A. J. FAAS San Jos´e State University Continuity and change in the applied of risk, hazards, and disasters

This article introduces the special Introduction issue of The Annals of Anthro- pological Practice on “Continuity his special issue of The Annals of Anthropological Prac- and Change in the Applied An- tice comes at a time when anthropological work on risk, hazards, and disasters is having a bit of a moment. thropology of Risk, Hazards, and Recently, the journal Human Organization (74[4]) re- Disasters.” After reviewing the fac- leased a special issue on the topic, featuring contem- tors that account for the height- T porary ethnographic work on disasters around the world. This was ened anthropological attention to the culmination of three consecutive years of organizing disaster disasters in the early 21st century, scholars within the ranks of several professional associations (both I review each of the contributions formal and informal) around the world, but nowhere so much as to the special issue. The topics in- within the Society for (SfAA). I could also cluded in the special issue represent point to several new book series, including Berghan Books’ series some of the simultaneously peren- Catastrophes in Context, Routledge’s Studies in Hazards, Disaster nial and currently pressing issues Risk, and Climate Change, Springer’s series Humanitarian Solu- in the anthropology of risk, haz- tions for the 21st Century, and the upcoming second edition of the seminal publication, The Angry Earth: Disasters in Anthropological ards, and disaster: vulnerability, Perspective (Oliver-Smith and Hoffman forthcoming). resilience, culture change, culture Considering that disasters affect nearly a quarter of the in practice, risk reduction, disaster world’s population each year, such scholarly attention is apropos, capitalism, and response and recov- to say the least. Though the number of natural disasters in ery. The objective of this special is- 2014 was one of the lowest annual rates in the past decade, sue is to help provide an orientation the global annual average of disaster-related deaths per year is to the theoretical and applied tools roughly 100,000 and reported economic damages average more that will help anthropologists better than US$160 billion per year (Guha-Sapir et al. 2015). As the prepare to assist in disaster contexts. contributors worked to prepare this special issue during the 2015 2016 It will assist those that may be en- North American winter months of – , our attention countering these issues for the first was called not only to the cases directly considered in this issue, time, as well as those already work- but also those disasters that emerged as we wrote. We saw the people of Taiwan dealing with the devastation from a magnitude ing in disaster-affected communi- 6.4 earthquake; much of Tasmania reeling from more than 70 ties. [risk, hazards, disaster] ongoing brushfires; the American Pacific Northwest confronting the aftermath and the uncertain future signaled by one of the highest intensity wildfire seasons in years; India, Malawi, and Mozambique recovering from massive flooding; Ethiopia facing dire drought and food security concerns; and the people of Nepal struggling to rebuild in the wake of the catastrophic earthquakes that struck in Spring 2015, to name a few. Catastrophes such as these not only claim lives and property; they also displace tens of millions around the globe, cause billions of dollars in losses, and impact the wellbeing of millions. Disasters compel

ANNALS OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL PRACTICE,Vol.40,No.1,pp.6–13, ISSN 0094-0496,online ISSN 1548-1425. C 2016 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/napa.12083  Continuity and change in the applied Annals of Anthropological Practice communities to rapidly adapt to new environments, ical study of disaster has grown to become a diverse lifeways, and subsistence strategies. They compel and robust field of inquiry. Anthropologists have affected people to take stock of their personal and long joined scholars and practitioners of all disci- cultural identities in ways they may not have in the plinary stripes to influence policy and practice in past; they hurt, and they reveal much to us about disaster prevention, mitigation, response, recovery, our values, desires, and our whole affective ranges. and adaptation. However, it bears noting that much Yet, in a sense, the anthropological fascination of the history of anthropology and disasters begins with disasters—and our capacity to conceive of with disasters visiting the anthropologists, not the this proliferation—has come about as much as a other way around. Just as Anthony Oliver-Smith was consequence of our shifting gaze as any increase preparing to depart for the Andean highland town (real or perceived) in their frequency or inten- of Yungay in Peru in May 1970, to conduct field- sity. The conceptual dominance of functionalist work for his dissertation on the