The Sociology of Disaster: Definitions, Research Questions, & Measurements Continuation of the Discussion in a Post-September 11 Environment

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters March 2003, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 91–107

THE CRITIC’S CORNER

Henry W.Fischer Sociology Department Millersville University of Pennsylvania Millersville, Pennsylvania 17551 USA hf [email protected]

Disaster researchers come from varied fields of inquiry, prac- tice diverse methodologies, yet we embrace some of the same, perhaps dysfunctional, academic traditions. This paper aims to stimulate diverse reactions. It continues the conversation from the 1998 edited Quarantelli book, What is a Disaster? address- ing questions such as “what is a disaster, what is the sociology of disaster, and what is it that disaster sociologists study? It will also begin to argue that it is indeed possible to measure disasters sociologically. An attempted disaster scale is offered. While it has long been argued that such a scale is untenable, it is argued herein that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, an attempt to create such a scale is imperative. A conceptual, rather than a purely quantitative disaster scale is designed—one potentially useful to both researchers and practitioners. It differentiates between the disaster agent, or precipitating event, and the sociological focus, or social structure (and its adjustments). Scale, scope and (time) duration are applied to create ten disaster categories. The scale encompasses everyday emergencies, severe emergencies, six types of “disasters” (focusing on whether a community was partially or completely disrupted or distressed as well as focusing on community size), multiple simultaneous population center catastrophes, and societal annihilation—all forming a continuum ranging from disaster category 1 through 10.

91 92 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters

What is a disaster? Indeed. This question has been addressed at least since Charles Fritz offered his definition (1961:655). Gilbert White, E.L. Quarantelli and Russell R. Dynes have continued to work on this question. A review of the literature suggests that academia continues to address this question from various perspectives: geographical, political, sociological, psychological, social psychological, and so forth. One observed constant in the literature is the divisions that continue to abound. Divisions? Tension continues to be observed between those who are more applied and those who are more theoretical, between those who are quantitative and those who are qualitative, as well as between those trained in the various academic fields noted above. It is difficult for such a diverse body of disaster experts to speak a common scientific language or to embrace a common paradigm. And, then there is the quest, many of us labor under, to initiate the next Kuhnian-style scientific revolution (1960). The purpose of the current paper is not to make an extensive review of the literature in the varied fields of enquiry but to continue a conversation developed in this journal in 1995 and further elaborated subsequently (Quarantelli 1998) in answer to the question: What is a Disaster? This paper will continue the aforementioned conversation from a sociological perspective. What constitutes a “disaster,” “what is it that we study,” and “how can we measure disasters?” In a post- September 11, 2001 environment this discussion is even more salient (see Fischer 2002 for elaboration). How does the advent of additional disaster agents impact on the answers to the above questions?

Social Structure and Its Construction

Sociology, by definition, focuses on the group. While individuals respond to disasters, they do so in the context of social structure rooted in the group consciousness. Groups, whether they are small, medium or large in number of participants, exhibit an emergent social structure that is drawn from the collective social consciousness.

Community

It is, as Dynes notes (1998, p. 109), the community that is the basis for social life and disaster response. For example, it is the local emergency manager who is charged with coordinating mitigation, planning and response activities within his or her community . Furthermore, returning to Dynes (1998, p.113), community is “the particular social unit that Fischer: The Sociology of Disaster 93 is a universal focus of social activity . . . with a [social] structure which has evolved to meet needs and to deal with problems as well as to allo- cate resources to problems.” Arguing for a sociological conceptualization of disaster, Dynes observes community as the locus of analysis:

• It is based on a social unit. • It is based on a social unit that has cross-national and cross-cul- tural applicability. • It is a social unit that has the capacity and resources to activate a response to the disaster. (Dynes 1998)

As Stallings (1998, p. 128) notes when applying Kreps (1998) and Porfiriev (1998), disasters are also societal phenomena in that they impact on the larger system, e.g., societal economic social structure. While it is the community that is the first or primary locus of victim- ization, source of first responders, and so forth, additional social systems, e.g., state and federal, are also directly and indirectly affected. While the primary focus on defining a disaster is logically the community, the secondary effects on the society cannot be ignored. There is an inherent symbiotic tension between the dichotomous extremes of the continuum between community and society.

