Disaster subcultures

Abstract

The term "disaster subculture" was introduced in the 1960s and 1970s, but has since not been given a great deal of attention. Even though it is still referred to in passing, the elements of disaster subculture are rarely discussed. After considering some examples of the phenomenon and its characteristics, concludes that disaster or emergency subculture does not seem to be an appropriate application of the wider sociological concept of subculture. It is not an alternative to the mainstream culture of a society but represents an aspect of that dominant culture that only manifests itself under particular circumstances. Proposes that, like other aspects of culture, it is learned by society and its members from past experience, personal as well as societal. It entails many features typical of society's cultural heritage and often entails role and behaviour changes deemed appropriate in emergencies. Concludes that, in light of this discussion, it would seem reasonable to change the term subculture as applied to disaster behaviour to bring the name in line with generally accepted usage.

Coping with Drought: Towards a Multilevel Understanding Based on Conservation of Resources Theory

“…In a retrospective, cross-cultural study of a disaster subculture during cyclones in Island Village, Bangladesh, Hussain (1997) found that coastal people who had experienced small-scale cyclones in previous years took shelter at cyclone shelter centers and primary school buildings, while those who had not did not leave their houses and consequently died from the huge impact of the cyclone. Similar results have been found for other disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes and floods (Granot, 1996;Shaw, 1993). Similarly, a study of psychological responses to drought in Brazil comparing 102 individuals living in a city in a drought-prone area with the responses of 102 persons living in a drought-free control city (Coelho, 2000;Coelho et al, 2004) showed that the individuals living in the drought-prone area had significantly lower levels of threat perception towards drought.…”

Ethnic groups’ response to the 26 December 2004 earthquake and tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia

“…Anderson (1965: 3) defined a disaster subculture as ''those subcultural patterns operative in a given area which are geared towards the solution of problems, both social and non-social, arising from the awareness of some form of almost periodic disaster threat'' and added that ''a community's disaster subculture serves as a blueprint for individual and group behaviour before, during, and after the impact of the disaster agent''. A disaster subculture usually includes cultural elements such as norms, values, beliefs, knowledge, technology and legends (Anderson 1965;Wenger and Weller 1973;Wenger 1978;Granot 1996). Since the 1907 tsunami and possibly even before that, the people of Simeulue have possessed such cultural gears.…”

From Disaster to Sustainable Civil Society: The Kobe Experience

“…This concept is reflected in the construction pattern of the area, which is strong for other hazards like typhoon, but did not allow for earthquake countermeasures. Granot (1996) emphasises the term 'disaster subculture', and concluded that although the term was introduced in the 1960s and 1970s, disaster or emergency subculture does not seem to be an appropriate application of the wider sociological concept of subculture. Gheradi (1998) also analysed the culture and subculture issues, and made a summary of the evolution of the term.…”

“…Britton also justified different sorts of social action by different segments of society by introducing subculture. In contrast, Granot (1996) concluded that disaster or emergency subculture represents an aspect of that dominant culture that only manifests itself under particular circumstances.…”