Note his use of the term “social ecology”. What does he mean by this? How might the concept of social ecology be useful for thinking about the un-natural history of natural disasters?
-
Brandon Davis
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
eddietastic, 
natashap, 
congo96, and 22 others are discussing.
jonl 9:09 am on March 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Well “ecology” to me is the relationship of living organisms, hence we get plant ecology and other animal ecology. Social ecology I believe is human ecology or how we as humans relate to one another, our relationships with one another. I’m not sure about the “un-natural history of natural disasters”, perhaps ‘un-natural’ is referring to caused by humans? But in the example of Latinos and African-Americans, I believe the cultural aspect is what Klinenberg was talking about. Latinos have a more communal and close-relationship culture than African-Americans do, therefore they provided more support for one another during a time of hardship.
msmith92 5:06 pm on March 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that the term, social ecology, is used to emphasize the relationships between humans as well as our interconnectedness to nature. I also think that it implies that the social organization of humans into hierarchies and power positions impacts our relationship with the environment. In terms of the un-natural history of natural disasters, social ecology can be used to examine how human social structures impacted how the natural disaster played out. For instance, certain neighbourhoods and, thus, groups of people, may be more susceptible to others. Additionally, government, which is essentially the imposition of hierarchy, plays an important role in the “unnatural history” of environmental disasters.
jenniefrench 3:07 pm on March 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Social ecology, in this context, discusses the interactions of people, of a society. It is a useful term to think of in the context of ‘natural disasters’ because it reminds us that we are connected to nature, as well as part of a greater web. In previous modules we have talked about suburbia – and I feel this represents how many people (as we have often seen, white middle class people) have become isolated. They may have families and friend networks etc, but they are all a choice – they can choose to be isolated. A social ecology reminds us that we are all connected and can be effected by the same ‘natural’ disaster. This term is useful in thinking about the un-natural history of natural disasters, as it allows us to look at the systems in society and to see which ones are being neglected or overlooked. Likewise, it alerts us to our responsibilities, as an ecosystem, to support each other.
brandond 10:13 pm on March 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Last week Joyce encouraged us to apply some of the ideas we were covering to Vancouver. I think such advice works well for this particular blog question as well. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about the social ecology of Vancouver. I personally find it interesting how the Lower Eastside and Chinatown are located in some of the lowest points of the city. If you think back to the sanitation practices late 19th and early 20th century when wastewater and other pollutants were often left untreated and allowed to flow wherever nature would take them, then it make sense that the places that sat at the “bottom of the hill” were the same places where marginalized populations lived. These are somewhat random thoughts. Please feel free to share any speculative thoughts you might have on the subject.
hannahepperson 5:44 pm on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
compelling thought, the correlation between social and environmental gradients …
katehaxt 3:20 pm on March 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
social ecology is surely how we all interact and co-exist as hu mans. so far the rules of social ecology seem to be that the rich and powerful get to appropriate and create the best living environment for themselves.
sharonshi 4:12 pm on March 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
After some quick research (on top of the reading), I found that Social Ecology presents the fact that seemingly ecological problems, such as natural disasters, have actually a deeply rooted social cause. In other words, Social Ecology is the interactions between people in societies, which can then lead to the “un-natural” cause of natural disasters. For example, less wealthy areas of the city are usually those that are less sanitized. When putting food on the table is hard to maintain, people tend not to think twice when considering environmental damage. It may be because of these reasons that social ecology is interconnected with the un-natural history of natural disasters. As the Chicago case illustrates, most of those who died were elderly and lived in abandoned neighborhoods.
sampethick 3:13 pm on March 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think I found the same article as you on social ecology Sharon (by Murray Bookchin?). Bookchin defines social ecology as “social” in its recognition o the often overlooked fact that nearly all of our present ecological problems arise from-deep seated social problems. What he is saying that many ecological problems such as “natural disasters” are very much connected to social disasters in that they might not happen, or would not be so severe without the social problems involved. Applied to Klinenberg’s use of the term social ecology with regards to the heat wave in Chicago, social ecology is referring to the fact that the severity of the heat wave was not actually a “natural disaster” as so many had called it. The heat wave was a disaster which occurred and was fatal for so many in large part was due to the fact that Chicago is a densely populated city, the right actions were not taken in order to help the cities citizens, and not enough people were equipped with amenities that would have helped them (such as air conditioners), among other reasons.
