5 The Fukushima Daiichi Catastrophe
as a Total Social Fact
The relationship between people, whether they be settlements in the neighbourhood
of the Fukushima Daiichi plant or humanity in its entirety (defined either as anything that belongs to the human species on the one hand, or other material and
natural elements on the other hand) must be taken into account if the definition of
the nuclear catastrophe is to go beyond technical aspects. As time passes, the
catastrophe must be seen as a ‘total social fact’ and the dynamic is that of reciprocal
gift giving. On the one hand, the elements that make up this relational system can
be considered as an endless sequence of actions and reactions (sometimes referred
to as a chain reaction), which describe an inevitable succession of events (rather
than a causal chain). On the other hand, it must make it possible to clearly identify
the victims of the accident, then the disaster, how victims emerge, the balance
between them and the losses they have suffered, and therefore to determine the
extent of their losses in the context of an exchange defined by the social (and
potentially natural) limits of ‘resilience’. Ecological resilience corresponds to
changes in an environment that is affected by a catastrophe, which leads to a more
stable situation where the consequences of the catastrophe are physically or symbolically mitigated.
6 A Choice of Paradigm?
The market or the exchange of gifts? The market is governed by rules applied by
statutory law, while the dynamics of gift giving are rooted in the philosophical
presuppositions of natural law. Statutory law reflects the actual legal position of a
society at a given time. It is made up of regulations governing, for example, trade.
On the other hand, natural law allows and protects the expression of human nature;
it addresses universal principles. For example, [11] considered that it was based on
two principles that preceded reason. Nowadays, this would be what is not covered
by instrumental or logical rationality: self-love and altruistic pity are two practices
that form the foundations for human relationships. These two principles suggest a
universal human nature that falls short of the rational rules that govern collective
action. However, despite the universality that philosophers and law-makers of the
Enlightenment sought to give it (notably through the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and the Citizen) natural law has been discussed in terms of its potential
relativity in space-time. The inclusion of local and traditional cultures changes the
idea that men are the product of their relationships with each other or their environment. Ways of living together become defined for both humans and
non-humans, which show that the idea of human nature is historically and culturally
relative. This is manifested, for example, through the definition that each individual
has of human health or an acceptable level of pollution. The ensuing discussion
Does the Concept of Loss Orient Risk Prevention Policy?
29
as a Total Social Fact
The relationship between people, whether they be settlements in the neighbourhood
of the Fukushima Daiichi plant or humanity in its entirety (defined either as anything that belongs to the human species on the one hand, or other material and
natural elements on the other hand) must be taken into account if the definition of
the nuclear catastrophe is to go beyond technical aspects. As time passes, the
catastrophe must be seen as a ‘total social fact’ and the dynamic is that of reciprocal
gift giving. On the one hand, the elements that make up this relational system can
be considered as an endless sequence of actions and reactions (sometimes referred
to as a chain reaction), which describe an inevitable succession of events (rather
than a causal chain). On the other hand, it must make it possible to clearly identify
the victims of the accident, then the disaster, how victims emerge, the balance
between them and the losses they have suffered, and therefore to determine the
extent of their losses in the context of an exchange defined by the social (and
potentially natural) limits of ‘resilience’. Ecological resilience corresponds to
changes in an environment that is affected by a catastrophe, which leads to a more
stable situation where the consequences of the catastrophe are physically or symbolically mitigated.
6 A Choice of Paradigm?
The market or the exchange of gifts? The market is governed by rules applied by
statutory law, while the dynamics of gift giving are rooted in the philosophical
presuppositions of natural law. Statutory law reflects the actual legal position of a
society at a given time. It is made up of regulations governing, for example, trade.
On the other hand, natural law allows and protects the expression of human nature;
it addresses universal principles. For example, [11] considered that it was based on
two principles that preceded reason. Nowadays, this would be what is not covered
by instrumental or logical rationality: self-love and altruistic pity are two practices
that form the foundations for human relationships. These two principles suggest a
universal human nature that falls short of the rational rules that govern collective
action. However, despite the universality that philosophers and law-makers of the
Enlightenment sought to give it (notably through the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and the Citizen) natural law has been discussed in terms of its potential
relativity in space-time. The inclusion of local and traditional cultures changes the
idea that men are the product of their relationships with each other or their environment. Ways of living together become defined for both humans and
non-humans, which show that the idea of human nature is historically and culturally
relative. This is manifested, for example, through the definition that each individual
has of human health or an acceptable level of pollution. The ensuing discussion
Does the Concept of Loss Orient Risk Prevention Policy?
29