It is customary to consider the disaster or a catastrophe as a phenomenon essentially tied to the vagaries of nature or as a byproduct of human activities. In both cases, it is approached through a perspective of emergency that rarely leaves room for interpretation on the functioning of social systems. Recently, the prevailing public opinion has begun to look at these events with different eyes. In the wake of scientific, political programs and social mobilization around climate change, people have begun to consider the natural disasters in terms of social effects that the change climate may cause. However, natural disasters are not just for social events that produce the effects on the dynamics and relationships of a company, but they are also social phenomena by their very definition, origin and scope. In other words, they are essentially social from the sociological perspective.
[...] The two authors, the physical or spatial epicenter as the magnitude of an earthquake, are simply properties of space rather than in the means by which to define or even explain the phenomenon. The two dimensions that become significant are the social and the mental: the disaster is first a mental construct, a way of perceiving the effects or consequences of an event than the ordinary course of life experience, and a social construction, in reference both to the conditions of a society that determine the impact of the agent interacting with its property and the cultural elements available to a community to interpret the events themselves and their circumstances. [...]
[...] In fact, already through the entire sociological tradition, the moment of crisis becomes useful to understand how the dynamics of ordinary and "normal" of a company: Such an approach was already introduced by Schutz, who saw the figure of the alien culture better tool to understand and explain the processes of social construction of reality in a given culture: the stranger, in fact, not knowing the culture, is not subject to the construction of the surrounding world, that is, by contrast, discounts and never called into question by its members . Similarly, disaster, breaking the normal functioning of things, highlights the structures and processes of a company with greater clarity and allows you to more easily place them in question. Conclusion The sociological approach to the study of disasters is therefore important both because it allows us to assess what conditions which may offset the dangerous effects of a disaster, reducing stress and caused the crisis of social community (Durkheim believed that the anomic condition could [...]
[...] Dealing with potential disaster Although several studies have also declined the second trajectories different definitions, it is undeniable that an approach characteristic of sociology can only start from the premise set out above. One might raise the criticism before it for which focusing on the discontinuity caused by the disaster, the sociological perspective is limited to define and identify the phenomenon only in retrospect, after all, thus remaining always within a logic of emergency. In this respect at least two points are interesting: recognizing the value of breaking the phenomenon involves focusing on the social conditions that make possible a limitation of the consequences of an agent and then evaluate how a company can best prepare to deal with potential disasters. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