Precipitous Events and Social Reconstruction: Rapid Social Change?

As Dombrowsky notes (1998, p. 19 and 24), sociologists do not study the natural or human-made “disaster agents” (hurricane, flood waters or hazmat spill). They conduct research on the disruption of everyday social activity resulting from the potential or actual impact of such an agent. While the classic Fritz definition of “disaster” (1961, p. 655) has a sociological focus, “the social structure is disrupted and the fulfillment of all or some of the essential functions of the society, or its subdivision, is prevented,” it leaves the sociological sphere when it con- siders “losses to its member and physical appurtenances.” The salient sociological question may very well not be “what is a disaster?” It may be more sociologically advantageous to ask, “What are the various circumstances under which communities and societies suddenly diverge from partially or totally adhering to their proscribed social structure and temporarily or permanently replace it with an alternative?” Thinking in collective behavior terms (for example, see Curtis and Aguirre 1993), what circumstances lead to the emergence of norms resulting in revo- 94 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters lution as opposed to rioting or to actions facilitating recovery from the impact of a tornado? When social structure emerges in response to emergent norms that define the situation as demanding a riot or a revolution, there is a perceived adversary. When social structure emerges in response to a potential or actual tornado, flood, and hazardous mate- rials spill, the emergent norms demand a social structure that meets the collective needs, an adversary is normally absent. In what has been commonly labeled a “disaster” (really the disruption resulting from the “disaster” agent), the emergent social structure universally proscribes altruistic norms and roles as well as an initial social bonding among victims and responders. In riots and revolutions the initial social bonding occurs within separate groups that are in opposition to one another. When a disaster agent is potentially or actually impacting a community, the sociological questions include “what social structure changes will occur, when will these occur, will they be temporary or permanent—and what variables are associated with what is found in answer to these questions?” Human beings routinely deconstruct and reconstruct their social structure in a never ending attempt to create a means to more perfectly meet their needs. They periodically are pre- sented with precipitating events that demand a more rapid response. The precipitous event, the definition of the situation, and the adopted alternative (emergent or institutionalized) social structure is actually rapid, as opposed to gradual, social change in response to a cataclysmic event (of varied proportions). What disaster sociologists actually study is social (structure) change under specialized circumstances.

What is a Disaster?

Returning to Fritz, we really cannot ignore the precipitous event. Whether or not it results in “losses to its members and physical appurtenances,” the event itself is a necessary aspect to the process. Without the precipitating event there would be no rapid social change—regardless of whether it is temporary or permanent. Perhaps our ongoing struggle to come to grips with what is a disaster (see Quarantelli 1998) is resolvable after all. I have grown weary of fighting the vernacular. Lay people, as evidenced in any dictionary (for example, see The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language , 1992, p. 529), define “disaster” as “an occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress.” Why not graciously accept the common usage? Why not accept that a disaster, simply put, is the mess that results from a precipitous event which itself is the disaster agent or cause of the big mess? Fischer: The Sociology of Disaster 95

Do we really need a sociological definition of disaster? We do not study the aforementioned phenomena anyway. Sociologists study social behavior, social organizations, and social structure. We do not study disasters. We study what occurs before, and sometimes during, as well as after the precipitous event. For example, we study complex organizations during “normal time,” i.e., before the precipitous event, in order to determine why mitigation is embraced or resisted. What is mitigated is the potential precipitous event or its effects. We study, however, the social structure process. We also study the social structure process occurring in response to the precipitous event. As previously noted, we study the altered social structure in the aftermath of the impact of a disaster agent when it causes widespread destruction and distress. Does capitulating to the common usage of the term “disaster” result in an identity loss for disaster sociologists, disaster researchers or those who study the sociology of disaster? Absolutely not! Why not still refer to ourselves in such a manner as a convenient self-label? What we need to clarify for ourselves and others, however, is that, those of us who are sociologists, doing sociology in this sub-field means we study social life, the group, social structure, the collective consciousness, and so forth. As sociologists, depending on our research question or focus, we may be operating as a sub-field of complex organizations, a sub-field of collective behavior, social change and so forth. Theoretically, we may be applying conflict theory, symbolic interaction, post-modern theory, etc. I do not currently envision the need for a theoretical paradigm that is unique to disaster sociologists. We study social structure and social change; the disastrous event is merely the precipitator.

