have or will suffer harmful effects, either immediately or at a later stage. The
definition of losses requires the identification of all persons and things marked by
the event and an attempt to establish causal relationships between them.
Epistemological caution should inform these discussions, their development and the
decisions that remain to be taken.
This chapter is part of broader thinking on resilience engineering applied to the
Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe. But is it the time to talk about resilience, when we
still do not really know if the catastrophe is over. What is resilience? In the case of
Fukushima Daiichi, resilience refers to the capacity of a technical system to continue operating, or to resist further damage in an unfavourable environment. It also
refers to the ability of an ecosystem to recover its operations or development as they
were before the system was disturbed.
Losses require the evaluation and implementation of compensatory measures
that are designed to cancel out any injury to humans or non-humans who are
designated as victims of the disaster. The aim of these practices is to restore
harmony to the relationship between a victim (human or non-human) and the party
responsible (human or non-human). In all cases, the assessment of losses and the
implementation of measures designed to compensate for the harm suffered (reciprocal gift-giving) help to create shared meaning. We argue that this construction
relates to resilience to catastrophe. The meaning that this evokes must form part of
the preamble to such practices. A shared understanding appears to be necessary to
think about resilience. A shared vision and sensitivity to, a minima, what needs to
be considered, foreseen, done, and said is necessary for the construction of new
meanings and practices linked to resilience. The definition of loss therefore presupposes many other shared intentions: to carry out repairs, and manage resilience
in the best way possible. Practical and technical issues must be addressed, which
must not overlap, merge or lead to the same answers. The redefinition of loss is
perhaps an indicator of a consensus, if it can be accepted by the various
stakeholders.
References
1. H.-P. Jeudy, Le désir de catastrophe (Circe-Poche, Paris, 1990)
2. R. Barbier, J.-Y. Trepos, Humains et non-humains: un bilan d’étape de la sociologie des
collectifs. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 1, 35–58 (2007)
3. B. Latour, Une sociologie sans objet? Note théorique sur l’interobjectivité. Sociologie du
Travail 36 (4), 587–607 (1994)
4. D. Anzilotti, La responsabilité internationale des États à raison des dommages subis par les
étrangers, Revue générale de droit international, 13, 13–29 (1906)
5. B. Latour, Enquête sur les modes d’existence.Une anthropologie des Modernes (La
découverte, Paris, 2012)
6. Ailloud-Nicolas, Scènes de théâtre: Le tremblement de terre de Lisbonne (1755) et Le
Jugement dernier des rois (1793), in L’invention de la catastrophe au XVIIIe siècle. Du
châtiment divin au désastre naturel, ed. by A.M. Mercier-Faivre, C. Thomas (Droz, Geneva,
2008)
Does the Concept of Loss Orient Risk Prevention Policy?
33
definition of losses requires the identification of all persons and things marked by
the event and an attempt to establish causal relationships between them.
Epistemological caution should inform these discussions, their development and the
decisions that remain to be taken.
This chapter is part of broader thinking on resilience engineering applied to the
Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe. But is it the time to talk about resilience, when we
still do not really know if the catastrophe is over. What is resilience? In the case of
Fukushima Daiichi, resilience refers to the capacity of a technical system to continue operating, or to resist further damage in an unfavourable environment. It also
refers to the ability of an ecosystem to recover its operations or development as they
were before the system was disturbed.
Losses require the evaluation and implementation of compensatory measures
that are designed to cancel out any injury to humans or non-humans who are
designated as victims of the disaster. The aim of these practices is to restore
harmony to the relationship between a victim (human or non-human) and the party
responsible (human or non-human). In all cases, the assessment of losses and the
implementation of measures designed to compensate for the harm suffered (reciprocal gift-giving) help to create shared meaning. We argue that this construction
relates to resilience to catastrophe. The meaning that this evokes must form part of
the preamble to such practices. A shared understanding appears to be necessary to
think about resilience. A shared vision and sensitivity to, a minima, what needs to
be considered, foreseen, done, and said is necessary for the construction of new
meanings and practices linked to resilience. The definition of loss therefore presupposes many other shared intentions: to carry out repairs, and manage resilience
in the best way possible. Practical and technical issues must be addressed, which
must not overlap, merge or lead to the same answers. The redefinition of loss is
perhaps an indicator of a consensus, if it can be accepted by the various
stakeholders.
References
1. H.-P. Jeudy, Le désir de catastrophe (Circe-Poche, Paris, 1990)
2. R. Barbier, J.-Y. Trepos, Humains et non-humains: un bilan d’étape de la sociologie des
collectifs. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 1, 35–58 (2007)
3. B. Latour, Une sociologie sans objet? Note théorique sur l’interobjectivité. Sociologie du
Travail 36 (4), 587–607 (1994)
4. D. Anzilotti, La responsabilité internationale des États à raison des dommages subis par les
étrangers, Revue générale de droit international, 13, 13–29 (1906)
5. B. Latour, Enquête sur les modes d’existence.Une anthropologie des Modernes (La
découverte, Paris, 2012)
6. Ailloud-Nicolas, Scènes de théâtre: Le tremblement de terre de Lisbonne (1755) et Le
Jugement dernier des rois (1793), in L’invention de la catastrophe au XVIIIe siècle. Du
châtiment divin au désastre naturel, ed. by A.M. Mercier-Faivre, C. Thomas (Droz, Geneva,
2008)
Does the Concept of Loss Orient Risk Prevention Policy?
33