That catastrophe stimulates economic growth, which is what I take to be Rozario's thesis, I am tempted to liken to the idea that war stimulates economic growth, an comparison that Rozario seems to have not considered. The "evolution" he plots, of the ideas surrounding the earthquake in Lisbon, the earthquake in San Francisco, the fires in Paris, and the fires in New York, all the way up to the flood in New Orleans, doesn't seem to reach far back enough to offer a conclusive answer to nearly any of the questions he poses in the introduction. How we got to the point where our economy benefits as much from destruction as it does from the growth which corresponds to it is less understood than the widely known and often times scarily accepted fact that it does. I would have liked to see the interrelations between the rise of the merchant class and the ideas surrounding disaster and, as the naturalness of these disasters is interrogated, war too, explored. Where were these things before the rise of the merchant class? There's much tree of modernism and postmodernity and little root of humanity in this study.
The radio program is by turns as touching as it is infuriating. But what about the more recent, though easily less severe, floods in Iowa and the lack of response then? It would seem this fact of postmodern economics become the justification.
Rozario's thesis seems to revolve around a crucial but somewhat disturbing point : that disasters are interpretable as occasions for extraordinary cultural production. "Creative destruction" as he terms it, is necessary for progress. (i.e. the San Francisco earthquake example from chapter 2.) Not only do natural crises bring attention to an area economically, politically etc, but the people of an entire town, nation and sometimes the whole world will rally behind a relief cause in the aftermath of a disaster. *( last year's tsunami affecting south east asia) People can rally around a disaster morally, politically, economically etc. What is interesting about natural disasters, is the aftermath, the response, the curiosity and the clean-up. But what of Rozario's "crisis oriented imagination?" At first i was opposed to even the phrasing of this but the more i read, and the more i thought about it i realised what he was talking about. The role of the television, the evening news full of real life disaster,for example: not to mention depictions of ficticious doom and disaster found in movies and video games. What makes these so powerful it seems is, the image. The vivid portrayal. So if we are "psychologically" moved by a real life encounter with disaster for fight or flight, perhaps we are demi-psychologically moved by the image for fight or flight, thus causing a sort of less intense experience, (as it is 2nd hand) but none the less creating a fascination in us. We equate seeing disaster with experiencing disaster, with knowing it. But i feel that this is not an "addiction" or "need" as Rozario suggests, but a fascination, rather, a variation on voyeurism.
Particularly compared to last week's reading, "The Culture of Calamity" was fascinating and intriguing, albeit undeniably disconcerting. The book is focused around the paradoxical socioeconomic consequences that arise from natural disasters; Rozario uses the devastating fires in New York and the catastrophic earthquakes of San Fransisco (which is especially topical because I am from Oakland and have experienced the shocking earthquakes of the the Bay Area) as case studies to better demonstrate the enormous stimulus the economy receives once faced with such disasters. Though superficially it may make little sense as to how markets could grow, even expand, during calamitous times, the logic is rather simple. As capitalism is a game of fluxuation, it is only 'natural' that our economy experience a range of financial richness. Destruction that occurs as a result of natural disasters creates an opening for rebuilding. And as the American Way is a matter of overconsumption, it is only 'natural' that our government respond by not only reconstructing fallen buildings and roads, but also improving them. Rozario assigns market exapsion and employment increase to usual consequences of disaster. But while he does a great job of deconstructing (if you will) just how and why that is, Rozario lacks a more psycological explination as to why people are so fascinated by disaster (though I due take into consideration what he says about television, news, movies, and also that he is a political theorist and not a psycologist...so I'l cut him some slack). As for the This American Life episode, I had already heard it for I have been an avid listener for several years now, but the second time around was just as emotional and heart-wrenching as it was the first time.
Rozario's thesis is a somewhat unsettling one, but not one I haven't heard before. Naomi Klein discusses many similar issues in her book The Shock Doctrine, where she unveils her theory of "disaster capitalism" - that disasters provide an ideal opportunity for economic venture. Free-market economic liberalism is so unpopular, she argues, that it relies on disaster to take its hold - for after a disaster, people are more vulnerable, more willing to be led (or coerced, Klein implies). Her defamation of Milton Friedman's brand of ruthless economics, privatized service, etc., is inextricably linked to nature's tendency to produce disaster. Rozario's argument seems to be less economic and more cultural than Klein's, but the similarities are obvious. I particularly enjoyed Rozario's discussion of White Noise and other novels in his Introduction, as I am always interested to see how literature connects to current events and cultural mindsets.