political economy and neofunctionalist paradigms and colonialist of market practices, the entire region was devastated mentalities throughout much of the 20th century by a 7.9 magnitude earthquake on May 31,leav- long predisposed anthropologists to examining ing just 300 survivors from the original population the all-too-neatly bounded and, importantly, of approximately 4,500 (Oliver-Smith 1986). At the stable systems of primitive others; dissimilarities time, Oliver-Smith was uncertain of how to proceed and perturbations were likely to be bracketed or if it was even appropriate to do so. When his ad- out of analysis. Likewise, other social science visor, Paul Doughty, encouraged him to continue to disciplines, whose chief concerns were previously Yungay to study what happened next, he found him- the populations of the Global North found in their self venturing out into a field little explored by an- early confrontations with disaster people largely thropologists. Twenty years later, Susanna Hoffman alienated from and baffled by the risks and hazards was neither concerned with disasters as a topic of of environments and “nature” that were to them, inquiry nor contemplating any particular fieldwork other (Faas and Barrios 2015). The anthropological endeavor when the 1991 Oakland firestorm claimed gaze of course shifted from the 1970s onward to her home and all of her possessions. She began pro- suffering and subalternity (Crehan 2002;Rob- cessing the experience in very personal narratives bins 2013), the global of localities (Hoffman 1994), while noting that so much of what (Hodder 2012;Wolf1982), power relations both this catastrophe revealed for her were those core con- material and discursive (Foucault 2002 [1972]; cerns of cultural anthropologists—leadership, rela- Hornborg 2001), the perennial flux of ecologies and tionships, and semiotics. At the annual meetings of human–environment relations (Dove 2006), affect the American Anthropological Association the fol- and embodiment (Clough and Halley 2007;Csordas lowing year, Hoffman sought out others who might 1994), and the emergent and often improvisational be working on disasters; the ensuing meeting with properties of cultural practice (Pickering 2008). Oliver-Smith resulted in an enduring collaborative Along the way, perhaps gradually and then all at once relationship that has produced two seminal works, (to paraphrase Hemingway), anthropologists came The Angry Earth: Disasters in Anthropological Perspec- to see that the better part of the world’s populations tive (Oliver-Smith and Hoffman 1999)andCatas- live lives intimately bound to their environments trophe and Culture: The Anthropology of Disasters (Escobar 1999), acutely aware of the concomitant (Hoffman and Oliver-Smith 2002), both of which risks and hazards, often in the shadow of periodic remain essential readings in the anthropology of dis- and looming disasters (Oliver-Smith 1986). Acute asters (for more on this history, see Faas and Barrios sensitivities to subalternity and the sense of 2015). impending collapses likely explains much of the In recent years, the growth and development of recent anthropological fascination with precarity the anthropology of risk, hazards, and disasters has (Muehlebach 2013). been nowhere more evident than in the SfAA, which has long fostered the development of the application of social science to the world’s most pressing and of- Unheralded encounters and the ten most neglected issues. Beginning at the 73rd An- resurgence of disaster anthropology nual Meeting of the SfAA in Denver in 2013,when Since the pioneering work of Anthony F.C. Wallace Anthony Oliver-Smith received the prestigious and Raymond Firth in the 1950s,1 the anthropolog- Malinowski Award, a core group of about a dozen

7  Annals of Anthropological Practice Volume 40 Number 1 May 2016 disaster anthropologists formed to begin organizing curated collection of anthropological essays that a cluster of panels that featured more than 100 papers addresses theoretical and applied questions of on the topics of risk, hazards, and disasters in that broad interest and relevance. The collection of first year. This tremendous turnout signaled to many articles in this somewhat unconventional special of us that disaster research had re-emerged as a ma- issue constitutes a critical evaluation of the field’s jor field of interest among applied anthropologists. central theoretical and applied foundations; a In an effort to channel the energies of this loosely variety of disaster-relevant issues in an ethno- affiliated group of scholars, we officially formed the graphically grounded, theoretically informed, and Risk and Disasters Topical Interest Group within geographically and culturally varied series of essays. the SfAA in late 2013. The Risk and Disaster clus- The 2015 Annual Meetings of the SfAA, which ter of panels grew even larger the following year at took place in Pittsburgh from March 24 to 28,fea- the 74th Annual Meeting of SfAA in