a Department of Sociology and Anthropology, College of Arts , University of Canterbury, Christchurch , Christchurch , New Zealand.
b Social & Policy Sciences , University of Bath , Bath , UK.
Death Stud. 2018 Aug;42(7):405-414. doi: 10.1080/07481187.2017.1366599. Epub 2018 Jan 4.
The article asks whether disasters that destroy life but leave the material infrastructure relatively intact tend to prompt communal coping focusing on loss, while disasters that destroy significant material infrastructure tend to prompt coping through restoration/rebuilding. After comparing memorials to New Zealand's Christchurch earthquake and Pike River mine disasters, we outline circumstances in which collective restorative endeavor may be grassroots, organized from above, or manipulated, along with limits to effective restoration. We conclude that bereavement literature may need to take restoration more seriously, while disaster literature may need to take loss more seriously.
那些摧毁生命但相对保留物质基础设施的灾难往往促使人们以集体的方式共同应对损失，而那些摧毁重要物质基础设施的灾难则往往促使人们通过修复/重建来应对。在对新西兰克赖斯特彻奇地震和派克河煤矿灾难的纪念活动进行比较后，我们概述了集体修复努力可能是从基层组织的、从上至下组织的，还是被操纵的情况，以及有效修复的局限性。我们的结论是，丧亲文学可能需要更加重视修复，而灾难文学可能需要更加重视损失。
