Beyond the volcanic risk. To defuse the announced disaster of Vesuvius

Giovanni Gugg; Giovanni Gugg

doi:10.3934/geosci.2019.3.480

AIMS Geosciences

2019, Volume 5, Issue 3: 480-492. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.3.480

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Beyond the volcanic risk. To defuse the announced disaster of Vesuvius

Giovanni Gugg ^{1,2
,
,}

1.
Department of Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II”, piazzale Tecchio, 80, 80125, Naples (NA), Italy
2.
LAPCOS (Laboratoire d’Anthropologie et de Psychologie Cliniques, Cognitives et Sociales), University of Nice Cote d’Azur, 24 avenue des Diables Bleus, 06357, Nice, France

Received: 28 March 2019 Accepted: 21 June 2019 Published: 11 July 2019

The anthropology of risks and disasters has been characterized in recent years by a strong focus on aspects of contemporary life, also developing a lively interdisciplinary vocation. The subject of these studies is multifaceted and complex, because during an emergency, or its future planning, there are political and legal discussions that can involve a multitude of actors, including lawyers, consultants, groups formed to represent victims or residents, social movements, businessmen, politicians, public officials and journalists. These figures contribute to the social construction of disaster, or risk, so anthropology can help to untangle these relationships.
Similar dynamics are observable even before a disaster, as in the case of my contribution: Vesuvius has not erupted in 75 years and volcanologists say that it will remain dormant for a long time, however since 1995 a planning of the future volcanic eruption has been initiated that has changed the relationship of residents with the territory, as well as with time. On the one hand, in the same year, the creation of the Vesuvius National Park, within a layout concentric to the red zone, further regulated the use and attendance of the territory; on the other hand, with the emergency planning, the future catastrophe has been transformed: it is no longer a hypothetical eventuality but, in a sense, it is officially announced. In other words, the scenarios of the future have begun to influence the present time: they produce norms, establish behaviors, determine relationships, and become reality. The Vesuvius Emergency Plan and the Evacuation Plan are “governmental devices”, or “non-human social actors” that, in addition to producing a regulated space and time, determine the daily practices of the residents and their conception of the situation in which they live.
This has helped to model various social elaborations of risk, which I discuss in my contribution, underlining how there are associations and communities that do not ignore the risk, nor have a fatalistic attitude, but are active to rebuild a more equitable and sustainable relationship between humans and the ecosystem. Through the ethnographic approach, the need emerged to overcome the emergency logic and to induce public institutions to work also on risk mitigation, i.e. by fostering democratic participation, requalifying cities, taking action to eliminate social vulnerability; in other words, the inhabitants of the Vesuvian area are not indifferent to the threat of the volcano, but they have a different and differentiated approach that questions some simplifications on the “prevention society”, the “risk culture” and a certain way of understanding “development”.
- Vesuvius,
- “natural” disaster,
- environment,
- risk,
- post-development,
- mitigation,
- emergency
Citation: Giovanni Gugg. Beyond the volcanic risk. To defuse the announced disaster of Vesuvius[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2019, 5(3): 480-492. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.3.480

Related Papers:

Abstract

The anthropology of risks and disasters has been characterized in recent years by a strong focus on aspects of contemporary life, also developing a lively interdisciplinary vocation. The subject of these studies is multifaceted and complex, because during an emergency, or its future planning, there are political and legal discussions that can involve a multitude of actors, including lawyers, consultants, groups formed to represent victims or residents, social movements, businessmen, politicians, public officials and journalists. These figures contribute to the social construction of disaster, or risk, so anthropology can help to untangle these relationships.
Similar dynamics are observable even before a disaster, as in the case of my contribution: Vesuvius has not erupted in 75 years and volcanologists say that it will remain dormant for a long time, however since 1995 a planning of the future volcanic eruption has been initiated that has changed the relationship of residents with the territory, as well as with time. On the one hand, in the same year, the creation of the Vesuvius National Park, within a layout concentric to the red zone, further regulated the use and attendance of the territory; on the other hand, with the emergency planning, the future catastrophe has been transformed: it is no longer a hypothetical eventuality but, in a sense, it is officially announced. In other words, the scenarios of the future have begun to influence the present time: they produce norms, establish behaviors, determine relationships, and become reality. The Vesuvius Emergency Plan and the Evacuation Plan are “governmental devices”, or “non-human social actors” that, in addition to producing a regulated space and time, determine the daily practices of the residents and their conception of the situation in which they live.
This has helped to model various social elaborations of risk, which I discuss in my contribution, underlining how there are associations and communities that do not ignore the risk, nor have a fatalistic attitude, but are active to rebuild a more equitable and sustainable relationship between humans and the ecosystem. Through the ethnographic approach, the need emerged to overcome the emergency logic and to induce public institutions to work also on risk mitigation, i.e. by fostering democratic participation, requalifying cities, taking action to eliminate social vulnerability; in other words, the inhabitants of the Vesuvian area are not indifferent to the threat of the volcano, but they have a different and differentiated approach that questions some simplifications on the “prevention society”, the “risk culture” and a certain way of understanding “development”.

