The Social Construction Of Vulnerability

1559 Words4 Pages

Except for rare circumstances, such as extinction-level events in which the magnitude of hazard is sufficiently large enough to impact all populations in an area with total destruction regardless of preparation, vulnerability is a socially constructed condition (Wisner, et al. 1976; Wisner, et al. 1994; Oliver-Smith 1996; Oliver-Smith & Hoffmann 2002; Bankoff 2003) which exposes individuals to risk, often unequally (Bankoff 2003).
Where once, theorists proposed that humans placed themselves in vulnerable positions, returning to rebuild in the same locations of risk through a ‘bounded rationality’ (Wisner, et al. 1994), or through ignorance of the dangers (Oliver-Smith 1996), researchers now recognize that many vulnerable people are aware of potential dangers, but are often unable to enact changes to protect themselves (Wisner, et al. 1976). The social construction of vulnerability is primarily embedded in existing social patterns “evidenced in the location, infrastructure, sociopolitical organizations, production and distribution systems, and ideology of a society (Oliver-Smith & Hoffmann 2002:3). These patterns are often tied to relationships of power and economic forces (Wisner et al. 1994; Bankoff 2003).
A top priority among the eight Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations, the eradication extreme poverty throughout the world would greatly improve the ability of billions to protect themselves from natural hazards. While poverty is not the only cause of vulnerability, nor does it fully explain the complex social relationships involved, economic imbalance remains one of the leading factors in identifying vulnerable populations. Throughout the 1990s, developing countries accounted for 94% of the world’s major di...

... middle of paper ...

...ll area in Goiania, Brazil highlights the danger of public opinion when perceived risk vastly outpaces a real risk. After two men, scavenging an abandoned medical facility, discovered and opened a sealed canister of cesium-137, they exposed their family and neighbors to radiation poisoning. Public fears resulted in stigma and economic losses far outdistancing the relatively isolated contamination of a few city blocks. While the cleanup cost heavily, the community suffered a massive economic blow from the loss of tourist capital compounded by funding tests for thousands of residents who feared they too were contaminated (Petterson 1988). The stigma itself was used by neighboring communities to gain economic advantage over Goiania through competitive industry while many uncontaminated citizens were denied travel and lodging throughout the country (Petterson 1988).

Open Document