The thought that something destructive and devastating to man-kind can be something enjoyable or something to be aroused by is a foreign idea to me, but it makes sense in that people spend hours a day watching these things take place on their televisions. Although an earthquake, a hurricane, or a tornado are all very violent a traumatizing natural occurrences, it seems that these events are the only time humans actually feel like they are the "object" being acted upon by nature, the "subject." this relationship of subject and object takes place all the time in nature but most people, I feel, people don't actually see themselves as an object until something like this happens.
Disaster, calamity, and catastrophe were terms very synonymous in my mind prior to reading this. The distinctions laid forth by Rozario bring up important anthropological questions pertinent to our course. Is catastrophe natural despite it being characterized by social implications? We are forced to question the distinctions in these definitions that all inevitably come back to a commonality in suffering.
The power of disasters does not simply lie in physical force, but also in reinforcing social control and power structures in a less obvious, more “natural” manner.
In regard to Rozario's point about the entertainment value found in disaster. I caught myself enjoying reading about the Lisbon earthquake. I'm not sure if this was some existential anxiety, but it further proves the point.
Rozario's thesis may be a scary one, but one with a lot of validity. Disaster allows the government to assume powers that it was previously denied. This reminds me quite a bit of Foucault's perception of states of emergency-- suggesting that during times of emergency, powerful institutions feel that suspending former laws and rules is okay. He calls this the state of exception. For example, the Patriot Act was considered "okay" because the American government made it's people believe that they were living in a time of emergency, and therefore rights that people previously had needed to be suspended in the name of public safety. This is already dangerous in and of itself, but it becomes even worse as political institutions create an atmosphere in which we are ALWAYS living in a state of exception. In a state like this, as happened with hurricane Katrina, the government can commit terrible abuses without any real moral repercussions.
Rozario discusses the idea that capitalism “likes” calamity. Natural disasters stimulate the economy. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake destroyed most of the city and killed hundreds of people, but it also stimulated the local economy by providing businesses with the opportunity to rebuild. Thousands of planners, architects and construction workers were put to work and a newer, better city grew from the ashes of the old. In some ways disaster “purges” the old and out of date and allows for the new and “dynamic” to replace it. Rozario also mentions the “providential” aspect of disaster. Some people think disaster is a sign from God to make us focus on what’s important or to make us thankful for what we have. Unfortunately disaster has a tendency to effect poor people the most. Katrina is an example of a natural disaster that killed over a thousand mostly people who lived in the most economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The response by the US government was also a disaster, but a man-made one.
Rozario addresses the social, political and economic repercussions of disasters throughout history. Catastrophes have been a part of the American consciousness since colonial times. Early Christian Americans viewed events such as fires, earthquakes, and floods as God’s instruments of correction for misdeeds, as well as a device which joined communities together and inspired acts of “moral and spiritual reformation.” Thus, disaster was, and continued to be, viewed as a positive opportunity for personal and societal development and growth. However, due in part to the industrial revolution, the positive human reaction to such horrific events diverged from spirituality and began to be seen as a means for economic growth an increased business activity. Therefore, Rozario argues that the modern reaction to disasters is manipulated by mass media through the use of frightening and powerful (often apocalyptic) images, words, and movies in order to influence our reactions and fears. Ultimately, this has lead to a disassociation from our cultural identity and negatively influenced the development of our nation. Nonetheless, Rozario also notes that people often put personal problems aside in order to benefit the entire community when faced with devastation. The rebuilding of communities and the sharing of a traumatic experience can be seen as therapeutic. And although the various reactions to Hurricane Katrina (throughout the storm and flooding, as well as the aftermath in the days, weeks, and months to follow) echoed previous national crises Rozario talked about, I couldn’t help but feel that there was something fundamentally different about this particular tragedy. Unlike 9/11—the only other severe national calamity of our time that I can think of—aid came too slowly, the media downplayed the seriousness of the situation rather than dramatizing it, victim’s resentment built, and, unlike other disaster in which Americans were inspired to help fellow citizens, racism divided people. Because of this, confusion and sorrow often surpassed willpower and community spirit.