References

[1]	Arachi A (2013) Anche Napoli nell'area a rischio in caso di eruzione del Vesuvio, in "Corriere della Sera".
[2]	Signorelli A (1992) Catastrophes naturelles et réponses culturelles. In: "Le Feu", monographic number of Terrain, 19: 147–158.
[3]	Gugg G (2018) Anthropology of the Vesuvius Emergency Plan: history, perspectives and limits of a dispositive for volcanic risk government. In: Antronico L, Marincioni F (eds), Natural hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction policies, monographic number of "Geographies of the Anthropocene" 2: 105–123.
[4]	Vella A, Barbera F (2002) Il territorio storico della città vesuviana. Sviluppo e struttura urbana della fascia costiera. San Giorgio a Cremano (Naples): Lab. Ricerche & Studi Vesuviani.
[5]	Lamberti A (2011) Lo sfasciume urbano ha creato paesaggi di paura. Available from: http://www.ilmediano.it/aspx/visArticolo.aspx?id=12335.
[6]	Dobran F (2006) Vesuvius. Education, security and prosperity. New York: Elsevier.
[7]	Latouche S (2014) La scommessa della decrescita. Milan: Feltrinelli.
[8]	Rossi-Doria M (1982) Scritti sul Mezzogiorno. Turin: Einaudi.
[9]	Di Gennaro A (2012) La misura della terra: Crisi civile e spreco del territorio in Campania. Naples: Clean.
[10]	Gugg G (2015) Rischio e post-sviluppo vesuviano: un'antropologia della "catastrofe annunciata". In: Benadusi M (ed), Antropologi nei disastri, monographic number of "Antropologia Pubblica", review of Società Italiana di Antropologia Applicata 1: 141–160.
[11]	Coppola A (2012) Apocalypse town: Cronache dalla fine della civiltà urbana. Rome-Bari: Laterza.
[12]	Malighetti R (2005) Fine dello sviluppo: emergenza o decrescita. In: Malighetti R (ed) Oltre lo sviluppo. Le prospettive dell'antropologia. Rome: Meltemi, 7–49.
[13]	Viale G (2010) La terra non ci appartiene. Parolechiave 44: 157–164.
[14]	Barnes K (2011) Volcanology: Europe's ticking time bomb. Nature 473: 140–141. doi: 10.1038/473140a
[15]	Hall SS (2007) Vesuvio, l'eruzione che verrà. Nal Geogr 9: 30–49.
[16]	Rizzo S, Stella GA (2015) Se muore il Sud. Milan: Feltrinelli.
[17]	Sbattella F, Tettamanzi M (2013) Fondamenti di psicologia dell'emergenza. Milan: Franco Angeli.
[18]	Ligi G (2009) Antropologia dei disastri. Rome-Bari: Laterza.
[19]	Douglas M (1998) Rischio e colpa. Bologna: il Mulino.
[20]	Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of environmental and technological dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[21]	Gugg G (2013) All'ombra del vulcano. Antropologia del rischio di un paese vesuviano. Phd thesis. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli "L'Orientale".
[22]	Fenoglio MT (2013) Origini e paradigmi della psicologia dell'emergenza. In: Sbattella F, Tettamanzi M (eds), Fondamenti di psicologia dell'emergenza. Milan: Franco Angeli, 20–51.
[23]	Bass A (2000) Difference and disavowal: the trauma of Eros. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.
[24]	Anders G (2010) L'uomo è antiquato, Considerazioni sull'anima nell'epoca della seconda rivoluzione industriale. Turin: Bollati-Boringhieri.
[25]	Becker E (1973) The Denial of Death. New York: Simon & Schuster.
[26]	Cohen S (2008) Stati di negazione. La rimozione del dolore nella società contemporanea. Rome: Carocci.
[27]	Calhoun C (2010) The Idea of Emergency: Humanitarian Action and Global (Dis) order. In: Fassin D, Pandolfi M (eds), Contemporary State of Emergency. The Politics of Military and Humanitarian Interventions. New York: Zone Book, 29–58.
[28]	Agamben G (2003) Lo stato di eccezione. Turin: Bollati-Boringhieri.
