Though an eccentric and quaint meander through decades of grappling with the concept of risk and blame, Douglas’ article connects closely to the post earthquake situation in Japan.
Douglas begins with a reflection on a previous book – Purity and Danger – in which she sought to vindicate the thought processes of ‘primitives’, who attribute misfortune to spiritual beings – (in contrast to we ‘moderns’ see misfortune as having material causes. It is curious terminology and perhaps reflects the thoughts of a closeted academic world of the 1960s that retained elements of social Darwinism despite demise of the British Empire. It’s not really clear that the divide between moderns and primitives is really so polarized. Though it seems to be standard, though dated, anthropological terminology, dividing the world into two very different, though not necessarily opposing camps may be flawed. Perhaps it is just a tool, or even a metaphor, to identify contrasting perspectives that are extremes on a continuum, rather than an attempt to describe a genuine dichotomy. I’m not sure that casting ‘us’ against the ‘primitives’ serves us that well in understanding the response to the current situation in Tohoku. Among the ‘moderns’, there are people attributing the devastation to divine retribution. We have heard Gov. Ishihara talking about how the situation is ‘divine punishiment’[i] [i]Paul Wilson from the Sea Shepherd – in many respects at opposite sides of the political spectrum – has also implied the tsunami is the revenge of the gods. [ii]Without reading Purity and Danger itself, it is difficult to comment on her assertion that “primitives” engage dangers politically on behalf of the constitution, while “moderns” disengage danger from politics and ideology, placing it in the realms of science
Douglas discusses the way that people explain misfortune, remarking that the anthropologist notices that there is a fixed repertoire of possible causes among which a plausible explanation is chosen. [iii] She asserts that the explanations can be divided into different camps, and communities tend to be divided along this basis. The first, moralistic, blames the victim. The second attributes it to the work of adversaries within while the third places the blame on external adversaries. This three camps of blame approach seems to omit blaming of the self. In the case of the tsunami, especially at Okawa primary school, where the students who survived were almost with exception the ones who had been picked up after school, I imagine there would be much blaming of the self among parents who did not pick up their children.
An additional type of community that Douglas explores is no fault communities – communities which do not attribute blame, surviving by a ‘heroic programme of reconciliation.’ Douglas spends time discussing her initial doubts, hoping the reader is persuaded by the fact that she was persuaded rather than by the evidence that might have persuaded her. The idea of dividing communities along this basis seems simplistic as it fails to account for different kinds of events and the circumstances in which they occur.
Douglas asserts that real blame has become guaranteed by its objective basis in knowledge.[iv] While I take her point that where there is ‘objective knowledge’, it maybe easier to ascertain whether a situation was preventable. And the perception of whether a situation was preventable is undoubtedly a determining factor in the degree of blame felt. However the same knowledge doesn’t guarantee the same perception, as Douglas herself would agree. In Fukushima there is a contrasting case of Tomioka and Namie towns. Tomioka as a whole supported TEPCO’s nuclear plant – it brought jobs and a degree of prosperity. Namie however has a long history of opposing the nuclear plant. Will the anger in Namie and the wish to blame TEPCO be greater – I haven’t read anything about it, nor have I been there. But intuitively I would say without doubt. A long history of opposition to TEPCO is likely to manifest itself in blame. If this is contrasted with the Sanriku, where towns were built within defined tsunami inundation zones, circumstances rather than preexisting attitudes to misfortune are likely to shape attitudes.
Douglas attributes differences to institutional differences – a subject that she says needs further study. Though I have no research to support it, I posit that circumstances would also influence differences in attitudes.
The most interesting aspect of Douglas’ research is, her advocacy of forgiveness based no blame society, undoubtedly influenced by her religious background. She makes the point that no fault options which are generous to the victims are actually cheaper than litigation. To a large extent I share her idealism; in theory I agree that there is little to be gained by blame; blame is cancerous to the spirit. The past cannot be changed and embittering oneself with ‘what might have beens’ brings little comfort to those who are mourning or aggrieved. For the people who have lost loved ones and livelihoods in the tsunami, blaming the local governments for lack of tsunami walls, or blaming themselves for living where they did, or not going to collect a child from a school that was washed out, is not going to undo the tragedy. Blame can be particularly unhelpful where assessment is made without the facts. A Japan Probe article published shortly after the tsunami condemned the local government in Otsuchi for its lack of decision making accusing it of being culpable in the deaths of its citizens.[v] A visit to Otsuchi reveals that much of the town lay well outside of designated inundation zones. The guardian newspaper writes that rather than sitting idly deciding what to do – they had established a disaster headquarters in a place they thought was safe. [vi]
Although I sympathise with her position Douglas’ proposal that we ‘move out of both the adversarial patterns of blame allocation and the moralistic one, into the pattern where no one gets blamed at all’, doesn’t necessarily provide a solution where fault is unquestionably present, if there is no fault, no punishment is there sufficient deterrent to prevent reoccurrences, particularly in an industrial capitalist society? Sherpa in Nepal, for the sake of community harmony, have much greater incentive to forgive and move on than people displaced from homes and livelihoods by industrial accidents. The no blame approach neglects the deterrent effect of litigation. In the case of TEPCO, if negligence is found to have occurred, and deaths related to the reactor are considered industrial manslaughter, might not gaol be appropriate, to ensure greater responsibility in the future? Can a corporation in it’s entirety be blamed, and can a non human entity which exists only because of the profit motive, be forgiven? A no blame society places a heavy burden on the aggrieved party.
Despite perceived her perception of advantage of a no fault culture is whether no blame conversely also means no thanks. Recent news articles have been expressing thanks to the former mayor of Fudai who insisted on a 15m tsunami wall – the town was unscathed.[vii]
Douglas discusses the rise of the concern of risk in the context of Ernest Gellner’s analysis of moving into a global society. ‘Industrialization draws members of small local communities into larger regional, national and international spheres which require new concepts and loyalties to develop common discourse. Douglas adds that liberation from the small community also means losing the old protections. At the national level of operations, the nation has to provide new kinds of protection. In the current situation in Tohoku, while events are creating a national discourse, without the protection of the national community, and indeed the international community, the citizens of Tohoku would be afforded much less protection than had they been left to their devises of local community protection. As Douglas says, the nation has to provide new kinds of protection[viii]. In the case of the Tohoku earthquake, it is happening.
Institutional differences in the culture of blame and constructive approaches for both reconciliation and justice are areas in which the Tohoku Earthquake can provide rich scope for study.
I opted to do Douglas’ Risk and Blame rather than the Latour. Both relate to the post earthquake situation in Japan, though given unusual time constraints this week, I have not had sufficient time to produce anything on Latour I am prepared to “publish”.
No comments:
Post a Comment