Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
protagonists, what makes the catastrophe affects what they consider as
“natural”, understood here as what is not modifiable under the effect
of their own actions (whether technical or symbolic). The catastrophes
would therefore always be “natural” on the condition that this term is
not considered in contrast to “cultural”, but in contrast to the artificial.
From this point of view, to say that a catastrophe is “natural” amounts
to think that it is not the result of the action and the intention of those
who undergo it. Therefore, there is an asymmetry in the interpretations
as to what is a product of nature and what is a product of artifice.
Table 7.2 summarizes this analysis.
Event
Eruption (volcanic)
Tradition (Ambrymais)
Population
“natural”
(one
cannot
modify it)
For the “white
man”
“artificial”
(“one
should
civilize savages”)
“artificial”
(one
can
cause it
using magical techniques)
For the
Ambrymais
“natural”
(one should not modify it)
Table 7.2.
Ambrym-1913 (synthesis)
Hazards are perceived negatively when they touch upon what
makes up the world, on what is culturally assumed as a principle of
order and stability. According to the milieu to which these customs
belong (Ambrymais), permanence is social, relative to ancestral
customs (
nomos
), whereas from the point of view of a “white man's”
milieu, continuity is assured by the nature (
phusis
) of immutable laws.
Each of the cultural schemes induces a certain type of sensitivity to
change. The susceptibility accrued by the Ambrymais in the face of
cultural variations, the greater worry of the “white men” in the face of
environmental instabilities, can from then on be understood as flowing
directly from the manner in which they elaborate their own milieux.
To summarize, at Ambrym, in 1913, the “white men” (
waet man
)
came to alter the ancestral traditions of native populations (this arose
from their sense of moral duty), but they felt impotent in the face of a
Search WWH ::
Custom Search