从经典灾害社会学、社会脆弱性到社会建构主义——西方灾害社会学研究的最新进展及比较启示  

From classic disaster sociology,social vulnerability to social construction——Comparative study on latest development of disaster sociology in western countries

作　　者：周利敏[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]复旦大学社会发展与公共政策学院,上海200433 [2]广州大学公共管理学院,广东广州510006

出　　处：《广州大学学报（社会科学版）》2012年第6期29-35,共7页Journal of Guangzhou University:Social Science Edition

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目(08BSH011);教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目(07JC840002)

摘　　要：从经典灾害社会学、社会脆弱性到社会建构主义,这是灾害社会学发展的最新趋势,也是其发展的主要学派和阶段性特点。基于对这三个学派基本内涵梳理和比较研究,文章认为经典灾害社会学学派适合灾害防备与应变研究,社会脆弱性学派适合灾害预测和评估人们如何适应或加强能力面对灾害风险威胁的研究,社会建构主义学派则适合公共风险和灾害形成过程中人的主观能动性研究。这三个学派关注的重点不同,都有自己特定的解释边界和限制条件,一旦越界解释力就会下降。因此,不能简单地判断孰优孰劣。Classic sociology of disaster, social vulnerability and social constructionism are three main theories for the study of disaster sociology and scholars＇ focus has tumed from classic sociology and social vulnerability to social constructionism. However, most studies at home still focus on the classis sociology of disaster and pay less attention to the other two theories, resulting in their failure to act on international convention. Based on a review and comparative study of the three theories, the article maintains that classic disaster sociology applies to disaster prevention and post - impacted responses, while social vulnerability theory applies to disaster prediction and evaluation on victims＇ ability to adjust to and deal with disasters, social eonstructionism applies to the study on people＇s subjective initiative in the public risks and disasters. They focus on different aspects of disasters and each has its own definition and construction to explain certain aspects of disasters, so it is rash to say which theory, is the best or worst. In conclusion, contention among the three theories is conducive to disaster prevention, disaster resistance and disaster relief.

关 键 词：灾害 灾害社会学 经典灾害社会学 社会脆弱性 社会建构主义 

分 类 号：C91[经济管理]