inevitable to cope with those aspects integrated with technical and practical
activities to understand and overcome accident.
At this point, the author would argue that an idea to remedy this problem might
be found in the original context of “resilience” concept. Needless to say, “resilience” is the word originally used in the field of psychology and psychiatry to
describe, analyze and encourage the human beings’ ability to adopt and cope with
stress and adversity. In those fields, resilience is considered as an inherent ability of
us, but, it is studied that it could be encouraged by appropriate support by relevant
people and society, at the same time. Thus, if we extract some implications from
this original context of “resilience” concept, we should recognize the importance of
social healing process to remedy post-disaster emotional trauma of society and
individuals. The process must be clinical and call for very intensive and grass-root
but sometimes low-profile efforts beside victims. Their damages need to be cured
by psychological, bedside and ethical practices, while compensation, assistance
funding, town reconstruction program and any other institutional and pragmatic
supports are still important and effective in many cases. We need this kind of
careful emotional treatments before we talk and do something about engineering
resilience under the actual post-disaster situation like post “3.11” Japan.
Furthermore, it is even required to apply the similar healing process to encourage
the resilience of expert community, as the victimizer’s side. Japanese STS (Science
and Technology Studies) researcher Ekou Yagi introduced her own experiences of
“just be there with victimizers” after serious technological disasters, JR
Fukuchiyama line train derail accident in 2005 and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
accident in 2011 [13]. She points out that the members of victimizing
companies/organizations of serious accidents also require emotional support to be
proactive and to build sound and respectful relationship with victims and their
families. She tried to be a supporter, not by doing something actively with them, but
by just being beside them and hearing their voices calmly. She reported that the
existence of such an escort person with the knowledge on their business (it was the
advantage of her as a STS researcher) seemed to be supportive for “victimizers” and
did encourage the positive signs of their own changes towards the rebuilt of public
trust.
6 Concluding Remarks: At the Heart of Risk Governance
To enhance post-disaster social resilience, however, we should arrange some
appropriate arrangement to reduce the burden of such a psychological healing
process after the actual occurrence of serious accident. As the concluding remarks
of this chapter, the author would suggest an idea to help to make the arrangement
more properly: to build a consensus about framing, characterization and evaluation
of risks and distribution of mandates, roles and responsibilities among stakeholders.
At this point, it should be noted that this is the very substantial goal of risk
governance, and its core activity is risk communication.
Why Is It so Difficult to Learn from Accidents?
165
activities to understand and overcome accident.
At this point, the author would argue that an idea to remedy this problem might
be found in the original context of “resilience” concept. Needless to say, “resilience” is the word originally used in the field of psychology and psychiatry to
describe, analyze and encourage the human beings’ ability to adopt and cope with
stress and adversity. In those fields, resilience is considered as an inherent ability of
us, but, it is studied that it could be encouraged by appropriate support by relevant
people and society, at the same time. Thus, if we extract some implications from
this original context of “resilience” concept, we should recognize the importance of
social healing process to remedy post-disaster emotional trauma of society and
individuals. The process must be clinical and call for very intensive and grass-root
but sometimes low-profile efforts beside victims. Their damages need to be cured
by psychological, bedside and ethical practices, while compensation, assistance
funding, town reconstruction program and any other institutional and pragmatic
supports are still important and effective in many cases. We need this kind of
careful emotional treatments before we talk and do something about engineering
resilience under the actual post-disaster situation like post “3.11” Japan.
Furthermore, it is even required to apply the similar healing process to encourage
the resilience of expert community, as the victimizer’s side. Japanese STS (Science
and Technology Studies) researcher Ekou Yagi introduced her own experiences of
“just be there with victimizers” after serious technological disasters, JR
Fukuchiyama line train derail accident in 2005 and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
accident in 2011 [13]. She points out that the members of victimizing
companies/organizations of serious accidents also require emotional support to be
proactive and to build sound and respectful relationship with victims and their
families. She tried to be a supporter, not by doing something actively with them, but
by just being beside them and hearing their voices calmly. She reported that the
existence of such an escort person with the knowledge on their business (it was the
advantage of her as a STS researcher) seemed to be supportive for “victimizers” and
did encourage the positive signs of their own changes towards the rebuilt of public
trust.
6 Concluding Remarks: At the Heart of Risk Governance
To enhance post-disaster social resilience, however, we should arrange some
appropriate arrangement to reduce the burden of such a psychological healing
process after the actual occurrence of serious accident. As the concluding remarks
of this chapter, the author would suggest an idea to help to make the arrangement
more properly: to build a consensus about framing, characterization and evaluation
of risks and distribution of mandates, roles and responsibilities among stakeholders.
At this point, it should be noted that this is the very substantial goal of risk
governance, and its core activity is risk communication.
Why Is It so Difficult to Learn from Accidents?
165