Associate Professor, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Disasters. 2019 Apr;43 Suppl 1:S7-S17. doi: 10.1111/disa.12323. Epub 2018 Dec 21.
Disaster studies is faced with a fascinating anomaly: frequently it claims to be critical and innovative, as suggested by the so-called vulnerability paradigm that emerged more than 40 years ago, yet often it is perpetuating some of the core and problematic tenets of the hazard paradigm that we were asked to challenge initially. This paper interrogates why such an anomaly persists. In so doing, it employs Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony to unpack why disaster studies is still dominated by Western epistemologies and scholars that perpetuate an orientalist view of disasters. Ultimately, it suggests a research agenda for the 40 years to come, which builds on the importance of local researchers analysing local disasters using local epistemologies, especially in the non-Western world. Such subaltern disaster studies are to be fuelled by increasing consciousness of the need to resist the hegemony of Western scholarship and to relocate disaster studies within the realm of its original political agenda.
它经常声称具有批判性和创新性，正如 40 多年前出现的所谓脆弱性范式所表明的那样，但它往往在延续我们最初被要求挑战的灾害范式的一些核心和有问题的原则。本文探讨了这种反常现象为何持续存在。为此，它运用安东尼奥·葛兰西的霸权概念来分析灾害研究为何仍然由西方认识论和学者主导，这些学者延续了对灾害的东方主义观点。最终，它为未来 40 年提出了一个研究议程，该议程基于使用当地认识论分析当地灾害的当地研究人员的重要性，尤其是在非西方世界。这种从属的灾害研究将受到越来越多的意识的推动，即需要抵制西方学术的霸权，并将灾害研究重新定位在其原始政治议程的范围内。