Albuquerque, tured 22 Risk and Disaster Topical Interest Group when we held our first meeting as an officially rec- sponsored panels and 114 papers. This special issue ognized Topical Interest Group (for a brief history, is the direct result of a plenary panel sponsored by see Faas and Kulstad 2015). the group at that meeting, which seized on the con- This Risk and Disasters Topical Interest Group ference theme—Continuity and Change—and was was long preceded by La Red de Estudios Sociales subsequently billed as Continuity and Change in the en Prevencion´ de Desastres en Am´erica Latina (Social Applied Anthropology of Risk, Hazards, and Disasters. Studies Network for Disaster Prevention in Latin The plenary featured a combination of established America, or La Red), which formed in 1992.This and emerging leaders in the field, all represented organization played a critical role in establishing a as authors in this collection. Each of these scholars global intellectual community of “disasterologists” contributes to applied anthropological knowledge working in Latin America that was particularly in- of risk, hazards, and disasters from a variety of fluential in the development of disaster scholars and perspectives that shed light on the most vital scholarship worldwide (see Faas and Barrios 2015; issues in this still burgeoning subfield. This issue is Maskrey 1993). Today, the growth of networks of based on the series of focused conversations about anthropologists investigating disasters continues to the state of risk and disaster theory and practice expand globally, with the Disaster and Crisis An- featured in this panel. As the title of the plenary and thropology Network (DICAN) within the European subsequent special issue suggests, the discussion Association of Social Anthropologists in 2015 and the focused on continuities and changes in key aspects 2015 International Anthropology Workshop Com- of the anthropology and applied social science of parative Study of Disasters and Upheavals at the risk and disasters. Panelists pointed to cultural, Southwestern University for Nationalities in China semiotic, economic, political, and ecological dy- (Zhang et al. 2016). Furthermore, in the interest namics that helped orient newcomers and seasoned of application and broader public engagement, the specialists alike to the state of the field. Discussions Risk and Disasters Topical Interest Group facili- concentrated on the field’s history, contributions, tated a partnership between the SfAA and the U.S. and shortcomings, and evaluated alternative theo- Department of Interior Strategic Sciences Group retical frameworks and the enduring relevance of to contribute to rapid deployments of multidisci- key concepts. The group also engaged in a lively plinary teams to advise practitioners and policy mak- discussion on one of anthropology’s fundamental ers in ongoing environmental crises (see Faas and and overarching topics of inquiry—culture change. Trive di 2015). These activities point to the advent of The panel paid equal attention to applied a new cohort of disaster anthropologists as markedly considerations—the effectiveness and politics of engaged with the discipline of anthropology as they global disaster risk reduction strategies; disaster are with interdisciplinary conversations and policy response, reconstruction, and recovery approaches; and practice. and incorporating culture into disaster response and recovery. Finally, because disasters have become The special issue increasingly common in anthropological work, we The Annals of Anthropological Practice’s focus on considered how risk and disaster studies influence timely publication of topics related to the appli- the way anthropologists work more broadly. Our cation and practice of anthropology makes it an essays in this issue therefore reflect on the ways risk, ideal venue in which to feature the present specially hazards, and disasters affect field sites, methods,

8  Continuity and change in the applied Annals of Anthropological Practice theories, and anthropologists themselves. The pan- critics. Critics of the vulnerability concept argue elists and organizers concluded this fruitful session that its measurement is often exceedingly complex with a commitment to maintain the panel’s mo- and effective measures in one context do not often mentum by collaborating on this joint publication. translate to others. Moreover, vulnerability-centered This special issue furthers the 2015 Pittsburgh approaches can render disaster-affected people as plenary discussion with eight conceptual reviews passive, powerless victims (Hewitt 1997). They can that address topics that are fundamental to research portray entire regions of the world as unsafe and and practice in disaster contexts: vulnerability, re- backward, justifying perpetual interventions into silience, culture change, culture in practice, disas- marginal populations (Bankoff 2001). In this article, ter capitalism, disaster risk reduction, and response