Suchergebnisse

Kathleen Tierney: Disasters - A Sociological Approach. Cambridge, UK / Medford, USA: Polity Press 2019. 978-0-745-67102-4

AbstractWith the closure of the border with then-Macedonia in early 2016, it was foreseeable that Greece would become the "last station" for a large number of refugees. Flanked by the agreement between Turkey and the European Union of March 2016, Greece underwent a profound transformation from a transit country to a recipient country. Through a new regulation, the Emergency Support Instrument, initially activated by the European Commission 2016–2019, international humanitarian aid operations were supported for the first time in the EU. The article analyzes the resulting frictions on the basis of empirical field research and a broad literature review. While frictions similar to those in other non-European humanitarian operations exist, specific peculiarities due to the operation taking place in an austerity-ridden member state of the EU must also be noted.

In 2015, the needs of hundreds of thousands of refugees who arrived in Germany could only be met by deploying all available civil protection units. This article presents procedures and practices of state and non-state formal actors in the field of civil protection and related crisis management structures implemented and established across the board in the municipalities, the Federal Government and mass shelters, in particular in Bavaria. From a disaster research and humanitarian studies perspective we use the concept of "patterns of interpretation" to analyse the application of the "humanitarian emergency" and the "disaster situation" procedures to discuss whether the situation can really be categorized as "either-or" or whether the coexistence of the two served a function in managing such a complex situation. Finally, we discuss some developments that occurred after 2015/16 and consider the extent to which these developments shift or expand the existing patterns of interpretation.

In 2015, the needs of hundreds of thousands of refugees who arrived in Germany could only be met by deploying all available civil protection units. This article presents procedures and practices of state and non-state formal actors in the field of civil protection and related crisis management structures implemented and established across the board in the municipalities, the Federal Government and mass shelters, in particular in Bavaria. From a disaster research and humanitarian studies perspective we use the concept of "patterns of interpretation" to analyse the application of the "humanitarian emergency" and the "disaster situation" procedures to discuss whether the situation can really be categorized as "either-or" or whether the coexistence of the two served a function in managing such a complex situation. Finally, we discuss some developments that occurred after 2015/16 and consider the extent to which these developments shift or expand the existing patterns of interpretation.

With the closure of the border with then-Macedonia in early 2016, it was foreseeable that Greece would become the "last station" for a large number of refugees. Flanked by the agreement between Turkey and the European Union of March 2016, Greece underwent a profound transformation from a transit country to a recipient country. Through a new regulation, the Emergency Support Instrument, initially activated by the European Commission 2016–2019, international humanitarian aid operations were supported for the first time in the EU. The article analyzes the resulting frictions on the basis of empirical field research and a broad literature review. While frictions similar to those in other non-European humanitarian operations exist, specific peculiarities due to the operation taking place in an austerity-ridden member state of the EU must also be noted.

Die Bedeutung von Organisationen des Zivil- und Katastrophenschutzes sowie der internationalen humanitären Hilfe bei der Bewältigung der Flüchtlingssituation 2015/16 in Deutschland ist kaum erforscht. Dabei wurden Mitte September 2015 mit den »Warteräumen Asyl« in Feldkirchen und Erding in Bayern Erstversorgungs- und Registrierungszentren für Flüchtlinge aufgebaut, die nach internationalen humanitären Standards betrieben wurden. Diese - ebenso wie die vielen anderen Notunterkünfte - konnten in der Hochphase der Flüchtlingssituation von Mitte 2015 bis Anfang 2016 nur durch den Einsatz aller verfügbaren Einheiten des Zivil- und Katastrophenschutzes aufgebaut und so eine Erstversorgung der Flüchtlinge sichergestellt werden. Der Artikel zeigt die Ambivalenzen, Herausforderungen und Potenziale auf, die sich durch den Einbezug höchst unterschiedlicher Praktiken aus dem Zivil- und Katastrophenschutz sowie der humanitären Hilfe im Laufe der Bewältigung der Situation ergaben.

AbstractIn 2015, the needs of hundreds of thousands of refugees who arrived in Germany could only be met by deploying all available civil protection units. This article presents procedures and practices of state and non‐state formal actors in the field of civil protection and related crisis management structures implemented and established across the board in the municipalities, the Federal Government and mass shelters, in particular in Bavaria. From a disaster research and humanitarian studies perspective we use the concept of "patterns of interpretation" to analyse the application of the "humanitarian emergency" and the "disaster situation" procedures to discuss whether the situation can really be categorized as "either‐or" or whether the coexistence of the two served a function in managing such a complex situation. Finally, we discuss some developments that occurred after 2015/16 and consider the extent to which these developments shift or expand the existing patterns of interpretation.

