Núm. 54 (2025): Vulnerabilidad: cuerpos, violencias y cuidado desde las Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades
Artículos

Una crítica de la vulnerabilidad a los desastres: más allá de cuerpos y espacios

Elizabeth Marino
Oregon State University- Cascades. Oregon. Estados Unidos
AJ Faas
San Jose State University. California. Estados Unidos

Publicado 2025-06-17

Palabras clave

  • desastre ,
  • de otro modo ,
  • postcolonial ,
  • vulnerabilidad

Cómo citar

Marino , E. ., & Faas, . A. (2025). Una crítica de la vulnerabilidad a los desastres: más allá de cuerpos y espacios. Revista Sarance, 54, 52-80. https://doi.org/10.51306/ioasarance.054.04

Compartir

Resumen

Las teorías de la vulnerabilidad han constituido el núcleo conceptual de la antropología de los desastres durante aproximadamente 50 años. Sin embargo, existe un trasfondo de inquietud entre los expertos en desastres y los líderes comunitarios, que temen que el uso vernáculo de la vulnerabilidad pueda resultar insultante para las personas y comunidades con las que trabajamos y con las que nos identificamos. Existe una creciente incomodidad con la categorización de los “vulnerables”, ya que esto tiende a anular discursivamente la “resiliencia”, la fortaleza y la creatividad que son evidentes en comunidades habitualmente expuestas a riesgos y peligros. Argumentamos que conceptualizar la vulnerabilidad como una característica de los pueblos subalternos y los espacios marginados es, en el mejor de los casos, una visión limitada y, en el peor de los casos, puede perpetuar la violencia epistémica, semiótica y material. En nuestra opinión, identificar a los “vulnerables” implica inevitablemente un proceso de alterización y esencialización. Observamos y nos interesa fomentar una forma emergente de antropología del desastre que se oriente particularmente hacia la comprensión y teorización de las instituciones, sistemas e individuos que estructuran el riesgo, y en el proceso desviar la atención de “los vulnerables”. Para nuestra sorpresa, esto ha surgido en escritos antropológicos recientes de formas muy particulares. Observamos una desviación de la atención hacia las poblaciones vulnerables entre nuestros colegas que escriben en las intersecciones de las instituciones de desastre y las comunidades locales. Aquí, reconocemos la vulnerabilidad no solo como una inequidad histórica que conduce a resultados negativos, sino como espacios anidados y disputados de lucha por diferentes visiones de futuros utópicos, por articulaciones contrastantes de lo que constituye el riesgo, y por diversas lógicas culturales del bien.

Descargas

Los datos de descarga todavía no están disponibles.

