination far from the affected area. The Great Eastern Japan

Earthquake, has in effect changed the social fabric of Japan, and has affected a whole generation

in their ability to trust their government in future times of crisis. It will be interesting to see how

this generation develops its emergency action plans in the future after being traumatized in 2011.

Social constructs in the face of and after a disaster usually have good effects on the society faced

with or after a disaster befalls them. The policy makers in light of a disaster like Fukishima,

within a year dispensed with using nuclear power throughout the breath of Japan. Disasters can

and do enact social constructions.

In the view of an individual caught up in a disaster, perception influences action. To the

person caught up in a disaster some of the following reactions would be seen influence action

and /or inaction.

 Acts of God: Do nothing.

 Acts of Nature: Use technology to control nature with, engineering, and money or do

nothing.

 Disaster as Joint effects of nature and society: Develop society to adjust through careful

zoning, awareness of flood plains, seismic areas, wildfire zones, and other land use

management, etc.).

 Social Constructions: Look at the basic reasons and causes of injustice and human

vulnerability to hazards in society.

The Four Fundamental Theories of Disasters

So what can emergency managers can reduce the dangers of disasters to those who have

the least psychological resilience, social support, political power, and are the poorest

economically? Emergency managers need to address the social creation/societal injustice

perspectives of a disaster. Managers should focus on the vulnerability of people to hazards using

moral the scientific approaches, doing this by looking at disaster subjectively through the eyes of

victims and viewing the people who experience disaster as the victims of powerful interests who

have created the conditions leading or contributing to their hazard vulnerability and finally not

searching for blame.

This paper discussed the four fundamental theories of disasters and how do these theories

affect decisions made in planning.

The Four Fundamental Theories of Disasters

Reference

Carr, L. (1932). Disaster and the sequence-pattern concept of social change. American Journal of
Sociology, 38, 209-215.

Erikson, K.T. (1976). Everything in its path. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Quarantelli, E.L. (1998). Epilogue: Where we have been and where we might go. In E. L.
Quarantelli (ed.) What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question (pp. 234-273). New York:
Routledge.

Tobin, G.A. & Montz, B.E. (1997). Natural hazards: Explanation and integration. New York:
Guilford Press.

Toft, B. (1992) “The Failure of Hindsight.” Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 1, No. 3,
pp. 48-60.

White, Gilbert F.R. Kates and LAn Burtous (2001): Knowing Better and Losing Even More: The
use of Knowledge in Hazards Management . Environmental Hazards, Vol 3, No.3-4, Sept/Dec
2001

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/87674/11/11_chapter%202.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=disaster+preparedness+theoretical+framework&sa=X&
ved=2ahUKEwjplNqbpNzkAhXDfd4KHaoHBVIQ1QIoBnoECAoQBw&biw=1366&bih=608

https://www.google.com/search?q=4+theories+of+disaster&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWir7Vo
9zkAhXBBIgKHU47DnkQ_AUIDSgA&biw=1366&bih=608&dpr=1

https://www.pap.org.ph/sites/default/files/pdf/PJP1502_Final_7Espina_and_Calleja.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271270368_Disaster_preparedness_and_response_strategie
s_in_Kenya/link/54c3a0930cf2911c7a4c60c0/download