I engage this theoretical debate by critically exam- and recovery. Each manuscript in this issue features ining the concept’s historical trajectory, evaluating ethnographic case material from those who partic- whether vulnerability continues to be useful and ipated in the thematic discussions in the plenary. analytically meaningful. Finally, I weigh the poten- Collectively, we hope that this timely presentation tial benefits and/or consequences of incorporating of ongoing debates and conversations in the anthro- vulnerability analysis in policy and practice. pology of risk, hazards, and disasters will contribute Roberto Barrios discusses how in recent years to the advance of applied and scholarly work on resilience, or “the ability to survive and cope with these important topics. The articles in this issue are a disaster with minimum impact and damage” intended to provide a bit of an orientation to some (Cutter et al. 2008), has become a pervasive term of core concepts in disasters research for those who are trade in disaster scholarship and management. The relatively new to the field, while simultaneously serv- idea of preemptively identifying factors that might ing as provocations for seasoned scholars and prac- promote the capacity of a given people or place to titioners who we are sure will continue to work on sustain and adapt to shocks (e.g., Manyena 2006) the frontiers of theory and practice on these issues. is understandably seductive. One salient concern, however, is that the framework of resilience places Review of contributions an inordinate amount of responsibility on affected In the first article in this collection, I review the communities for the outcomes of disaster, thereby concept of vulnerability in the study of risk, hazards, diverting attention away from root causes. This and disasters, which once constituted a paradigm essentially promotes a naturalized view of disaster— shift in the field. Generally employed as a cumulative one previously rejected in the long dominant indicator of the unequal distributions of certain pop- vulnerability frameworks of disasters—and leads ulations in proximity to environmental and techno- us to the mistaken assumptions that local groups logical hazards and an individual or group’s ability (or “systems”) must somehow possess the ability to to “anticipate, cope with, resist and recover” from weather environmental “accidents.” Many anthro- disaster (Wisner et al. 2004), this concept has influ- pologists have avoided the resilience framework enced disaster research in at least three fundamental because of these and other perceived issues. Despite ways. First, it helped researchers and practitioners these critiques, funders, relief organizations, and reevaluate the “natural” in natural disasters and fields of study continue committed to the resilience- consider the role that humans play in catastrophe. centered framework. In this paper, the Barrios Second, vulnerability forced a temporal reconcep- engages this important theoretical conversation by tualization of calamity. If vulnerability is produced evaluating the concept’s merits and shortcomings, by human behavior and is unevenly distributed, as well as the role it will play in risk, hazard, and disasters are therefore historically produced. Thus, disaster anthropological theory and practice. He rather than being discreet events, disasters are actu- also evaluates ways in which anthropologists might ally processes that begin long before a hazard’s onset (or might not) be able to move beyond critiquing and continue long after it subsides. Moreover, the and avoiding the term to offering alternative implication that disasters are “temporary” obscures conceptual frameworks that are useful to both the fact that daily life for many people is chronically policy makers and practitioners working in risk insecure. Finally, vulnerability effectively politicized reduction, mitigation, response, and recovery. disaster analysis by placing disadvantaged groups Cultural continuity and cultural change—one and uneven distributions of power at the center of of anthropology’s perennial theoretical concerns— analysis. This concept, however, is not without its is central to the anthropology of risk, hazards, and

9  Annals of Anthropological Practice Volume 40 Number 1 May 2016 disasters. In the article by Susanna Hoffman, ques- from Haiti and the Gulf Coast. Such practices, many tions of cultural continuity and change are treated have argued, prioritize profit over the needs of the as not only theoretically poignant, but also central communities they are supposed to serve. Schuller to how anthropologists advise communities, organi- and Maldonado begin by defining disaster capital- zations, and policy makers in disaster contexts. An- ism and the ways by which such practices not only thropologists often struggle with interpreting the ex- divert public funds for private benefit, but also serve tent to which disasters lead to cultural change or reify the