The Sociology of Disaster

What is the sociology of disaster? It is the sociological or social scientific study of the social structure adjustment preceding and following the precipitating event or disaster agent. The emphasis on the precipitating event, or disaster agent, directs the focus of study to the social structure defined as operative prior to the event as well as the process resulting in a critical mass of both victims and responders within a community, primarily (and, secondarily, a society) leading to the per- ception that continued adherence to the routine social structure (norms, roles, social institutions, etc.) is untenable and must be temporarily replaced by social structure (for some individuals and groups this social structure may be totally new to them and emerge as they go forward in time, for others it will be simply the implementation of proscriptions 96 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters previously developed for just such an occasion) that meets the emergent needs of the community (and society).

Is Measurement Possible?

Perhaps the widespread use of the Fritz definition of disaster [com- bining elements of both disaster , the precipitating event resulting in widespread destruction and distress, and the sociology of disaster , the focus being on the process of change from the daily routine to the emergence of a (usually) temporary alternative], has resulted in the anomic struggles of disaster researchers and disaster sociologists. Separating the two fosters clarity of purpose. The precipitating event’s potential or actual widespread destruction and distress is the disaster. The prior social structure and resulting adjustment are the focus of the sociology of disaster. The two are tied together, however, as if the former were, in some way an umbilical to the later. While the two must be separate social constructs, they must be considered in combination in any attempt to examine changing social structure resulting from a precipitating event (or disaster agent).

Disruption and Social Structure Adjustment

The proposed disaster scale is based upon the degree of social disruption resulting from a possible or actual precipitating event. The greater the degree of disruption (in terms of scale, scope and time), the more the social structure is impacted (i.e., the greater the extent of temporary or permanent social change in response to the perceived needs by a critical mass). For example, after impact, going to work, holding the birthday party, going for a hike in the park—all of these would be viewed as undoable for those within or near the disrupted area. By definition, these routine activities would be viewed as unacceptable, perhaps immoral. Other norms and roles would emerge, replacing the routine with the “more appropriate” behavior, e.g., search and rescue, feeding survivors. A disaster scale, therefore, should assess the degree or extent to which this everyday social activity is disrupted resulting in temporary or permanent changes in the social structure within a community, primarily, as well as for the larger society, by extension. As articulated with great clarity by several authors in Quarantelli’s edited book ( What Is a Disaster? 1998), it would not be appropriate to measure disaster disruption in terms of death, injury, and damage—that would be neither Fischer: The Sociology of Disaster 97 sociological, nor would it provide a consistent standard (numbers of dead and injured do not function as a reliable indicator of social structure disruption). The proposed scale will link the scale and scope of disruption (tied to an actual or potential precipitating event or disaster agent) within a community(s), and by extension a society, with the scale and scope of social structure adjustment within a community(s) and society. Figure 1 provides a linear view of the process , but not the scope and scale.

Figure 1. Linear View of Disruption and Adjustment

SOCIAL PRECIPITATING DISTRUPTION ADJUSTED SOCIAL STRUCTURE EVENT The Big Mess** STRUCTURE The Status-quo*

* Focus of the Sociology of Disaster ** The Actual Disaster Event

Scale, Scope and Time

Three issues impact on the extent of social structure disruption. These three issues are scale, scope, and time or duration. The first two actually impact on the third within the community and, by extension, the society.

Scale.

How severe is the destruction and distress? Are most community homes missing a few roofing tiles or are most community homes no longer in existence? The greater the scale of destruction, or actually disruption, the greater the collective distress is likely to be and the greater the collective response (temporary or permanent social change). A disaster scale must take into account these differences.

Scope.

How widespread is the disruption within the community? Is a significant portion of the community experiencing disruption to the extent that adherence to routine social structure is impossible for those individ- 98 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters uals? Are most community members still able to continue their routine without perceiving or being perceived as acting immorally for doing so? Is the disruption so widespread that the entire community has replaced the routine with the moral imperative? Are numerous communities so affected? A disaster scale must take into account these differences.

Time or Duration.