12 comments:
That catastrophe stimulates economic growth, which is what I take to be Rozario's thesis, I am tempted to liken to the idea that war stimulates economic growth, an comparison that Rozario seems to have not considered. The "evolution" he plots, of the ideas surrounding the earthquake in Lisbon, the earthquake in San Francisco, the fires in Paris, and the fires in New York, all the way up to the flood in New Orleans, doesn't seem to reach far back enough to offer a conclusive answer to nearly any of the questions he poses in the introduction. How we got to the point where our economy benefits as much from destruction as it does from the growth which corresponds to it is less understood than the widely known and often times scarily accepted fact that it does. I would have liked to see the interrelations between the rise of the merchant class and the ideas surrounding disaster and, as the naturalness of these disasters is interrogated, war too, explored. Where were these things before the rise of the merchant class? There's much tree of modernism and postmodernity and little root of humanity in this study.
The radio program is by turns as touching as it is infuriating. But what about the more recent, though easily less severe, floods in Iowa and the lack of response then? It would seem this fact of postmodern economics become the justification.
Rozario's thesis seems to revolve around a crucial but somewhat disturbing point : that disasters are interpretable as occasions for extraordinary cultural production. "Creative destruction" as he terms it, is necessary for progress. (i.e. the San Francisco earthquake example from chapter 2.) Not only do natural crises bring attention to an area economically, politically etc, but the people of an entire town, nation and sometimes the whole world will rally behind a relief cause in the aftermath of a disaster. *( last year's tsunami affecting south east asia) People can rally around a disaster morally, politically, economically etc. What is interesting about natural disasters, is the aftermath, the response, the curiosity and the clean-up.
But what of Rozario's "crisis oriented imagination?" At first i was opposed to even the phrasing of this but the more i read, and the more i thought about it i realised what he was talking about. The role of the television, the evening news full of real life disaster,for example: not to mention depictions of ficticious doom and disaster found in movies and video games. What makes these so powerful it seems is, the image. The vivid portrayal.
So if we are "psychologically" moved by a real life encounter with disaster for fight or flight, perhaps we are demi-psychologically moved by the image for fight or flight, thus causing a sort of less intense experience, (as it is 2nd hand) but none the less creating a fascination in us. We equate seeing disaster with experiencing disaster, with knowing it. But i feel that this is not an "addiction" or "need" as Rozario suggests, but a fascination, rather, a variation on voyeurism.
Particularly compared to last week's reading, "The Culture of Calamity" was fascinating and intriguing, albeit undeniably disconcerting. The book is focused around the paradoxical socioeconomic consequences that arise from natural disasters; Rozario uses the devastating fires in New York and the catastrophic earthquakes of San Fransisco (which is especially topical because I am from Oakland and have experienced the shocking earthquakes of the the Bay Area) as case studies to better demonstrate the enormous stimulus the economy receives once faced with such disasters. Though superficially it may make little sense as to how markets could grow, even expand, during calamitous times, the logic is rather simple. As capitalism is a game of fluxuation, it is only 'natural' that our economy experience a range of financial richness. Destruction that occurs as a result of natural disasters creates an opening for rebuilding. And as the American Way is a matter of overconsumption, it is only 'natural' that our government respond by not only reconstructing fallen buildings and roads, but also improving them. Rozario assigns market exapsion and employment increase to usual consequences of disaster. But while he does a great job of deconstructing (if you will) just how and why that is, Rozario lacks a more psycological explination as to why people are so fascinated by disaster (though I due take into consideration what he says about television, news, movies, and also that he is a political theorist and not a psycologist...so I'l cut him some slack). As for the This American Life episode, I had already heard it for I have been an avid listener for several years now, but the second time around was just as emotional and heart-wrenching as it was the first time.
Rozario's thesis is a somewhat unsettling one, but not one I haven't heard before. Naomi Klein discusses many similar issues in her book The Shock Doctrine, where she unveils her theory of "disaster capitalism" - that disasters provide an ideal opportunity for economic venture. Free-market economic liberalism is so unpopular, she argues, that it relies on disaster to take its hold - for after a disaster, people are more vulnerable, more willing to be led (or coerced, Klein implies). Her defamation of Milton Friedman's brand of ruthless economics, privatized service, etc., is inextricably linked to nature's tendency to produce disaster. Rozario's argument seems to be less economic and more cultural than Klein's, but the similarities are obvious. I particularly enjoyed Rozario's discussion of White Noise and other novels in his Introduction, as I am always interested to see how literature connects to current events and cultural mindsets.
