to when trying to evaluate the condition under which a specific place could be
considered resilient. And because they pose complex problems, knowledge about
disaster have become more fully integrated.
17 As Gerson [88] states, this integration
does require some adjustments in the ways scientists operate:
One of the most important effects of integration processes is their encouragement of new
specialties that separate from their parent specialties and become organizationally independent to some degree while continuing to increase their degree of epistemic integration
[…]. This segmentation process […] is one of the most important ways in which new
specialties form (p. 5).
Yet, in the face of such statements, the experts’ open secret is that many preventive actions cannot be accomplished preemptively. In such cases, scientists have
to recognize that their scientific knowledge and their capacity for action to prevent,
and respond to, major damage is limited, and that a potential future disaster can go
way beyond—or simply be very different from—anything for which they had
planned. In this process, thinking about resilience could be a way to think the
unthinkable, to be attentive to the “other,” and to provide a platform for discussion
beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries as well as the long-held scientific/laity
divides. and are the criteria that should facing and dealing with a disaster, redefining
the figure of the concerned scientist into a knowing subject, grounded in her
environment, circulating between the layers of knowledge that, prior, had been used
to define the categories of the scientist, the expert, the lay person, or the amateur.
References
1. A. Oliver-Smith, S.M. Hoffman, The angry Earth, in Disaster in Anthropological Perspective,
ed by A. Oliver-Smith, S.M. Hoffman (Routledge, 1999)
2. M. Lussault, L’homme spatial, la construction sociale de l’espace humain (Editions du Seuil,
2007)
3. F. Amador, The causes of 1755 Lisbon Earthquake on Kant, in Actas VIII Congreso de La
Sociedad Espanola de Historia de Las Ciencias Y de Los Tecnicos, 485–495 (2004). http://
dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/dcfichero_articulo?codigo=1090088
4. D. Coen, The Earthquake Observers—Disaster Science from Lisbon to Richter (The
University of Chicago Press, 2013)
5. R.R. Dynes, The Lisbon Earthquake in 1755: Contested Meaning in the First Modern
Disaster. (No. #255) (1997)
6. R. Favier, A.-M. Granet-Abisset, in Society and Natural Risk in France, 1500–2000:
Changing Historical Perspectives, eds. by C. Mauch, C. Pfister. Natural Disasters Cultural
Response (Lexigton Book, 2009), pp. 103–136
7. J. Fressoz, L’apocalypse joyeuse : Une histoire du risque technologique (Seuil, 2012)
17
Gerson [88] writes: “Integration thus means more than simple juxtaposition of efforts in the same
location, and more than relationships that consist solely of market relations. Rather, it includes
coordinated efforts to pose and solve new research problems that can redefine specialty boundaries.
Because of its cooperative and coordinated nature, integration contrasts with the division of labor
into independent lines of effort and the standardization of interfaces among line of work” (p. 516).
Hybrid Disasters—Hybrid Knowledge
347
considered resilient. And because they pose complex problems, knowledge about
disaster have become more fully integrated.
17 As Gerson [88] states, this integration
does require some adjustments in the ways scientists operate:
One of the most important effects of integration processes is their encouragement of new
specialties that separate from their parent specialties and become organizationally independent to some degree while continuing to increase their degree of epistemic integration
[…]. This segmentation process […] is one of the most important ways in which new
specialties form (p. 5).
Yet, in the face of such statements, the experts’ open secret is that many preventive actions cannot be accomplished preemptively. In such cases, scientists have
to recognize that their scientific knowledge and their capacity for action to prevent,
and respond to, major damage is limited, and that a potential future disaster can go
way beyond—or simply be very different from—anything for which they had
planned. In this process, thinking about resilience could be a way to think the
unthinkable, to be attentive to the “other,” and to provide a platform for discussion
beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries as well as the long-held scientific/laity
divides. and are the criteria that should facing and dealing with a disaster, redefining
the figure of the concerned scientist into a knowing subject, grounded in her
environment, circulating between the layers of knowledge that, prior, had been used
to define the categories of the scientist, the expert, the lay person, or the amateur.
References
1. A. Oliver-Smith, S.M. Hoffman, The angry Earth, in Disaster in Anthropological Perspective,
ed by A. Oliver-Smith, S.M. Hoffman (Routledge, 1999)
2. M. Lussault, L’homme spatial, la construction sociale de l’espace humain (Editions du Seuil,
2007)
3. F. Amador, The causes of 1755 Lisbon Earthquake on Kant, in Actas VIII Congreso de La
Sociedad Espanola de Historia de Las Ciencias Y de Los Tecnicos, 485–495 (2004). http://
dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/dcfichero_articulo?codigo=1090088
4. D. Coen, The Earthquake Observers—Disaster Science from Lisbon to Richter (The
University of Chicago Press, 2013)
5. R.R. Dynes, The Lisbon Earthquake in 1755: Contested Meaning in the First Modern
Disaster. (No. #255) (1997)
6. R. Favier, A.-M. Granet-Abisset, in Society and Natural Risk in France, 1500–2000:
Changing Historical Perspectives, eds. by C. Mauch, C. Pfister. Natural Disasters Cultural
Response (Lexigton Book, 2009), pp. 103–136
7. J. Fressoz, L’apocalypse joyeuse : Une histoire du risque technologique (Seuil, 2012)
17
Gerson [88] writes: “Integration thus means more than simple juxtaposition of efforts in the same
location, and more than relationships that consist solely of market relations. Rather, it includes
coordinated efforts to pose and solve new research problems that can redefine specialty boundaries.
Because of its cooperative and coordinated nature, integration contrasts with the division of labor
into independent lines of effort and the standardization of interfaces among line of work” (p. 516).
Hybrid Disasters—Hybrid Knowledge
347