(I apologize for the delay in the post. We were initially confused as to whose turn it was, and to top it off, I got off work unexpectedly late.)
I found Andrew's reporting of the recent 8.2 earthquake in northern Chile interesting. Perhaps I am biased because I hope to study abroad in Chile next year/I am currently pulling my hair out over my SISU-206 research methodology project concerning the country. However, I think these goings-on are a prime example of something we have discussed extensively in class, that is, the role of the media in the perception of disasters.
The Atlantic reports that, "[s]urprisingly, damage and casualties were very limited." This comes as such a surprise to us in light of the 8.8 earthquake that struck the country back in 2010. Whereas the 2010 quake and its subsequent tsunami resulted in the deaths of over 500 people (CNN), the recent disaster has claimed the lives of only six, some of which were resultant of "fatal heart attacks" (The Atlantic).
This begs the question, as Andrew noted, of whether or not this event can be called a disaster. We think of earthquakes with the conventional understanding that it is a physical disaster, much like tornadoes and hurricanes. In fact, we have recently spent much of our time dealing with less obvious disasters, such as starvation and even cancer. My question for the class, then, is does the death toll alone determine if physical disasters are actually disasters. In other words, if Chile was more prepared for this massive earthquake than it was for the last one, resulting in only six deaths, does the quake deserve the title of disaster at all?
I argue yes it does, and the post from the Atlantic, I believe, demonstrates why. We have touched on the role of the media in cultivating how society views a particular disaster (or non-disaster). Take a look at the series of photos the Atlantic has published of this month's post-earthquake aftermath:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/04/the-aftermath-of-chiles-earthquake/100709/
Pictures like these:
are fascinatingly complex. The first is a depiction of sheer destruction that appears to be claiming many, many lives. The dissemination of such powerful information to the masses certainly has the potential to lead people to believe in this earthquake as a disaster. Many other pictures in the collection reveal a great deal of physical damage to a wide range of materials, truly. However, if we stick to the strict notion of a disaster defined by its death toll, we can see how this conversation changes entirely.
The second picture shows a greater sense of preparedness on the part of the Chilean government. I imagine that evacuation routes like this are quite common in areas with such a high risk calculus for natural disasters as Chile. Several other pictures in the Atlantic's collection show terror and havoc among the locals directly affected by the earthquake. That said, I remind you that the official casualty count is six.
In closing, I open this continued conversation on Chile up to the possibility that disasters are what we make of them (yet again echoing Wendt's constructivist sentiments on anarchy). Several factors that contribute to the reduced death toll this time around in Chile are perhaps (or perhaps not) overshadowed by depictions of what we now expect to see when discussing something along the lines of an earthquake. In a world like the one we inhabit, then, of course I believe that the media has the power to shape what we do and do not define as disasters. It is important to be aware of this reality, I think, if we are to discuss the appropriate measures of disaster response.
Thoughts?
-Anthony DeSantis
No comments:
Post a Comment