The thought that something destructive and devastating to man-kind can be something enjoyable or something to be aroused by is a foreign idea to me, but it makes sense in that people spend hours a day watching these things take place on their televisions. Although an earthquake, a hurricane, or a tornado are all very violent a traumatizing natural occurrences, it seems that these events are the only time humans actually feel like they are the "object" being acted upon by nature, the "subject." this relationship of subject and object takes place all the time in nature but most people, I feel, people don't actually see themselves as an object until something like this happens.
Disaster, calamity, and catastrophe were terms very synonymous in my mind prior to reading this. The distinctions laid forth by Rozario bring up important anthropological questions pertinent to our course. Is catastrophe natural despite it being characterized by social implications? We are forced to question the distinctions in these definitions that all inevitably come back to a commonality in suffering.
The power of disasters does not simply lie in physical force, but also in reinforcing social control and power structures in a less obvious, more “natural” manner.
In regard to Rozario's point about the entertainment value found in disaster. I caught myself enjoying reading about the Lisbon earthquake. I'm not sure if this was some existential anxiety, but it further proves the point.
Rozario's thesis may be a scary one, but one with a lot of validity. Disaster allows the government to assume powers that it was previously denied. This reminds me quite a bit of Foucault's perception of states of emergency-- suggesting that during times of emergency, powerful institutions feel that suspending former laws and rules is okay. He calls this the state of exception. For example, the Patriot Act was considered "okay" because the American government made it's people believe that they were living in a time of emergency, and therefore rights that people previously had needed to be suspended in the name of public safety. This is already dangerous in and of itself, but it becomes even worse as political institutions create an atmosphere in which we are ALWAYS living in a state of exception. In a state like this, as happened with hurricane Katrina, the government can commit terrible abuses without any real moral repercussions.
Rozario discusses the idea that capitalism “likes” calamity. Natural disasters stimulate the economy. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake destroyed most of the city and killed hundreds of people, but it also stimulated the local economy by providing businesses with the opportunity to rebuild. Thousands of planners, architects and construction workers were put to work and a newer, better city grew from the ashes of the old. In some ways disaster “purges” the old and out of date and allows for the new and “dynamic” to replace it. Rozario also mentions the “providential” aspect of disaster. Some people think disaster is a sign from God to make us focus on what’s important or to make us thankful for what we have. Unfortunately disaster has a tendency to effect poor people the most. Katrina is an example of a natural disaster that killed over a thousand mostly people who lived in the most economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The response by the US government was also a disaster, but a man-made one.
Rozario addresses the social, political and economic repercussions of disasters throughout history. Catastrophes have been a part of the American consciousness since colonial times. Early Christian Americans viewed events such as fires, earthquakes, and floods as God’s instruments of correction for misdeeds, as well as a device which joined communities together and inspired acts of “moral and spiritual reformation.” Thus, disaster was, and continued to be, viewed as a positive opportunity for personal and societal development and growth. However, due in part to the industrial revolution, the positive human reaction to such horrific events diverged from spirituality and began to be seen as a means for economic growth an increased business activity. Therefore, Rozario argues that the modern reaction to disasters is manipulated by mass media through the use of frightening and powerful (often apocalyptic) images, words, and movies in order to influence our reactions and fears. Ultimately, this has lead to a disassociation from our cultural identity and negatively influenced the development of our nation. Nonetheless, Rozario also notes that people often put personal problems aside in order to benefit the entire community when faced with devastation. The rebuilding of communities and the sharing of a traumatic experience can be seen as therapeutic. And although the various reactions to Hurricane Katrina (throughout the storm and flooding, as well as the aftermath in the days, weeks, and months to follow) echoed previous national crises Rozario talked about, I couldn’t help but feel that there was something fundamentally different about this particular tragedy. Unlike 9/11—the only other severe national calamity of our time that I can think of—aid came too slowly, the media downplayed the seriousness of the situation rather than dramatizing it, victim’s resentment built, and, unlike other disaster in which Americans were inspired to help fellow citizens, racism divided people. Because of this, confusion and sorrow often surpassed willpower and community spirit.
Post a Comment