Disaster. The Relationship between Disaster and Stress.

Disaster
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Disaster
The world is fast changing its prospects and understanding of the definition of disasters. It was until the mid-20th century that formal studies were launched to develop a proper definition of disasters. With numerous preparations happening to limit chances of disasters, different recovery times for similar incidences, and varying perceptions about different incidence, questions are still raised on the right definition for a disaster. Various scholarly inputs have been triggered to steer the understanding of what constitutes a disaster. Quarantelli and Ronald Perry explore the definition through inputs from social science disaster scientists from different areas of specialization in the publication What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question. This publication gives an insight into how people should understand the constitution of a disaster through aspects such as developments from crises to disasters, the relationship between stress and disaster, the scope of research in the prospects, and an understanding of what is required for the future.
The Relationship between Disaster and Stress
Allan Barton and Robert Stallings find the understanding of the relationship between disaster and stress as well as the difference between individual and collective stress, is vital to structuring the definition of disaster. Barton principally suggests the need to re-conceptualize disaster as a form of collective stress. Barton’s inputs stem from his participation in research concerning disaster in the 1960s. In the studies, he noted the changing landscape of disaster. People were beginning to be concerned more about the threats posed by other nations than the traditionally unplanned natural disasters. With such a change in scope, there was a relative change of impacts of disasters both on individuals and among groups of people.
The occurrence of a disaster must be accompanied by an efficient restoration strategy lest the affected are indulged in other challenges. Barton noted that one of the biggest outcomes of a wide-range disaster is collective stress. He defines collective stress as “situations in which many members of a social system fail to receive expected conditions of life from the system” (126). Collective stress, hence, emanates from a large scale deprivation of conditions that match the normal way of life. Superficially, incidences such as hurricanes, bombings, genocides, and crop failures bear negative impacts on the normal standards of socio-economic living. Collective stress is the outcome in cases where normalcy is not restored at the required time frame, according to Barton. Superficially, large scale disasters that disturb normalcy ultimately trigger collective stress.
There are four factors linked to disasters that cause collective stress. First among the factors is the degree of community disruption. Barton insists that disasters vary in terms of their scope (regional, national, or local) and duration of impacts (sudden, gradual, or chronic). All those elements of differences trigger different degrees of disruption. Put simply, not all disasters tear the socio-economic and political fabrics of communities. Those disasters tha...