Summary

As evident from the title, this paper by Gregory Bankoff straightaway claims ‘vulnerability’ to

be a western concept. The essence of this paper is that the very people who built the

concept of vulnerability in disaster research are the ones that consider eastern foreign lands

as disease-ridden, poverty-stricken and disaster-prone. This form of denigration is not only

unfair but also highly narrow and prejudiced. The author presents data stating the increasing

number of disaster-related deaths from 1940 to 1990. He then says that the effect of

hazards and how to relieve the consequences of disaster have been the main focus of

academic studies because they are highly linked to environmental conservation, resource

depletion and migration patterns. He says that less attention has been given to the historical

roots on which the discursive framework of the disaster is built and how it reflects specific

cultural values of the various regions in the world. The author then proceeds to highlight the

outlook of colonial Europe toward tropical areas. He mentions David Arnold, a historian, who

described the growth of a branch of Western medicine that claimed expertise in the

pathology of a ‘warm climate’ in his book. David stated this as a conspicuous element in the

contact and colonisation from the early years of overseas exploration. The author then

mentions that very early European accounts described the equatorial regions quite

ecstatically, evoking analogies with lands of abundance, tranquillity, and lushness. But this

soon waned as more unfavourable attitudes emerged with the advent of the seventeenth

century. The exoticness of the land was replaced with more malevolence of nature with the

presence of unrelenting climate and tempestuous weather. As this process moved on, and

more European presence was seen in foreign lands, there was a new development. The

colonisers intended to equip these foreign lands with Western knowledge, technology and

skills; but in an attempt to win the hearts of natives and to restrain the spread of

communism, the Western investment and aid effectively and unintentionally, divided the

world into two factions 𑁋 the donor nations and the recipient nations; between developed

and underdeveloped countries. Arnold also talks about ‘tropicality’. He says that a new

concept of ‘tropicality’ arose with the growing research on equatorial regions. This discourse
had a striking feature of ‘alienation’ or ‘otherness’ created by the Europeans. They attached

this to the climate and topography, the difference of plant and animal life, the indigenous

societies and their cultures and the distinctive nature of the disease. Arnold quotes this

difference as more conceptual than a physical one. The author then gives a few examples

explaining the existing paradigm that disasters are simply unavoidable extreme physical

events. Such views have proven to be highly enduring and influential in national and

international decision-making. This concept draws heavily from the perspective that

‘vulnerable’ populations are such not because they are exposed to hazards but because of

marginality, making their life a ‘permanent’ emergency. The author then moves ahead and

explains how the world has not moved on from the colonial structure. Then it was about

‘tropicality’ and the Western intervention as ‘colonialism’. In the 1940s, it was about

‘development’ and the Western intervention was termed ‘aid’; in the 1990s, it was about

‘vulnerability’, and the Western intervention was termed ‘relief’. Arnold then talks about the

‘normalisation of threat’, a concept introduced by Anderson, and how perceiving a disaster

as ‘chronic’ builds an interpretation of a ‘normal’ experience. He says that beyond the idea of

a society’s vulnerability lies that of a culture’s adaptability, and these two determine its risk

exposure. The author concludes by saying that expanding the discursive framework beyond

the talks of ‘vulnerability’ may improve disaster preparedness and break the conceptual

shackles that have rendered the world unsafe for many people over many decades.

Critique

The author has impeccably stated his idealogy and supported it with factual claims, being

critical of the Western influence on other nations. Though, he has been a bit over critical

about the Western intervention and has overlooked the ‘good’ that came with it. The author

influences the reader's mind and delivers a strongly worded piece of literature.

References

● Bankoff, G. (2001), Rendering the World Unsafe: ‘Vulnerability’ as Western

Discourse. Disasters, 25: 19-35.
● https://www.wikipedia.org/