The greater the scope and scale of disruption, the more likely the time for recovery will be extended. Both community and societal social structures are likely to continue in a state of disruption as scope and scale increase. A disaster scale must take into account this issue. Figure 2 provides a two-dimensional view of the intersection of disruption and adjustment with scale, scope, and duration.

Figure 2. Two-Dimensional Generic Construct***

DISRUPTION* ADJUSTMENT** SCALE Degree of Disruption Degree of Adjustment SCOPE How Widespread Is Disruption How Widespread the Adjustment Is TIME Duration of Disruption Duration of the Adjustment

*Precipitated by the Disaster Agent **Focus of the Sociology of Disaster ***Actual or Potential Disruption & Adjustment

Emergencies, Disasters, Catastrophe and Annihilation Emergencies.

Historically, disaster sociologists have identified two types of emergencies—neither of which were considered disasters (for example, see Fischer 1998). Everyday emergencies have been those which local authorities, e.g., a police or fire department, are trained to confront on a regular basis. Examples would include a building fire and an “everyday” traffic accident. Severe emergencies , on the other hand, would be those requiring response by several firehouses or companies. It has, perhaps, been a mistake to artificially draw a line between emergencies and disasters. Both experience disruption, it is the degree of disruption Fischer: The Sociology of Disaster 99 that varies. And, both experience social structure adjustment, again it is the degree that varies in terms of scale, scope and time.

Disasters.

Historically, disasters have been viewed as conceptually different from emergencies. While it is true that disastrous precipitating events result (with the Fritz definition in mind) in disruption beyond the everyday and may overwhelm local authorities, it is, however, scale, scope and time that are the key issues. Both disasters and emergencies experience disruption and adjustment. It is the degree of disruption and adjustment that varies.

Catastrophe and Annihilation.

Historically, it is difficult to discern what constitutes a disaster from a catastrophe. It seems a catastrophe is an extreme disaster. What is constant is that there is disruption and adjustment; again, what varies is the scale, scope and recovery time. Annihilation occurs when a society is so severely and completely disrupted that it cannot continue to exist as a separate societal entity. It ceases to exist. It would be prudent, and logically consistent, to view emergencies, disasters, catastrophe and annihilation as all variations (in terms of scale, scope and duration) along a continuum. This is the approach the proposed disaster scale employs.

Proposed Disaster Scale

Why might this be a useful tool? Disaster researchers and practitioners would both benefit from the availability of a uniformly accepted disaster scale. Such a scale should enable researchers to differentiate between degrees of disasters. A disaster scale would be a tool which would aid researchers in delineating the applicability and limitations of their findings. The findings amassed in the disaster research literature may apply to any disaster regardless of its severity. On the other hand, it very well may be that some findings may vary by disaster severity. It would also serve as a generator of research questions, as not all disaster responses are equal. Practitioners would also benefit from such a tool. It could assist them in alerting their communities to the likelihood of an oncoming category 3 (less severe), category 5 or category 8 (very severe) disaster—thereby assisting in communicating appropriate 100 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters preparatory and response actions. Such a tool would also assist gov- ernment decision makers in their mitigation, preparation, and response efforts in much the same way the Richter scale provides a construct for envisioning the severity of an earthquake’s impact. Working with the generic construct, a ten-category disaster scale is proposed. It is based upon the degree of disruption and adjustment a community(s)/society experiences when we consider scale , scope and duration or time . A detailed description of each disaster category is provided below along with a summarized version in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Disaster Scale Categories: Assessing the Relationship Between Disruption & Adjustment

DC-1: EVERYDAY EMERGENCY (EE) Minor in Scale, Scope, Duration Minor in Scope, Major in Scale & Duration Partial in Scope, Minor in Scale & Duration

DC-2: SEVERE EMERGENCY (SE) Major in Scope, Minor in Scale & Duration Major in Scale & Duration, Minor in Scope

DC-3: PARTIAL SMALL TOWN (PST) Major Scale & Duration, Partial Scope – Town

DC-4: MASSIVE SMALL TOWN (MST) Major Scale, Scope, Duration – Town

DC-5: PARTIAL SMALL CITY (PSC) Major Scale, Duration, Partial Scope - Small City

DC-6: MASSIVE SMALL CITY (MSC) Major Scale, Scope, Duration – Small City

DC-7: PARTIAL LARGE CITY (PLC) Major Scale, Duration, Partial Scope - Large City

DC-8: MASSIVE LARGE CITY (MLC) Major Scale, Scope, Duration – Large City

DC-9: CATASTROPHE (C) Major Scale, Scope, Duration – Several Pop. Areas

DC-10: ANNIHILATION (A) Major Scale, Scope, Duration – Society Fischer: The Sociology of Disaster 101