In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir ethische Fragen der sozialwissenschaftlichen Katastrophenforschung. Wir gehen davon aus, dass die Katastrophenforschung sich in besonderer Weise ethischen Fragestellungen zu stellen hat, ist ihr zentrales Forschungsfeld doch häufig extremes Leid und Vulnerabilität. Zugleich bedingt die Notwendigkeit, dass diese Forschung auch zur Minderung dieses Leids und der Vulnerabilität der betroffenen Menschen beitragen sollte, weniger Grundlagenforschung, denn anwendungsorientierte Forschung durchzuführen. Ausgehend von einer szenischen Darstellung der Heterogenität des Feldes werden ethische Fragen der Katastrophenforschung dargestellt und mit standardisierten forschungsethischen Grundsätzen, Institutional Review Boards bzw. Richtlinien in den USA und Deutschland kontrastiert. Wir denken dazu den dualen Imperativ mit der informierten Einwilligung sowie dem Prinzip der Schadensvermeidung zusammen und zeigen die zugrundeliegenden Aporien auf. Über Judith BUTLERs Überlegungen zur ethischen Gewalt und grundsätzlichen sozialwissenschaftlichen Überlegungen zur Struktur von Gesellschaften unterbreiten wir einen Vorschlag, in dem wir Standardisierungen forschungsethischer Kriterien kritisch hinterfragen und stattdessen eine reziproke Ethik der Vulnerabilität einfordern, die die Forschung zu Katastrophen jenseits von Standardisierungen ethisch fundieren kann.

Resilience has gained the status of a new leading category for describing societies that increasingly consider themselves faced with crises and thus with uncertainty, vulnerability and susceptibility to failure. Considering the predominant discourse, however, one gets the impression that resilience as a phenomenon of survival under adverse conditions has been displaced into the background. As a mere formula the term is used by a normative, political program of enactment, decreeing resilience in order to exercise control. The phenomenon vanishes the more it is discursively rendered or fixed – whether by science or by politics. This unsatisfactory situation challenges us to ask whether it is possible to theorize resilience from a different viewpoint than that of the current discursive formation together with its critique. The discourse itself may point to a way back to the phenomenon of resilience. Starting with the so-called 'ecologization of thought', resilience is conceptualized as an element of a sociology of expression. Resilience is an emergent phenomenon of individuation and subjectification arising in vibrant assemblages which form these processes and thus resilience itself. While we understand the discourse itself as such an assemblage, we will thus follow resilience in three further constellations – in everyday life, in exceptional circumstances and in protest. However, in all of these contexts resilience is not restricted to human actors, but encompasses all kinds of imaginable ecological, social, technical, and mental entities. ; Resilience has gained the status of a new leading category for describing societies that increasingly consider themselves faced with crises and thus with uncertainty, vulnerability and susceptibility to failure. Considering the predominant discourse, however, one gets the impression that resilience as a phenomenon of survival under adverse conditions has been displaced into the background. As a mere formula the term is used by a normative, political program of enactment, decreeing resilience in order to exercise control. The phenomenon vanishes the more it is discursively rendered or fixed – whether by science or by politics. This unsatisfactory situation challenges us to ask whether it is possible to theorize resilience from a different viewpoint than that of the current discursive formation together with its critique. The discourse itself may point to a way back to the phenomenon of resilience. Starting with the so-called 'ecologization of thought', resilience is conceptualized as an element of a sociology of expression. Resilience is an emergent phenomenon of individuation and subjectification arising in vibrant assemblages which form these processes and thus resilience itself. While we understand the discourse itself as such an assemblage, we will thus follow resilience in three further constellations – in everyday life, in exceptional circumstances and in protest. However, in all of these contexts resilience is not restricted to human actors, but encompasses all kinds of imaginable ecological, social, technical, and mental entities.

Resilience has gained the status of a new leading category for describing societies that increasingly consider themselves faced with crises and thus with uncertainty, vulnerability and susceptibility to failure. Considering the predominant discourse, however, one gets the impression that resilience as a phenomenon of survival under adverse conditions has been displaced into the background. As a mere formula the term is used by a normative, political program of enactment, decreeing resilience in order to exercise control. The phenomenon vanishes the more it is discursively rendered or fixed – whether by science or by politics. This unsatisfactory situation challenges us to ask whether it is possible to theorize resilience from a different viewpoint than that of the current discursive formation together with its critique. The discourse itself may point to a way back to the phenomenon of resilience. Starting with the so-called 'ecologization of thought', resilience is conceptualized as an element of a sociology of expression. Resilience is an emergent phenomenon of individuation and subjectification arising in vibrant assemblages which form these processes and thus resilience itself. While we understand the discourse itself as such an assemblage, we will thus follow resilience in three further constellations – in everyday life, in exceptional circumstances and in protest. However, in all of these contexts resilience is not restricted to human actors, but encompasses all kinds of imaginable ecological, social, technical, and mental entities.

Combating disasters necessitates taking advantage of all means and resources that are available. A number of events in recent years have demonstrated the necessity, as well as the potential of well‐integrated and coordinated action between unaffiliated and professional responders. Nevertheless, in practical situations this potential remains largely untapped. This article investigates the case in Germany and asks to which extent known and researched disaster myths impede the cooperation between unaffiliated and professional responders. We combine data from observations of a full‐scale exercise, a representative population survey (N = 1.006), and expert interviews with professional rescue workers to answer our research question. With the results of our research, we have deduced that these disaster myths still significantly influence the perceptions and practical actions of the various involved actors and, as such, that approaches aiming to improve the various forms of cooperation between all available forces must take these underlying assumptions into account.