What Does Catastrophe Reveal for Whom? The Anthropology of Crises and Disasters at the Onset of the Anthropocene
What Does Catastrophe Reveal for Whom? The Anthropology of Crises and Disasters at the Onset of the Anthropocene
复制标题
DOI：
10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041635
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Barrios, Roberto E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barrios, Roberto E.
危机一词的现代主义用法传达了一个事件的概念，它作为一个历史判断，标志着一个划时代的转变，有时会导致一个乌托邦时代。此外，目前在政治领域使用危机的说法往往将灾难性事件视为错误和故障的结果，从而使人们的注意力从产生灾难性事件的规范性和公认的做法和政策上转移开来。相反，人类学对灾害的定义将灾害理解为历史过程的最终结果，人类的实践增强了地球物理现象、技术故障和传染病的物质破坏力和社会破坏力，并根据性别、种族、阶级和民族不公平地分配灾害风险。尽管危机和灾害的习惯定义和学术定义之间存在根本差异，但政治精英和学术界通常使用前者来指代后者。本文以人类学近40年来对灾害的研究为基础，回顾了危机概念在灾害分析中的优点和局限性，并对20世纪70年代以来灾害人类学的分析多样化进行了概述。
The modernist usage of the word crisis conveys the idea of an event that acts as a historical judgment, marks an epochal transition, and sometimes leads to a utopian era. Furthermore, current uses of crisis in the political sphere often figure catastrophic events as the result of errors and malfunctions, drawing attention away from the quotidian and normatively accepted practices and policies that produce them. Anthropological definitions of disaster, in contrast, understand catastrophes as the end result of historical processes by which human practices enhance the materially destructive and socially disruptive capacities of geophysical phenomena, technological malfunctions, and communicable diseases and inequitably distribute disaster risk according to lines of gender, race, class, and ethnicity. Despite this fundamental difference between customary and scholarly definitions of crises and disasters, the former term is commonly used to refer to the latter by political elites and academics alike. This article reviews the merits and limitations of the crisis concept in the analysis of disasters on the basis of anthropological research on catastrophes during the last 40 years and provides an overview of the analytical diversification of disaster anthropology since the 1970s.