Grégory Quenet
56
ble of shaking the legitimacy of political power to its very foundations. Ultimately, natural catastrophe also became a socal issue, giving
rise to contrasting and concurrent interpretations of its meaning.
Contrary to what the philosopher, Michel Serres, wrote in the
aftermath of the Asian tsunami of Christmas 2004,
59 the Enlightenment never championed a triumphalist reading of science’s ability to
overcome natural dangers, a reading which would be called into question by a series of subsequent disasters. The debt we owe to Lisbon
lies elsewhere, specifically in the inscription of natural catastrophe in
the historical process, thereby founding the western conception of historical progress as a gradual liberation of humankind from the twin
dangers of Nature and Evil. 1755 marks the first symbolic victory by
which natural catastrophe is transformed into a philosophical and cultural event, stripping it in the process of its most mysterious elements.
Yet – as we are discovering today – increasingly sophisticated
and complex societies generate a new order of vulnerability, often
greater than that experienced in the past. Concentrations of several
million people, equipped with expensive technological systems and an
ultramodern network of communications, are ultimately fragile things.
Risk and death are part of the normal functioning of any social system, hence the urgency of being aware of them and of protecting oneself in advance. The utopian idea, often seen as accompanying the
Lisbon disaster, that we might one day triumph over nature, has to be
abandoned. But it would be equally wrong not to strive to do more, for
the contemporaries of the Lisbon earthquake clearly showed that the
response to any natural catastrophe is an ongoing project, work in
progress, a goal to be aimed for, while always remaining aware of
one’s vulnerability. On this point, we still have a lot to learn from the
events in Lisbon over 250 years ago.
Translated by David McCallam
___________________________
59 Michel Serres, “Interview”, Le Figaro, 6 juin 2005.
56
ble of shaking the legitimacy of political power to its very foundations. Ultimately, natural catastrophe also became a socal issue, giving
rise to contrasting and concurrent interpretations of its meaning.
Contrary to what the philosopher, Michel Serres, wrote in the
aftermath of the Asian tsunami of Christmas 2004,
59 the Enlightenment never championed a triumphalist reading of science’s ability to
overcome natural dangers, a reading which would be called into question by a series of subsequent disasters. The debt we owe to Lisbon
lies elsewhere, specifically in the inscription of natural catastrophe in
the historical process, thereby founding the western conception of historical progress as a gradual liberation of humankind from the twin
dangers of Nature and Evil. 1755 marks the first symbolic victory by
which natural catastrophe is transformed into a philosophical and cultural event, stripping it in the process of its most mysterious elements.
Yet – as we are discovering today – increasingly sophisticated
and complex societies generate a new order of vulnerability, often
greater than that experienced in the past. Concentrations of several
million people, equipped with expensive technological systems and an
ultramodern network of communications, are ultimately fragile things.
Risk and death are part of the normal functioning of any social system, hence the urgency of being aware of them and of protecting oneself in advance. The utopian idea, often seen as accompanying the
Lisbon disaster, that we might one day triumph over nature, has to be
abandoned. But it would be equally wrong not to strive to do more, for
the contemporaries of the Lisbon earthquake clearly showed that the
response to any natural catastrophe is an ongoing project, work in
progress, a goal to be aimed for, while always remaining aware of
one’s vulnerability. On this point, we still have a lot to learn from the
events in Lisbon over 250 years ago.
Translated by David McCallam
___________________________
59 Michel Serres, “Interview”, Le Figaro, 6 juin 2005.