Anthropological Approach to Vulnerability and Major Hazards - Vulnerability of Coastal Ecosystems and Adaptation - page 268

(that of totems); for “analogist” societies, they are analyzed according
to a principle (on which rules and the rule of law are founded) in the
light of which the forming of an imbalance is perceived. Without
entering here into the details of these categories (i.e. causes, motives,
reasons and principles), it is sufficient for us to know that they exist,
that is to remember that the evaluation of the impact of a hazard is
linked to the cultural trajectories that distinguish specific human
milieu from a common environment.
Thus, the analysis of hazards in terms of “risks”, that is to say in
terms of the potential for harm from a material point of view (death
and physical damange), arises from a specifically naturalist
perspective. In this regard, if we speak of civilization or soceties “at
risk” [BEC 01, GID 94, LAG 81], it is from a particular human milieu
(modernity) whose relationship with its surrounding is based on a
materialistic framework. Correlatively, from the point of view of these
societies, the evaluation of dangers, that is to say the potential for
immaterial harm (fears, anxieties, depressions, etc.), appears, overall,
to be underestimated [DOU 82]. Conversely, societies whose principal
schema of explanation is of the animist type (evaluation of the impact
in terms of moral and symbolic responsibilities) will have a tendency
to underestimate the risks and overestimate the dangers [MOR 08].
Let us simply retain these two definitions:
- a risk is a material hazard, which threatens the bodily existence
of individuals (blows, injuries and physiological deaths) and can cause
tangible and quantifiable damage (destruction of materials or of
economic components);
- a danger is an immaterial hazard, which threatens the moral well-
being of individuals (fears, anxieties and psycological depressions)
and can generate intangible but qualifiable impacts (acculturation of a
symbolic and moral order, loss of traditions and customs, breakdown
- indeed rupture - of social consensus, etc.).
Let us resume that in order to evaluate the impact of a hazard, it is
wise to pay attention to the milieux (that is to say to the ways in which
the environment is concretely lived and perceived) and mediances
(that is to say the ways in which the milieux are organized and