Referencias

  1. Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. En R. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present (pp. 137-162). School of Advanced Research.
  2. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press.
  3. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception (K. Attell, Trad.). University of Chicago Press.
  4. Anderson, S. K. (2006). Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the management of California’s natural resources. University of California Press.
  5. Bankoff, G. (2004). Time is of the essence: Disasters, vulnerability and history. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(3), 23- 42.
  6. Bankoff, G. (2001). Rendering the world unsafe: “Vulnerability” as Western discourse. Disasters, 25(1), 19-35.
  7. Barrios, R. (2016). Resilience: A commentary from the vantage point of anthropology. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 40(1), 28-38.
  8. Barrios, R. (2017a). Governing affect: Neoliberalism and disaster reconstruction. University of Nebraska Press.
  9. Barrios, R. (2017b). What does catastrophe reveal for whom? The anthropology of crises and disasters at the onset of the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46, 151-166.
  10. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2012). The invisible weight of whiteness: The racial grammar of everyday life in contemporary America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(2), 173-194.
  11. Browne, K. E. (2015). Standing in the need: Culture, comfort, and coming home after Katrina. University of Texas Press.
  12. Browne, K., Marino, E., Lazrus, H., & Maxwell, K. (2020). Engaged: Applying the anthropology of disaster to practitioner settings and policy creation. En S. Hoffman & R. Barrios (Eds.), Disasters upon disasters: Exploring the gap between knowledge, policy and practice (pp. XXXX). Berghahn.
  13. Button, G. (2016). Disaster culture: Knowledge and uncertainty in the wake of human and environmental catastrophe. Left Coast Press.
  14. Chakrabarty, D. (1992). Provincializing Europe: Postcoloniality and the critique of history. Cultural Studies, 6(3), 337 357.
  15. Clark, A. K. (2015). New areas of state action in Ecuador: Public health and state formation, c. 1925-1950. En C. Krupa & D. Nugent (Eds.), State theory and Andean politics: New approaches to the study of rule (pp. 126-141). University of Pennsylvania Press.
  16. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261.
  17. Eldridge, E. R. (2018). Administrating violence through coal ash policies and practices. Conflict and Society: Advances in Research, 4(1), 99-115.
  18. Eldridge, E. R., & Reinke, A. J. (2018). Introduction: Ethnographic engagement with bureaucratic violence. Conflict and Society: Advances in Research, 4(1), 94-98.
  19. Faas, A. J. (2016). Disaster vulnerability in anthropological perspective. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 40(1), 9-22.
  20. Faas, A. J. (2017a). Enduring cooperation: Space, time, and minga practice in disasterinduced displacement and resettlement in the Ecuadorian Andes. Human Organization, 76(2), 99-108.
  21. Faas, A. J. (2017b). Reciprocity and vernacular statecraft: Changing practices of Andean cooperation in post-disaster highland Ecuador. Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 22(3), 495-513.
  22. Faas, A. J. (2018). Petit capitalisms in disaster, or the limits of neoliberal imagination: Displacement, recovery, and opportunism in highland Ecuador. Economic Anthropology, 5(1), 32-44.
  23. Faas, A. J., Velez, A.-L., FitzGerald, C., Nowell, B., & Steelman, T. (2017). Patterns of preference and practice: Bridging actors in wildfire response networks in the American Northwest. Disasters, 41(3), 527-548.
  24. Farmer, P. (2004). An anthropology of structural violence. Current Anthropology, 45(3), 305-325.
  25. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2017). 2017 National Preparedness Report. United States Department of Homeland Security.
  26. Gamburd, M. R. (2013). The golden wave: Culture and politics after Sri Lanka’s tsunami disaster. University of Indiana Press.
  27. Gaonkar, D. P. (2001). Alternative modernities (D. P. Gaonkar, Ed.). Duke University Press.
  28. Graeber, D. (2015). The utopia of rules: On technology, stupidity, and the secret joys of bureaucracy. Melville House.
  29. Gupta, A. (2012). Red Tape: Bureaucracy, structural violence, and poverty in India. Duke University Press.
  30. Hewitt, K. (1983). The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. En K. Hewitt (Ed.), Interpretations of calamity: From the viewpoint of human ecology (pp. 3-32). Allen and Unwin.