The concept of social ecology can be useful for thinking about “natural disasters” because it can give us a better understanding of exactly why they happen, and since it is social issues which are largely the problem in many cases, it can help people come up with logical solutions on how to prevent such disasters in places like big cities. We can’t really change things that are actually natural disasters, but there is a possibility of changing natural disasters due to social ecology.
erikaw 2:07 pm on March 27, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Eric refers to social ecology in terms of abandonment, dispersion, and decay – which is very true as all of these issues are deeply imbedded in the ecology of how humans interact on a social level. Ecology in it’s most basic sense is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment (from wikipedia) and so there are many different avenues of ecology that can be looked at. When 7 billion people plus inhabit this planet, and especially in cities, social interactions take up most of any persons day there is a clear importance at looking at social ecology and it’s affects and interactions in society. As we’ve seen in this module thus far there is a clear cause and effect between social ecology and the un-natural history of natural disasters – for example the compounding factors that worsened the heat wave of Chicago in 1995.
lcoulthard 6:56 pm on March 27, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I had never considered the social ecology of Vancouver before, but I can see how that would be true for Chinatown and Richmond. On the other hand, False Creek used to be very polluted from heavy industry. Instead of becoming a socially desolate area it has been reworked in three different locations. One of the areas had all of the developments sell offshore before it was even open to Vancouverites.
Regarding the Chicago heat wave in 1995 though, I can see how the social ecology affected the death rates and what Klinenberg means by it. The vibrant Latino communities which were more densely populated were probably not as worried about crime or falsified information than the African-American ones, and were more willing to help each other.
alyumam 4:13 pm on March 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I keep thinking about such differences between communities. African-American and Latin-American. What differences are there? what similarities beyond the ones Klinenberg marks also exist? I suggest that the social factor that Latin-American people have is their link to their community which is backed up by a geographical proximity; Whether African-American have closer ties to the foundation of the United States and less to the geographical area their ancestors might belong, such like Africa. i wonder if this might be involved…
Danni 8:58 pm on March 27, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Social ecology exams the interrelationship between social elements in an environment. It associates the social impacts (i.e. economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender conflicts) to the natural environment. There are social ecological impacts associated with the un-natural history of natural disasters. For example, the argument made by Ted Steinberg’s in his book “Review: Act of God: the Un-natural History of Natural Disaster in America”. He argued that disasters, like Hurricane Katrina, was not randomly occurred, but actually the situation could be improved, if the decisions from business leaders and government officials could help those residents preventing the loss of life and properties. The concept of social ecology reveals social impacts of the un-natural history of the natural disaster. It helps us to relate the social impacts to the ecological evidences.
Joyce Lin 9:43 pm on March 27, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The idea of social ecology is useful because it begs for a multi factorial evaluation of what played a role in the development of some issue. When considering the unnatural history of natural disasters, social ecology reminds us that there is always a social component to what might appear as a natural disaster…that there is, simply put, nothing natural about them!
A heat wave isn’t a natural disaster, it’s only a natural disaster because it happened where there were humans (social). A storm can pass through Antarctica and it wouldn’t be considered a natural disaster because it doesn’t affect a population as a storm that passes through America would. Bearing this idea in mind, we can be more critical about the consequences of “natural disasters”. That is, we can be less quick to conclude the consequences as a direct result of some physical/natural phenomena and evaluate how social aspects of human management/prevention methods/mitigation strategies/etc had an effect as well.
paige 4:10 pm on March 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the social ecology he is talking about are the interactions seen in society. Different tradeoffs are made that can lead to abandonment and decay. This contributes to the un-natural history of natural disasters because the degradation of the living conditions through a common mindset increases the severity of the disasters. If everything was kept in proper working conditions things like this would not cause nearly the same amount of harm they do.
tsung 1:59 am on March 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Social ecology refers to the relationship between ecological problems and social problems. In general, our ecological problems arise from deep social problems. I believe that race, ethnicity, gender, economic as well as cultural factors all play an important part when discussing ecological problems we face. Note Katrina, those who were most vulnerable were the African Americans therefore in terms of “un-natural history of natural disasters,” social structures as well those in power all impact how we experience disasters. People with money and power are often able to escape the deadly fate of a disaster, however, those who usually live below the poverty line or are in neglect will usually die. As noted during the 1995 Chicago Heat Wave, those most vulnerable are those who are neglected and poor. The un-unnatural history and construction of Social structures and the “dominant white society” have made those of different ethnicity much more vulnerable to disasters.
brenden 7:54 pm on March 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As some others have mentioned, social ecology is a phrase used to describe the connection between social and ecological problems in society. Social ecology views a cause and effect relationship between the two, arguing that ecological problems are caused by social problems which are embedded within our society. I think that social ecology is a useful tool for describing the unnatural history of natural disasters. As we have seen over the past decade or so, both the frequency and severity of natural disasters have been increasing significantly. For instance, hurricanes in the south, tornadoes in the midwest, forest fires ect. I believe that these to a certain extent can be linked to social problems. For example, a major problem in our society are over consumption, pollution and the burning of fossil fuels. These issues have long been linked to global warming. Global warming is widely considered to be a major contributor to the increasing severity and frequency of these disasters. Therefor, I do believe that the concept of social ecology is relevant in explaining the un-natural history of national disasters.
midara 10:32 pm on March 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
For me, the term “social ecology” can be simple explained as the ecology happening in the society. While ecology in general may refer to interactions and lives of plants and animals, I guess it is safe to say that “social ecology” he refers to stands for interactions or relationships take place between human-human or human-society. I think the concept of social ecology is particularly essential because by using this concept we are excluding the natural part away from the cause of natural disasters and focusing on human only causes. For instance in the heat wave case, the use of “social ecology” shoulders the responsibility on social problems but not a naturally happening event/climate.