political and ideological objectives of capitalist preexisting cultural repertoires and social structures. elites. Disaster capitalism, they point out, is at once In After Atlas Shrugs (1999), Hoffman addressed this a policy and a political project that today serves to question. The extent to which disasters cause cul- advance neoliberal policy agendas under the cover of tural change, she asserted, depends on the following crises that permit extreme measures. They conclude three factors: (1) the size or magnitude of the dis- by discussing some of the limitations of disaster cap- aster event; (2) whether we look at change in the italism as an analytical concept and point to roles for short or long term; and (3) whether we consider the anthropologists in resisting the advance of capitalist deep structures or surface structures of culture. In interests at the expense of the vulnerable in disasters. 2013, Anthony Oliver-Smith also engaged the ques- Anthony Oliver-Smith provides a review of an- tion by identifying important distinctions between thropological perspectives on disaster risk reduction coping and adaptation in disaster contexts. Coping, and how this is reflected in national and global policy he points out, refers to improvisation and creativity initiatives. Now underwritten by the United Nations in novel crisis contexts. Adaptation, in turn, refers to Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and several other adjustments in “the fund of general knowledge and large, multinational bodies, disaster risk reduction practice in a culture . . . the overall ‘toolkit’ for life in is a global priority. Anthropologists have been ac- a particular environment” (Oliver-Smith 2013:277). tive contributors to the development of research and Drawing from diverse research conducted in coastal emerging policy in this area for a number of years. Louisiana after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, In this article, Oliver-Smith takes a critical look at among the Chinese ethnic minority Qiang people in global disaster risk reduction efforts. He examines their recovery from the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, global policy making processes, including those that and in post-Hurricane Mitch resettlement commu- took place in the Third World Conference on Disas- nities in Honduras, Hoffman revisits the important ter Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan. Oliver-Smith and enduring question of culture change in disasters identifies current challenges and opportunities for by examining the role that risk, hazard, and disasters advancing effective disaster risk reduction policies. play in sociocultural change. Moreover, he suggests the roles that anthropology Julie Maldonado considers an issue that is cen- can play in fostering the development of more criti- tral to applied anthropology in general and of risk cal approaches to disaster risk reduction by address- and disaster in particular: incorporating local culture ing the root causes of disaster risk. into practice. Despite applied anthropologists’ re- The article by Qiaoyun Zhang addresses how lentless and all-too-common recommendation that applied anthropologists can best use their work to policy makers and practitioners must incorporate inform policy and practice in response and recovery local people and cultures in their work, this advice more effectively. It draws on the cases of the 2008 is commonly ignored or misconstrued. In this arti- Wenchuan earthquake in Chengdu, China, and the cle, Maldonado explains why cultural insensitivity 2010 earthquake in Haiti. Zhang begins by dis- in disaster-related policies and practice continues to cussing the “optimistic fatalism” of the Qiang people be a persistent issue. Also, she offers recommenda- of China, who perceived disaster and “fortune” in tions on how to develop more useful and successful terms of opportunities for change that go hand in prescriptions for incorporating cultural sensitivity hand (Zhang 2012). The earthquake caused tremen- into policy and practice. dous material and human losses, but also brought Mark Schuller and Julie Maldonado take a crit- them unprecedented and even miraculous oppor- ical look at disaster capitalism, or the strategic and tunities for development. However, such develop- opportunistic reshaping of economic practice and ment also leads to destructions of social networks regulation during times of environmental catastro- and sustainable subsistence practices as well as eco- phe and in the service of narrow capitalist inter- nomic disparities and social unrest. It also essen- ests. They address these key points using examples tialized their peripheral and fixed identity as the

