La cause des catastrophes
Résumé
Scientific Competition and Political Action in a Transnational World
This paper analyzes how competing networks of disaster studies emerged in different national settings, disciplinary contexts, and historical periods. It combines two different but interconnected qualitative and historical pieces of research on the transnationalization of disasters at various scales and places. It shows how seismology and American-centered disaster studies first shaped international understandings of disasters during the Cold War era, with hazard-oriented research projects focused on natural disasters. In the late 1970s, development studies and geography contested the former approaches. This criticism flourished in Latin America in the 1980s, where social scientists promoted notions of root causes and vulnerability. From the 1990s onwards, the social sciences increasingly shaped international disaster policies, rendering disasters less “natural” and more “social.” This, in turn, contributed to the development of disaster studies in other parts of the world, such as South Africa. This connected history of disaster studies reveals how disasters were interpreted differently by various disciplines. Furthermore, the comparison between regions enables changes to these configurations according to global political and scientific contexts. Taking into account different scales and places sheds light on the competition between sciences entangled in a conflict over the power to define disasters at different moments (the Cold War, developmentalism, and climate change).
This paper analyzes how competing networks of disaster studies emerged in different national settings, disciplinary contexts, and historical periods. It combines two different but interconnected qualitative and historical pieces of research on the transnationalization of disasters at various scales and places. It shows how seismology and American-centered disaster studies first shaped international understandings of disasters during the Cold War era, with hazard-oriented research projects focused on natural disasters. In the late 1970s, development studies and geography contested the former approaches. This criticism flourished in Latin America in the 1980s, where social scientists promoted notions of root causes and vulnerability. From the 1990s onwards, the social sciences increasingly shaped international disaster policies, rendering disasters less “natural” and more “social.” This, in turn, contributed to the development of disaster studies in other parts of the world, such as South Africa. This connected history of disaster studies reveals how disasters were interpreted differently by various disciplines. Furthermore, the comparison between regions enables changes to these configurations according to global political and scientific contexts. Taking into account different scales and places sheds light on the competition between sciences entangled in a conflict over the power to define disasters at different moments (the Cold War, developmentalism, and climate change).
Les catastrophes dites « naturelles » (séismes, ouragans, tsunamis, éruptions volcaniques, inondations...) ont longtemps été et sont encore aujourd’hui, pour la plupart, analysées par les sciences de la terre et sciences de l’ingénieur. Au cours du XXe siècle, elles sont également devenues un objet de recherche pour les sciences sociales, déplaçant par la même occasion l’objet d’investigation et d’intervention sur les catastrophes, en les rendant moins « naturelles » et plus « sociales ». Cette concurrence des savoirs, entre sciences de la terre et sciences sociales, a accompagné la mise à l’agenda politique international des catastrophes depuis les années 1970. Au travers d’une comparaison dans le temps et à l’échelle transnationale, l’article s’intéresse à la façon dont ces déplacements et frictions scientifiques ont participé de transformations politiques globales de la Guerre froide à la période actuelle, entre enjeux de sécurité, d’environnement et de développement. L’article montre comment la distribution sociale des disciplines est indissociable de reconfigurations politiques qui promeuvent, adoptent ou rejettent certaines approches au détriment d’autres. Plus généralement, l’enjeu est de mettre en perspective l’inscription politique des savoirs dans des configurations globales au regard de leurs concurrences.