Disaster Category 1: Everyday Emergency (EE)

The everyday emergency or the first disaster category (DC-1) includes those events the first responders, e.g., police and fire, encounter on virtually a daily basis. Their training enables them to usually respond by applying the norms and roles that enables them to address the temporary situation. For example, a burning house results in the fire department extinguishing the fire and the local police directing traffic as well as assisting with any necessary evacuation. The precipitating event is defined by victims and responders as large in terms of scale for those impacted, but small in scope (in this case, one house is directly affected while perhaps several more are potentially threatened). Normal time activities are severely disrupted for those living in the house and will remain disrupted for some duration of time. After the fire is extinguished, the responders return to their normal routine as does the rest of the affected neighborhood. The key issue for disaster category 1 is: while scale may be large (or even small in other examples) and while duration may be lengthy for those impacted, scope is extremely limited. Both the disruption and the social-structural adjustment is very limited in the impact to the community (unit of analysis) and, by extension, the society. DC-1 is reserved for those everyday emergencies that occur in any community whether it is a township, borough, small city, medium or large metropolitan area. The focus is on the limited adjustment occurring with respect to social change. A large city or a small town is experiencing the same kind of limited scope (and potentially scale and time as well) is able to respond to an everyday emergency that, by definition, impacts on only a narrow part of the population necessitating a limited community adjustment. Alternately, a large city may experience a minor disruption (loss of an average of three roof shingles) for many people (200 homes for example). In this instance the scope would be broader, yet both scale and duration would be very limited—resulting in very limited adjustment. The homeowner’s insurance companies would be the primary responders. DC-1 is applied when social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is either minor in scale, scope, and duration; or major in scale and duration, but minor in scope; or larger in scope for part of the larger community (partial), but minor in scale and duration.

Disaster Category 2: Severe Emergency (SE)

The second disaster category (DC-2) is operable when responders and victims are confronted with actual or potential disruption, and the 102 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters resulting adjustment, that is more extensive than “everyday” emergencies. For example, an actual or forecast major snowstorm may result in widespread (scope: “massive”) disruption of normal activity and adjustments such as school closings, alternative child care arrangement implementation, and perhaps even the use of the National Guard for transporting medical emergency personnel. The scale (destruction and/or distress) would be minor and the adjustment time period would usually be rather short in duration (the snow melts or is at least moved to facilitate the return to normal activity). Alternately, a fire that consumes a neighborhood or a factory would be major in terms of scale and time of disruption and adjustment, but would partially affect the community (limited scope). DC-2 is applied when social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is either major or massive in scope, but minor in scale and duration or is localized in scope, but massive in scale and duration.

Disaster Category 3: Partial Disruption & Adjustment in a Town, Township or Rural Area (PST)

The third disaster category (DC-3) is reserved for small populated areas (town, township, rural area) that experience actual or potential disruptions and their necessitated adjustments which go beyond everyday or even severe emergencies in that the community is so impacted that continued adherence to the normal routine is inconceivable on the part of a significant portion of the community’s members (experience the adjustment)—not only victims and official responders. Both the destruction and/or distress (scale) are severe enough that the resulting adjustment is severe enough to interfere with the normal routine for a significant portion (partial) of the community. An example would be the crash of an airplane in or very near a small town. A significant portion of the community may not only be totally or partially destroyed, but the distress experienced throughout the town would result in the total disruption of the normal routine for a large portion of the community population. DC-3 is applied when the social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is major or massive in scale and duration for a significant portion of a community that is a town, township or populated rural area. Fischer: The Sociology of Disaster 103

Disaster Category 4: Massive Disruption & Adjustment in a Town, Township or Rural Area (MST)

