The immediate aftermath of a great urban earthquake is a dramatic and terrible event, comparable to a massive terrorist attack. Yet the shocking impact soon fades from the public mind and receives surprisingly little attention from historians, unlike wars and human atrocities. In 1923, the Great Kanto earthquake and its subsequent fires demolished most of Tokyo and Yokohama and killed around 140,000 Japanese: a level of devastation and fatalities comparable with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But the second event has infinitely more resonance in public consciousness and historical studies than the first. Indeed, most people would be challenged to name a single earthquake with an indisputable historical impact, including even the most famous of all earthquakes: the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906.
In truth, however, great earthquakes, from ancient times—as recorded by Greek and biblical writers—to the present day, have had major cultural, economic, and political consequences—often a combination of all three—some of which were beneficial. Thus, the current prime minister of India owes his election in 2014 to an earthquake that devastated part of his home state of Gujarat in 2001, which led to its striking economic growth. The martial law imposed on Tokyo and Yokohama after the 1923 earthquake gave new authority to the Japanese army, which eventually took over the Japanese government and led Japan to war with China and the world. The destruction of San Francisco in 1906 produced a boom in rebuilding and financial and technological development of the surrounding area on the San Andreas Fault, including what became Silicon Valley. A great earthquake in Venezuela in 1812 was the principal cause of the temporary defeat of its leader Simon Bolivar by the Spanish colonial regime, but his subsequent exile led to his permanent freeing of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela from Spanish rule. The catastrophic Lisbon earthquake of 1755—as well known in the early 19th century as the 1945 atomic bombings are today—was a pivotal factor in the freeing of Enlightenment science from Catholic religious orthodoxy, as epitomized by Voltaire’s satirical novel Candide, written in response to the earthquake. Even the minor earthquakes in Britain in 1750, the so-called Year of Earthquakes, produced the earliest scientific understanding of earthquakes, published by the Royal Society: the beginning of seismology.
The long-term impact of a great earthquake depends on its epicenter, magnitude, and timing—and also on human factors: the political, social, intellectual, religious, and cultural resources specific to a region’s history. Each earthquake-struck society offers its own particular lesson, and yet, taken together, such earth-shattering events have important shared consequences for the history of the world.
This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article.
People not only want to be safe from natural hazards; they also want to feel that they are safe. Sometimes, these two desires pull in different directions. When they do, this slows the journey to greater resilience.
We all want to feel safe, especially in our own homes. In fact, even though home is not always a place of actual safety, in many cultures it is nonetheless idealized as a place of security and repose. This feeling of having a safe home is one part of ontological security: freedom from existential doubts and the ability to believe that life will continue in much the same way as it always has, without threat to familiar assumptions about time, space, identity, and wellbeing. Floods, earthquakes, and similar events disrupt ontological security. They destroy the possessions that support our sense of who we are; they fracture the social structures that provide us with everyday needs, such as friendship, play, and affection; they disrupt the routines that give our lives a sense of predictability, and they challenge the myth of our immortality. Such events therefore not only cause physical injury and loss; by damaging ontological security, they also jeopardize long-term mental health.
However, ontological security is undermined not only by the occurrence of hazard events but also by their anticipation, and this affects willingness to take steps that would reduce vulnerability to the hazard. If a person is confident that they can totally eliminate their exposure to a hazard, they will usually do so. More commonly, however, the available options come with uncertainty and social/psychological risks: often, the available options only reduce vulnerability, and people doubt their effectiveness or doubt their ability to choose appropriate measures or to implement them. In these circumstances, the risk to ontological security can sometimes outweigh the potential benefits. For example, installing a flood gate in a business premises might reduce the damage of the next flood, but it might not; by installing one, the business owner will be admitting that her business, and hence her income, are not essentially secure. Similarly, bolting furniture to the walls of a home might reduce injuries in the next earthquake, but the householder might anticipate that it will continually remind her of the danger and destroy her sense that home is a safe place.
People’s anticipation of impacts on ontological security has several implications for efforts to promote preparedness. For example, it suggests that warnings will be counterproductive if they are not accompanied by suggestions of easy, reliable ways of eliminating risk. It also suggests that adaptation measures should be designed to minimize the impression that they will enhance awareness of the hazard.