  31. Hinckley, T. C. (1964). Sheldon Jackson como preservador de la cultura nativa de Alaska. Pacific Historical Review, 33(4), 411-424.
  32. Hoffman, S. M. (2010). Of increasing concern: Disaster and the field of anthropology. Anthropology News, 51(7), 3-4.
  33. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report (R. K. Pachauri & A. Reisinger, Eds.). IPCC.
  34. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Cambio climático 2014: Informe de síntesis (R. K. Pachauri & L. A. Meyer, Eds.). IPCC.
  35. James, E. C. (2012). Witchcraft, bureaucrat, and the social life of (US)AID in Haiti. Cultural Anthropology, 27(1), 50-75.
  36. Lantagne, D., Nair, G. B., Lanata, C. F., & Cravioto, A. (2013). The cholera outbreak in Haiti: Where and how did it begin? En G. B. Nair & Y. Takeda (Eds.), Cholera outbreaks (pp. 145- 164). Springer.
  37. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
  38. Marchezini, V. (2015). The biopolitics of disaster: Power, discourses, and practices. Human Organization, 74(4), 362-371.
  39. Marino, E. (2015). Fierce climate, sacred ground: An ethnography of climate change in Shishmaref, Alaska. University of Alaska Press.
  40. Marino, E. (2013). Environmental migration: The future of anthropology in social vulnerability, disaster, and discourse. En H. Kopnina & E. ShoremanOuimet (Eds.), Environmental anthropology: Future directions (pp. 188-203). Routledge.
  41. Marino, E., & Lazrus, H. (2016). “‘We are always getting ready’: How diverse notions of time and flexibility build adaptive capacity in Alaska and Tuvalu.” En G. V. Button & M. Schuller (Eds.), Contextualizing disaster (pp. 153-170). Berghahn.
  42. McTighe, L., & Raschig, M. (2019). Introduction: An otherwise anthropology. Theorizing the Contemporary, Field Sights. Recuperado el 9 de septiembre de 2019, de https: // culanth.org/introduction-anotherwise-anthropology
  43. Nader, L. (1972). Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up. En D. H. Hynes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284-311). Pantheon Books.
  44. O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Schjolden, A., & Nygaard, L. P. (2004). What’s in a word? Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research. CICERO Working Paper.
  45. Oliver-Smith, A. (1996). Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 303-328.
  46. Oliver-Smith, A. (1999). Peru’s five-hundredyear earthquake: Vulnerability in historical context. En A. Oliver-Smith & S. M. Hoffman (Eds.), The angry earth: Disaster in anthropological perspective (pp. 74-88). Routledge.
  47. Olson, R. (2018). Speaking truth to power: Please don’t call them natural disasters. Research Counts, Natural Hazards Center. Recuperado el 2 de septiembre de 2019, de https: // hazards.colorado.edu/news/researchcounts/speaking-truth-to-powerplease-dont-call-them-natural-disasters
  48. Ortner, S. B. (2014). Too soon for postfeminism: The ongoing life of patriarchy in neoliberal America. Historia y Antropología, 25(4), 530-549.
  49. Petherbridge, D. (2016). What’s critical about vulnerability? Rethinking interdependence, recognition, and power. Hypatia, 31(3), 589-604.
  50. Preston, J. (2010). Prosthetic white hyper-masculinities and ‘disaster education’. Etnias, 10(3), 331-343.
  51. Preston, J. (2012). Disaster education: Race, equity, and pedagogy. Sense Publishers.
  52. Rebotier, J. (2012). Vulnerability conditions and risk representations in Latin America: Framing the territorializing urban risk. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 391-398.
  53. Restrepo, E., & Escobar, A. (2005). «Other anthropologies and anthropology otherwise» steps to a world anthropologies framework. Critique of Anthropology, 25(2), 99-129.
  54. Ribeiro, G. L. (2006). World anthropologies: Cosmopolitics for a new global scenario in anthropology. Critique of Anthropology, 26(4), 363-386.
  55. Schuller, M. (2012). Killing with kindness: Haiti, international aid, and NGOs. Rutgers University Press.
  56. Schuller, M. (2016). “The tremors felt round the world”: Haiti’s earthquake as a global imagined community. En G. V. Button & M. Schuller (Eds.), Contextualizing disaster (pp. 66- 88). Berghahn.
  57. Sontag, D. (2012, diciembre 23). Rebuilding in Haiti lags after billions in post-quake aid. New York Times.
  58. Sun, L., & Faas, A. J. (2018). Social production of disasters and disaster social constructs: An exercise in disambiguation and reconciliation. Disaster Prevention andManagement, 27(5), 623-635.
  59. Wolf, E. (1982). Europe and the people without history. University of California Press.
  60. Zhang, Q. (2016). Disaster response and recovery: Aid and social change. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 40(1), 86-97.