jaydee 12:02 am on March 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I definitely think that social ecology in this sense refers to the interactions between and changes in human society. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ecology as “The study of the interaction of people with their environment.” as one of its definitions. This quote is using social ecology to discuss how humans interact with their environment and other people within a society. Clearly the way that our society interacts within itself affects the outcome and appearance of these natural disaster. For instance, earth quakes of the same magnitude kill exponentially more people in third world countries, simply because these societies do not have the resources to build in preparation for these types of disasters. In the same way, these african-american neighborhoods are similarly not in a position to be able to deal with these types of issues.
bgibson 12:31 pm on March 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I am in agreement with the majority of the class that Kilnberg’s use of the term “social ecology” refers to the interactions that occur between people within a social structure. I think Klinberg is emphasizing the different social structures that exist in Latino and African American neighbourhoods. The busy commercial life and vibrant public spaces typical of the Latino community likely ensured that individuals left home on a daily basis and had many social contacts nearby. This emphasizes that the mortality due to the heat wave is not necessarily due to the natural disaster, but due to the lack of support structures in the social ecology of high mortality neighbourhoods.
phoebe 5:00 pm on March 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Social ecology referred to by Klinberg is the relationships and interaction (or lack of interaction) between humans. In reference to the un-natural history of natural disasters, I believe Klinberg is trying to indicate that some natural disasters are not quite as “natural” as the press and media attempt to portray them. Klinberg uses the example of a majority of the victims of the Chicago heat wave being poor, black men who lived alone in neighbourhoods with few social contacts. The social ecology of this situation, the very lack of interaction between humans led to these men dying alone without help which could have been allievated if our society placed more value on interacting and helping our neighbours instead of facing them with polite indifference and suspicion.
alyumam 4:02 pm on March 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
What Klinenberg seems to refer with `social ecology` is the relationship of the different social groups with each other in a given environment. Such term seems also to be exemplified with the various responses the different ethnic groups had towards the Chicago heatwave.
In what respect regarding the usefulness of this term in discovering the un-natural history of natural disasters is that social dynamics seem to be involved in recognizing society in ecological processes, and therefore humans as part of nature, although, with differences. Nonetheless all of us with power of decision. An element that seems to be key in this debate….
hannahepperson 5:52 pm on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Sounds like the definition for social ecology has been pretty comprehensively defined in this thread. Just a wee quick thought on a piece of Vancouver’s social ecology… I visited a friend who was house-sitting in Shaugnessy the other day; and it’s like walking into a maze. That neighbourhood is extremely inaccessible to navigate for an ‘outsider’! The urban planning of that particular neighbourhood works almost as a defense against invasion from the Commoner! Well – it’s one way to conceal and ‘protect’ the material wealth of a narrow cross section of vancouver’s population…
hannahepperson 5:57 pm on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
also worthy of note that shaughnessy, vancouver’s oldest ‘affluent’ neighbourhood, was developed at a significantly higher elevation (which ties into Brandon’s comment), and pointedly developed at a good distance from false creek, which used to be Vancouver’s big industrial hub
Keaton Briscoe 3:34 pm on April 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think what Klinenberg meant by “social ecology” is the interactions that humans have with eachother, socially and politically, within a given environment. I think this ties in with un-natural and natural disasters as it pin points the affects of society and how the natural disasters can impact the less fortunate more than the fortunate.
nytsuen 4:04 pm on April 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Social ecology means that present ecology problems are rooted in social problems. Klinenberg discusses how natural disasters might not be as ‘natural’ as what we depict it as to be. This allows us to think more deeply when we talk about natural disasters and consider other things. For example, with the Chicago heat wave in 1995, around 500-700 people died from heat-related illnesses. Even though the city could not prevent the heat wave from happening, they could have done more preventive actions to decrease the number of deaths. “Chicago’s Latinos tend to live in neighbourhoods with high population density, busy commercial life in the streets, and vibrant public spaces” in comparison to African Americans. It is time to ask questions on how racism, poverty and neglect shape the way people are affected by natural disasters.
congo96 11:11 am on April 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Social ecology refers to the relationship between environmental problems and social problems in this case the heat wave and poor communities in which individuals experience isolation and lack of a social support system. Social ecology can help us predetermine what factors/ social situations are going to make potential natural disasters worse and work to rectify these social problems prior to a natural disaster
natashap 4:47 pm on April 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Social ecology refers to the relationships that people have and how this affects where they live and how this in turn affects them. I think social ecology is good for identifying those that are at higher risk for dying from natural disasters and those that are at lower risk. This could be used to encourage neighbourhood/city development that would minimize at risk areas.
eddietastic 12:57 pm on April 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
i feel like social ecology refers to the relationships that people have with the environment because of social problems. For example, those who are more poor may not be able to do things which richer people do as a result this leads to people that are poor to become more succeptable to certain diseases and natural disasters .