The fourth disaster category (DC-4) is designated for small populated areas (town, township, rural area) that experience actual or potential disruptions and their necessitated adjustments beyond the everyday or even severe emergencies in that the community is so impacted that continued adherence to the normal routine is inconceivable on the part of virtually the entire community’s members (all experience the adjustment). An example of this category would be a brush or forest fire that threatens to, or actually does, destroy virtually the entire community. Evacuations, fire fighting, and so forth involve everyone in some level of adjustment. Scale, duration, and scope all combine on a major level to massively impact a town, township or populated rural area. DC-4 is applied when the social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is major or massive in scale and duration for virtually the entire community that is a town, township or populated rural area. Why the differentiation between partial and massive? To be more than an emergency, the disruption must be significant enough to render the continuation of normal time activities moot. Most garden-variety disasters impact part of the community significantly enough to disrupt normal time activities for a significant portion of the community. However, if the disruption resulting from threatened or actual disaster impact is massive, the normal time activity disruption would be more significant, the necessitated response more all-encompassing and, by definition, a larger event in sociological terms.

Disaster Category 5: Partial Disruption & Adjustment in a Small or Medium City (PSC)

The fifth disaster category (DC-5) signifies actual or potential disruption and the resulting adjustment to a small or medium city. In this event, continued adherence to the normal routine is inconceivable on the part of a significant portion of the community’s members. Both the destruction and/or distress are severe enough that the resulting adjustment is severe enough to interfere with the normal routine for a significant portion of the community. An example would be an airline crash in a small or medium sized city. A significant portion of the community may be severely damaged or destroyed. Most importantly, the 104 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters distress would be experienced so broadly in the community that a significant portion would be unable to continue the normal routine. They would instead engage in search and rescue activities, and so forth. DC-5 is applied when the social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is major or massive in scale and duration for a significant portion of a community that is a small or medium city.

Disaster Category 6: Massive Disruption & Adjustment in a Small or Medium City (MSC)

The sixth disaster category (DC-6) is designed for populated areas that comprise a small or medium sized city. The actual or potential disruptions and necessitated adjustments render normal routines impossible for virtually the entire community. An example would be conflagration that consumes most of the city, an earthquake that severely impacts most of the city, as well as a biological terrorism event that impacts and threatens the entire city. DC-6 is applied when the social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is major or massive in scale and duration for virtually the entire community the size of a small or medium city. Why the differentiation between population size? The larger the affected population, the greater the disruption, adjustment, and response will be. Sociologically speaking, the disaster is of greater magnitude or scale.

Disaster Category 7: Partial Disruption & Adjustment in a Large City (PLC)

The seventh disaster category (DC-7) signifies actual or potential disruption and the resulting adjustment to a large city. In a DC-7 event, continued adherence to the normal routine is inconceivable on the part of a significant portion of the community’s members. Both the destruction and/or distress are severe enough that the resulting adjustment is experienced by a significant portion of the city. An example would be the airline crash that occurred in New York City in late September 2001. A major portion of a NYC borough was severely damaged and/or destroyed. A significant portion of the community was not capable of continuing in their normal routine. DC-7 is applied when the social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is major or Fischer: The Sociology of Disaster 105 massive in scale and duration for a significant portion of a community that is a large city.

Disaster Category 8: Massive Disruption & Adjustment in a Large City (MLC)

Disaster category eight (DC-8) signifies actual or potential disruption and the resulting adjustment to a large city. In a DC-8 event, the disruption and adjustments are experienced by virtually the entire community. An example would be a severe earthquake in San Francisco resulting in such disruption that the adjustments would be implemented by virtually everyone in the city. DC-8 is applied when the social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is major or massive in scale and duration for virtually the entire community the size of a large city.

Disaster Category 9: Catastrophic and/or Simultaneous Massive Disruption & Adjustment in Several Communities (C)

The ninth disaster category (DC-9) signifies actual or potential disruption and the resulting adjustment in more than one community essentially simultaneously. This circumstance may be referred to as a catastrophe . The scale and duration as well as the scope are such that adherence to the normal routine is not possible throughout most of more than one community. An example would be the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 which simultaneously involved the World Trade Center towers (NYC), the Pentagon (Washington, D.C.) and the airline crash outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In this example, not only was the normal activity disrupted throughout the impacted cities, but the larger society also experienced severe adjustments. DC-9 is applied when the social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is major or massive in scale, duration and scope across several population centers simultaneously—impacting dramatically on the larger society as well.