10  Continuity and change in the applied Annals of Anthropological Practice ethnic other. The authors discuss the ways in which focus on doing so in ways that are amenable to both applied anthropologists can address this dialectic re- theory and practice. In effect, the contributors to lationship between disaster and opportunity. They this issue wish to bid farewell to the days when haz- also address the need to bridge the epistemologically ards and disaster caught anthropologists by surprise. and practically constructed chasm between expert knowledge and local knowledge. Finally, the authors Notes discuss how applied anthropologists can better en- gage disaster narratives in response by pointing to Acknowledgements. My warmest thanks to Tess the continued rise in funding for humanitarian ef- Kulstad, who served as co-chair along with me for forts, while development funding is declining, and the plenary panel upon which this issue is based, and how this shapes humanitarian response. to all the panel and issue contributors, Roberto E. In the final piece in this issue, Afterward: Prepar- Barrios, Susanna Hoffman, Julie K. Maldonado, An- ing for Uncertainties, Tess Kulstad and I reflect on thony Oliver-Smith, Mark Schuller, and Qiaoyun the contributions to this issue and disaster anthro- Zhang. Special thanks to Orit Tamir, Program Chair pology more broadly in light of the global prolifer- for the 2015 Annual Meetings of the Society for Ap- ation of vulnerability to hazards and disasters in the plied Anthropology, for encouraging and supporting 21st century. Disasters have historically caught many the plenary upon which this issue is based. I am also anthropologists by surprise as topics of research. We sincerely grateful to John Brett, editor of The An- offer a focused discussion of a general purpose of nals of Anthropological Practice, for supporting this this issue—informing anthropological engagements project and to the anonymous reviewers whose feed- with disaster—by reviewing some notable contribu- back helped improve this issue. tions to the field and summarizing the case for a 1. Anthony F.C. Wallace called anthropological denaturalized view of disasters. We follow this with attention to disasters in his work on the topic an extended discussion of what comes after nature in with the National Academy of Sciences—National the anthropology of disasters; that is, if disasters are Research Council’s Committee on Disaster Studies notpropertiesofnature,butratherofhumanaction, throughout the 1950s.Inaseriesofreports, what then are the subjects of analysis? We point to Wallace and collaborators called attention to the the historical production of vulnerability as a com- social, cultural, and psychological stresses faced by plex domain of inquiry and the hard problems of disaster survivors. His work on this topic continued disaster causality and the complexity of institutional through the 1980s. Importantly, Wallace engaged responses to hazards and disasters. We conclude by in this work through multidisciplinary collabora- focusing on what anthropologists can learn from tion with psychologists, historians, and linguists. disaster, how they might apply what they learn, and Raymond Firth’s (1959) Social Change in Tikopia a sincere hope that these matters no longer catch us examined Tikopian responses to two cyclones and by surprise. a subsequent famine, describing in great detail the modification of ceremonial, quotidian, and relational exchange practices, which he concluded Concluding remarks did not rise to the level of substantive change in social structure. For more on the development of Today, the potential for catastrophe looms over the anthropology of disasters, see Faas and Barrios many communities where anthropologists work, in- (2015), Oliver-Smith (1996), and Torry (1979). creasing the likelihood that many who have never considered risk-, hazard-, and disaster-related issues will have to grapple with them. The objective of References cited this special issue is to help provide an orientation to the theoretical and applied tools that will help Bankoff, Gregory anthropologists better prepare to assist in disaster 2001 Rendering the World Unsafe: “Vulner- contexts. It will assist those that may be encounter- ability” as Western Discourse. Disasters ing risk, hazard, and disaster issues for the first time, 25(1):19–35. as well as those already working in disaster-affected Clough, Patricia Ticineto, and Jean Halley, eds. communities. Contributors not only cover complex 2007 The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. problems confronted by people in disasters, but also Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

11  Annals of Anthropological Practice Volume 40 Number 1 May 2016