[29]	Pandolfi M, Corbet A (2011) De l'humanitaire imparfait. Ethnol Fr 41: 465–472. doi: 10.3917/ethn.113.0465
[30]	Castorina R, Roccheggiani G (2015) Normalizzare il disastro? Biopolitica dell'emergenza nel post-sisma aquilano. In: Saitta P (ed), Fukushima, Concordia e altre macerie. Vita quotidiana, resistenza e gestione del disastro. Florence: Editpress, 119–134.
[31]	Pitzalis S (2016) Politiche del disastro. Poteri e contropoteri nel terremoto emiliano. Rome: Ombre Corte.
[32]	Ferguson J (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine. "Development", depoliticization and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[33]	Malighetti R (2011) Intra ordinem. Emergenza, cooperazione, sovranità. Quad Comun 12: 41–46.
[34]	Revet S, Langumier J (2013) Le gouvernement des catastrophes. Paris: Karthala.
[35]	Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: an Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[36]	Cyrulnik B, Malaguti E (2005) Costruire la resilienza. La riorganizzazione positiva della vita e la creazione di legami significativi. Trento: Erickson.
[37]	Provitolo D, Dubos-Paillard E, Müller JP (2011) Emergent human behaviour during a disaster thematic versus complex systems approaches. Contribution at the conference «Emergent Properties in Natural and Artificial Complex System», Wien (Austria), Available from: http://hal.cirad.fr/halshs-00644943/.
[38]	Benadusi M (2014) Pedagogies of the Unknown: Unpacking "Culture", Disaster Risk Reduction Education. J Conting Crisis Manag 22: 1–10. doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12042
[39]	Djament-Tran G, Le Blanc A, Lhomme S, et al. (2012) Ce que la résilience n'est pas, ce qu'on veut lui faire dire. HAL. Arch Ouvert Pluridiscip. Available from: http://hal-ens.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/67/92/93/PDF/ resilience_french.pdf.
[40]	Baker N (2018) Disaster preparedness is an illusion. Brooklyn Rail. Available from: https://brooklynrail.org/2018/04/field-notes/Disaster-Preparedness-Is-an-Illusion.
[41]	Benadusi M (2015) Antropologia dei disastri. Ricerca, attivismo, applicazione. Un'introduzione. In: Benadusi M (ed), Antropologi nei disastri, monographic number of "Antropologia Pubblica", review of Società Italiana di Antropologia Applicata, 1: 25–46.
[42]	Gugg G (2017) Al di là dello sviluppo, oltre l'emergenza: il caso del rischio Vesuvio. In: Mela A, Mugnano S, Olori D (eds), Territori vulnerabili. Verso una nuova sociologia dei disastri italiana. Milan: Franco Angeli, 87–101.
[43]	Escobar A (2005) El "postdesarrollo" como concepto y práctica social. In: Mato D (ed), Políticas de economía, ambiente y sociedad en tiempos de globalización. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 17–31.
[44]	Sachs W (2010) The Development Dictionary: a guide to knowledge as power. London-New York: Zed Books.
[45]	Tarabusi F (2010) Verso un'etnografia nello sviluppo. Il "progetto" come oggetto di analisi antropologica. In: Benadusi M (ed), Antropomorfismi. Traslare, interpretare e praticare conoscenze organizzative e di sviluppo. Rimini: Guaraldi, 147–170.
[46]	Sclavi M (2002) Avventure urbane. Progettare la città con gli abitanti. Milan: Elèuthera.
[47]	Arena G (1997) Introduzione all'amministrazione condivisa. Studi Parlam Politica Cost 117: 29–65.
[48]	Oliver-Smith A (1996) Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Ann Rev Anthropol 25: 303–328. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.303
[49]	de Sardan JPO (1995) Anthropologie et développement: Essai en socio-anthropologie du changement social. Paris: Karthala.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)