Disaster Category 10: Simultaneous Massive Disruption & Adjustment of a Society (A)

Disaster category ten (DC-10) is reserved for the circumstance where actual or potential disruption and the resulting adjustment is so 106 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters severe in terms of scale, duration, and scope that the society experiences annihilation—it is unlikely to continue to exist as a separate society. An example would be that which might result from a nuclear, biological and/or chemical (NBC) terrorist attack constituting delivery of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to enough population centers that the societal disruption and adjustment constitutes annihilation. DC-10 is applied when the social structure adjustments are necessitated in response to an actual or potential disruption that is major or massive in scale, duration and scope across enough population centers to render a society annihilated. In summary, the application of scale, scope, and (time) duration to disruption and adjustment provide us with a conceptual, sociological construct that differentiates between ten different disaster categories. This scale will facilitate testing of the prior findings and the generation of research questions. It will also assist practitioners in discerning between the types of mitigation, planning and response may be appropriate based upon disaster category.

Concluding Observations: The Efficacy of a Disaster Scale

In this disaster scale we find that emergencies experience a limita- tion of at least one of the three criteria—scale, scope and/or duration, while disasters (six different categories) all experience actual or potential major disruption and adjustments in all three elements (scale, scope, duration). There are two issues involved in determining whether a precipitating event results in disaster category three, four . . . or eight: the size of the population impacted and the portion of the community’s population impacted. It is reasoned that the greater the size of the impacted population, the greater the degree to which adjustments are experienced in terms of scope within the larger society (e.g., NYC on September 11, 2001 versus the Andover, Kansas tornado in 1991). And, hence, the greater the adjustment experienced indirectly throughout the larger society itself. Similarly, whether a given community is partially or wholly disrupted, is used to differentiate between disaster categories within the variable of community population size. This paper joined the discussion of several current issues, “what is a disaster,” “what constitutes the sociology of disaster,” “what is it that disaster sociologists study?” The paper also argues for a disaster scale that is primarily conceptual rather than quantitative in nature. After this paper is critiqued by my colleagues, changes may be found to be nec- Fischer: The Sociology of Disaster 107 essary. The objective is, however, to put forward answers to the aforementioned questions as well as an appropriate measure of disasters that is useful to both researchers and practitioners. Time or duration will determine whether or not these objectives have been met; alternately, we may find the paper’s half-life to be minor in scale and scope!

References

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 1992. 3 rd Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Curtis, Russsell L., Jr. and Benigno E. Aguirre (eds.) 1998. Collective Behavior and Social Movements . Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Dombrowsky, Wolf R. 1998. “Again and Again: Is a Disaster What We Call a ‘Disaster’?” Pp. 19-30 in What is a Disaster? , edited by E.L. Quarantelli. New York: Routledge. Dynes, Russell R. 1998. “Coming to Terms with Community Disaster.” Pp. 109-126 in What is a Disaster? , edited by E.L. Quarantelli. New York: Routledge. Fischer, Henry W. 1998. 2 nd edition. Response to Disaster: Fact Versus Fiction & Its Perpetuation . Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Fischer, Henry W. 2002. “Terrorism and 11 September 2001: Does the ‘Behavioral Response to Disaster’ Model Fit?” International Journal of Disaster Prevention and Management 11-2:123-127. Fritz, Charles E. 1961. “Disasters.” Pp. 651-694 in Contemporary Social Problems , edited by Robert K. Merton and Robert A. Nisbet. New York: Harcourt. Kreps, Gary A. 1998. “Disaster as Systemic Event and Social Catalyst.” Pp. 31-55 in What is a Disaster? , edited by E.L. Quarantelli. New York: Routledge. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1960. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Porfiriev, Boris N. 1998. “Issues in the Definition and Delineation of Disasters and Disaster Areas.” Pp. 56-72 in What is a Disaster? , edited by E.L. Quarantelli. New York: Routledge. Quarantelli, E.L. (ed.) 1998. What is a Disaster? New York: Routledge. Stallings, Robert A. 1998. “Disaster and the Theory of Social Order.” Pp. 127-145 in What is a Disaster? , edited by E.L. Quarantelli. New York: Routledge.