Crehan, Kate 2015 Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2014: 2002 Gramsci, Culture, and Anthropology. The Numbers and Trends. Brussels: : Pluto Press. CRED. Csordas, Thomas J. Hewitt, Kenneth 1994 Embodiment and Experience: The Exis- 1997 Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduc- tential Ground of Culture and Self. Cam- tion to Disasters. London: Longman. bridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Ian Cutter, Susan L., Lindsey Barnes, Melissa Berry, 2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Rela- Christopher Burton, Elijah Evans, Eric tionships between Humans and Things. Tate, and Jennifer Webb Malden, MA: Wiley and Sons. 2008 A Place-Based Model for Understand- Hoffman, Susanna ing Community Resilience to Natural 1994 Up from the Embers: A Disaster Survivor’s Disasters. Global Environmental Change Story. Clinical Quarterly, National Center 18(4):598–606. for Post-Traumatic Stress 4(2):15–16. Dove, Michael R. 1999 After Atlas Shrugs: Cultural Change or 2006 Equilibrium Theory and Interdisciplinary Persistence after a Disaster. In The Angry Borrowing: A Comparison of Old and New Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspec- Ecological . In Reimag- tive. Anthony Oliver-Smith and Susanna ining Political Ecology. Aletta Biersack Hoffman, eds. Pp. 302–325.NewYork: and James B. Greenberg, eds. Pp. 43– Routledge. 69. Durham, NC: Duke University Hoffman, Susanna, and Anthony Oliver-Smith, eds. Press. 2002 Catastrophe and Culture: The Anthropol- Escobar, Arturo ogy of Disasters. Santa Fe, NM: School of 1999 After Nature: Steps to an Antiessential- American Research Press. ist Political Ecology. Current Anthropology Hornborg, Alf 40(1):130. 2001 The Power of the Machine: Global Inequal- Faas, A. J., and Roberto Barrios ities of Economy, Technology, and Environ- 2015 Applied Anthropology of Risk, Haz- ment. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. ards, and Disasters. Human Organization MacKinnon, Danny, and Kate Driscoll Derickson 74(4):287–295. 2013 From Resilience to Resourcefulness: A Cri- Faas, A. J., and Tess Kulstad tique of Resilience Policy and Activism. 2015 Continuity and Change in the Social Progress in Human Geography 37(2):253– Science of Risk, Hazards, and Disasters. 270. Backchannels. http://goo.gl/0mHqx4. Manyena, Siambabala Bernard Faas, A. J., and Jennifer Trivedi 2006 The Concept of Resilience Revisited. Dis- 2015 Applied Anthropology and Multi- asters 30(4):434–450. Disciplinary Practice in Environmental Maskrey, Andrew, ed. Crises: The SfAA Partners with the 1993 Los Desastres No Son Naturales. Bogota,´ Department of the Interior’s Strategic Colombia: La RED and Intermediate Tech- Sciences Group. Society for Applied nology Development Group. Anthropology News 26(2). http://goo.gl/ Muehlenbach, Andrea mYByA9. 2013 On Precariousness and the Ethical Imag- Firth, Raymond ination: The Year 2012 in Sociocultural 1959 Social Change in Tikopia: Re-Study of a Anthropology. American Anthropologist Polynesian Community after a Generation. 115(2):297–311. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Oliver-Smith, Anthony Foucault, Michel 1986 The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in 2002 [1972] The Archaeology of Knowledge. the Andes. Albuquerque: University of New A. M. Sheridan Smith, trans. New York: Mexico Press. Routledge. 1996 Anthropological Research on Hazards and Guha-Sapir, Debarati, Philippe Hoyois, and Regina Disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology Below 25:303–328.

12  Continuity and change in the applied Annals of Anthropological Practice

2013 Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Behavior in an Extreme Situation. Disas- Change Adaptation: The View from Ap- ter Study Number 3, Committee on Dis- plied Anthropology. Human Organization aster Studies, Division of Anthropology 72(4):275–282. and Psychology. Washington, DC: Na- Oliver-Smith, Anthony, and Susanna Hoffman, eds. tional Academy of Sciences, National Re- 1999 The Angry Earth: Disasters in Anthropolog- search Council. ical Perspective. New York: Routledge. Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon, and Ian Forthcoming The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthro- Davis pological Perspective. 2nd edition. New 2004 At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulner- York: Routledge. ability, and Disasters. 2nd edition. New Pickering, Andrew York: Routledge. 2008 New Ontologies. In The Mangle in Prac- Wolf, Eric tice: Science, Society, and Becoming. An- 1982 Europe and the People without His- drew Pickering and Keith Guzik, eds. Pp. tory. Berkeley: University of California 1–16. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Press. Robbins, Joel Zhang, Qiaoyun 2013 Beyond the Suffering Subject: Toward an 2012 Phoenix out of the Ashes: Convergence Anthropology of the Good. Journal of the of Disaster and Heritage Tourism in Royal Anthropological Institute 19(3):447– Jina Qiang Village, Sichuan Province, 462. China. Practicing Anthropology 34(3): Torry, William 24–28. 1979 Anthropological Studies in Hazardous En- Zhang, Qiaoyun, A. J. Faas, Tang Yun, and Yuan vironments: Past Trends and New Hori- Zhang zons. Current Anthropology 20(3):517–540. 2016 Disasters and Upheavals Scholarship and Wallace, Anthony F.C. Fieldwork in Sichuan Province, China. So- 1956 The Tornado in Worcester: An Exploratory ciety for Applied Anthropology News, June Study of Individual and Community 2016. http://goo.gl/cZxzkC

13