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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barton, A.H., 1969. Communities in Disaster: a Sociological Analysis of Collective Stress Situations. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
2.
Baum, A., Fleming, R. and Singer, J., 1983. Natural disaster and technological catastrophe. Environment and Behavior, 15: 333-354.
3.
Blocker, T.J., Rochford, E.B., Jr. and Sherkat, D.E., 1991. Political responses to natural hazards: social movement participation following a flood disaster . International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters , 9: 367-382.
4.
Bucher, R., 1957. Blame and hostility in disaster. American Journal of Sociology, 62: 467-475.
5.
Couch, S.R. and Kroll-Smith, J.S. , 1985. The chronic technical disaster: toward a social scientific perspective. Social Science Quarterly , 66: 564-575.
6.
Cuthbertson, B. and Nigg, J.M., 1987. Technological disaster and the nontherapeutic community . Environment and Behavior, 19: 462-483.
7.
De Man, A., Simpson-Housley, P. and Curtis, F., 1985. Assignment of responsibility and flood hazard in Catahoula County, Louisiana. Environment and Behavior, 17: 371-386.
8.
Douglas, M., 1985. Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
9.
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A., 1982. Risk and Culture: an Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press , Berkeley, CA.
10.
Drabek, T.E., 1986. Human Responses to Disaster: an Inventory of Sociological Findings. Springer, New York.
11.
Drabek, T.E. and Quarentelli, E.L. , 1967. Scapegoats, villains, and disasters. Trans-action, 6: 33-38.
12.
Dynes, R. and Yutzy, D., 1965. The religious interpretation of disaster. Topic: a Journal of the Liberal Arts, Fall: 34-47.
13.
Fritz, C.E., 1961. Disasters. In: R.K. Merton and R.A. Nisbet, eds. Contemporary Social Problems. Harcourt, Brace & World , New York: 651-694.
14.
Hewitt, K., 1983. The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. In: K. Hewitt, ed. Interpretations of Calamity: From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. Allen & Unwin , Boston, MA: 3-32.
15.
Kroll-Smith, J.S. and Couch, S.R., 1987. A chronic technical disaster and the irrelevance of religious meaning: the case of Centralia, Pennsylvania. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26: 25-37.
16.
Kroll-Smith, J.S. and Couch, S.R., 1991. What is a disaster? An ecological-symbolic approach to resolving the definitional debate. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9: 355-366.
17.
Kroll-Smith, J.S., Couch, S.R. and Levine, A.G., forthcoming. Technological hazards and disasters. In: R.A. Dunlap and W. Michelson , eds. Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Green-wood, Westport, CT.
18.
Oberschall, A., 1989. Culture change and social movements. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association , San Francisco, CA.
19.
Patton, A., 1976. Will someone please make those floods go away? Tulsa Magazine, 7 October: 14-17.
20.
Patton, A., 1977. Why Tulsa floods. Tulsa Home and Garden Magazine, 1 (6): 9-11, 46,48.
21.
Phillips, B.D. and Hutchins, M., 1991. Living in the aftermath: blaming processes in the Loma Prieta earthquake. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Cincinnati, OH.
22.
Quarantelli, E.L., 1985. What is disaster? The need for clarification in definition and conceptualization in research. In: B.J. Sowder, ed. Disasters and Mental Health. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Mental Health, Washington, DC: 41-73.
23.
Quarantelli, E.L., 1987. What should we study? Questions and suggestions for researchers about the concept of disasters. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 5: 7-32.
24.
Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R., 1976. Community conflict: its absence and presence in natural disasters. Mass Emergencies, 1: 138-152.
25.
Solomon, S.D., Regier, D.A. and Burke, J.D., 1989. Role of perceived control in coping with disaster. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8: 376-392.
26.
Stallings, R., 1988. Conflict in natural disasters: a codification of consensus and conflict theories. Social Science Quarterly, 69: 569-586.
27.
Team One, Inc. and R.D. Flanagan and Associates, 1976. Flood Information Study. Report prepared for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, Tulsa, OK.
28.
Wijkman, A. and Timberlake, L., 1988. Natural Disasters: Acts of God or Acts of Man? New Society, Philadelphia, PA.
29.
Wolensky, R., 1983. Power structure and group mobilization following disaster: a case study. Social Science Quarterly, 64: 97-110.
30.
Wolensky, R., 1984. Power, Policy, and Disaster: the Political-Organizational Impact of a Major Flood. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Center for the Small City, Stevens Point, WI.
31.
Wolensky, R. and Miller, E., 1981. The everyday versus the disaster role of local officials — citizen and official definitions. Urban Affairs Quarterly , 16: 483-504.
32.
Wolfstein, M., 1957. Disaster: a Psychological Essay. Free Press, New York.
