The problem is this: the definition of disasters and resilience to their effects
cannot be addressed if the issue remains limited to the usual collective representations and ways of thinking about risk prevention that—as disasters demonstrate—
fail. A change is in order. This study advances a concept of damage and its technical, economic, political and moral usage. It addresses the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear accident and its consequences in the short, medium and long term; not just
as a simple accident, but as a way of life that is both individual and universal, for a
human and non-human environment that has passed into history.
Human and non-human: the expression comes from the sociology of objects,
which [2] remind us is an extension of the sociology of innovation and the pragmatic sociology of action. This sociology seeks to overcome epistemological
divisions such as those between the individual and the collective, or methodological
individualism and determinism. To this we can add the accident and the essence. It
aims to repopulate the sociological universe with the set of objects that, according
to [3] participate in the construction of society, unlike the roles found in classical
sociological theory: faithful tools, critical infrastructure or, finally, projection
screen.
Loss can be defined as a system of representations and actions following an
event. It is contemporary with the construction and designation of victims. This
conceptual definition is part of a political philosophy. It is based on the role of
organizations and various forms of authority in shaping collective action and
therefore, the creation of the common good.
Rather than take a traditional approach, this chapter presents a series of viewpoints that address both theoretical and practical aspects of the concept of loss. It is
argued that loss should be understood both as a moral or legal heuristic
1 and as an
actant [5] that is able to change form depending on the circumstances in which it is
used.
2 Industrial Degradation, Causal Links and Preventive
Maintenance
The degradation of an environment can be seen from outside the subject, i.e. as an
object. In this case, the issue of loss has no emotional connotations for the person
who observes it. If we consider the consequences of the nuclear accident at
Fukushima Daiichi, there are many reasons for this indifference: lack of information, mistrust regarding its content or source, geographical remoteness, few signs of
1
In law, two elements define the concept of loss: (a) although there may be no damage as such,
there is a causal relationship—it can be connected to something. “Loss is simply any harm caused
by something. It is this cause that does harm and that gives rise to the legal concept of loss; in other
words, loss does not exist naturally” [4]; (b) When the cause is natural, the law will only consider
common-sense explanations that throw light on the causal link. Loss differs from harm, harm being
defined as the result of loss.
22
D. Pecaud
cannot be addressed if the issue remains limited to the usual collective representations and ways of thinking about risk prevention that—as disasters demonstrate—
fail. A change is in order. This study advances a concept of damage and its technical, economic, political and moral usage. It addresses the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear accident and its consequences in the short, medium and long term; not just
as a simple accident, but as a way of life that is both individual and universal, for a
human and non-human environment that has passed into history.
Human and non-human: the expression comes from the sociology of objects,
which [2] remind us is an extension of the sociology of innovation and the pragmatic sociology of action. This sociology seeks to overcome epistemological
divisions such as those between the individual and the collective, or methodological
individualism and determinism. To this we can add the accident and the essence. It
aims to repopulate the sociological universe with the set of objects that, according
to [3] participate in the construction of society, unlike the roles found in classical
sociological theory: faithful tools, critical infrastructure or, finally, projection
screen.
Loss can be defined as a system of representations and actions following an
event. It is contemporary with the construction and designation of victims. This
conceptual definition is part of a political philosophy. It is based on the role of
organizations and various forms of authority in shaping collective action and
therefore, the creation of the common good.
Rather than take a traditional approach, this chapter presents a series of viewpoints that address both theoretical and practical aspects of the concept of loss. It is
argued that loss should be understood both as a moral or legal heuristic
1 and as an
actant [5] that is able to change form depending on the circumstances in which it is
used.
2 Industrial Degradation, Causal Links and Preventive
Maintenance
The degradation of an environment can be seen from outside the subject, i.e. as an
object. In this case, the issue of loss has no emotional connotations for the person
who observes it. If we consider the consequences of the nuclear accident at
Fukushima Daiichi, there are many reasons for this indifference: lack of information, mistrust regarding its content or source, geographical remoteness, few signs of
1
In law, two elements define the concept of loss: (a) although there may be no damage as such,
there is a causal relationship—it can be connected to something. “Loss is simply any harm caused
by something. It is this cause that does harm and that gives rise to the legal concept of loss; in other
words, loss does not exist naturally” [4]; (b) When the cause is natural, the law will only consider
common-sense explanations that throw light on the causal link. Loss differs from harm, harm being
defined as the result of loss.
22
D. Pecaud