Disasters are often described as exceptional moments that demand global solidarity. A ‘state of humanitarian exception’ emerges as citizens foreground norms of compassion and cooperation while contestatory discourse – the argumentative, blame-seeking and fault-finding forms of speech – are stigmatized as inappropriate interventions in a society seeking to recover from a distressful crisis situation. This article critically unpacks these representations of post-disaster situations empirically and normatively. By analysing the discussions in the public sphere over the first 100 days after Typhoon Haiyan battered Central Philippines, the article examines the moral force behind the ‘discourse of compassion’ and its ‘ethical boundary work’ that places the ‘discourse of contestation’ outside the scope of acceptable conduct. It proposes that the discourse of compassion’s ethical boundary work is only democratically acceptable when one takes a short view of a crisis situation. Drawing on deliberative democracy theory, the article argues for the importance of contestatory discourse in fostering inclusive discourse formation and ensuring that the state of humanitarian exception does not become the rule.
AgambenG (2005) State of Exception, trans. AttelK.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
AndreiAElsonSBZarrellaG (2015) Language and emotion in Philippine Twitter use during Typhoon Haiyan. MITRE Technical Report. Mclean, VA.
3.
BächtigerANiemeyerSNebloMet al. (2010) Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy18(1): 32–63.
4.
BankoffG (2003) Cultures of Disaster: Society and Natural Hazards in the Philippines. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
5.
BoinA‘t HartP (2007) The crisis approach. Handbook of Disaster Research. New York: Springer, pp. 42–54.
6.
BoinAMcConnellA‘t HartP (eds) (2008) Governing after Crisis: The Politics of Investigation, Accountability and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BoltanskiL (1999) Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ChambersS (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science6(1): 307–326.
9.
CooperriderDWhitneyDD (2005) Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
10.
CuratoN (2012) A sequential analysis of democratic deliberation. Acta Politica47(4): 423–442.
11.
CuratoNNiemeyerSDryzekJ (2013) Appreciative and contestatory inquiry in deliberative forums: Can group hugs be dangerous?Critical Policy Studies7(1): 1–17.
12.
DryzekJ (2009) Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative Political Studies42(11): 1379–1402.
13.
DryzekJ (2010) Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
DyzenhausD (2011) Emergency, liberalism, and the state. Perspectives on Politics9(1): 69–78.
15.
FassinDVasquezP (2005) Humanitarian exception as the rule: The political theology of the 1999 Tragedia in Venezuela. American Ethnologist32(3): 389–405.
16.
FrickerM (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HawdonJRyanJ (2011) Social relations that generate and sustain solidarity after a mass tragedy. Social Forces89(4): 1363–1384.
19.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2013) World Disasters Report 2013: Focus on technology and the future of humanitarian action. Available at: www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/134658/WDR%202013%20complete.pdf.
20.
KapoorI (2013) Celebrity Humanitarianism: The Ideology of Charity. London: Routledge.
21.
LavellA (2007) The Lower Lempa River Valley, El Salvador: Risk reduction and development project. In: BankoffGFrerksGHilhorstD (eds) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. London: EarthScan.
22.
LazarNC (2009) States of Emergency in Liberal Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
LemkeT (2005) ‘A zone of indistinction’: A critique of Giorgio Agamben’s concept of biopolitics. Critical Practice Studies7(1): 3–13.
24.
McLavertyPHalpinD (2008) Deliberative drift: The emergence of deliberation in the policy process. International Political Science Review29(2): 197–214.
25.
MadianouMMillerD (2011) Mobile phone parenting: Reconfiguring relationships between Filipina migrant mothers and their left-behind children. New Media and Society13(3): 457–470.
26.
NeocleousM (2006) The problem with normality: Taking exception to ‘permanent emergency’. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political31(2): 191–213.
27.
Oliver-SmithA (1996) Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology25: 303–328.
28.
OngJC (2015) The Poverty of Television: The Mediation of Suffering in Class-divided Philippines. London: Anthem Press.
29.
ParkinsonJMansbridgeJ (eds) (2012) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
PassavantPA (2007) The contradictory state of Giorgio Agamben. Political Theory35(2): 147–174.
31.
PerrowC (2011) Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ShindoR (2015) Enacting citizenship in a post-disaster situation: The response to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Citizenship Studies19(1): 16–34.
34.
TakahashiBTandocECCarmichaelC (2015) Communicating on Twitter during a disaster: An analysis of tweets during Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Computers in Human Behavior50: 392–398.
TierneyKBevcC (2007) Disaster as war: Militarism and the social construction of disaster in New Orleans. In: BrunsmaDLOverfeltDPicouJS (eds) The Sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a Modern Catastrophe. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 35–49.
37.
TrontoJC (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Hove: Psychology Press.
38.
We Are Social (2015) Digital, social and mobile in 2015: We are Social’s compendium of digital statistics. Available at: wearesocial.sg/tag/philippines/ (accessed 25 November 2015).
39.
WuthnowR (2010) Be Very Afraid: The Cultural Response to Terror, Pandemics, Environmental Devastation, Nuclear Annihilation, and Other Threats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
