Public sociology in disaster situations: critical engagement and prefiguration against defuturing processes

Sociological research on disasters is strongly linked to public sociology because it is intertwined with public processes of accountability and demands for victim reparation. Historically, disaster research has emerged as ‘policy sociology’ (Burawoy 2004) and has progressively focused on the priorities dictated by government agencies in relative isolation from the theoretical debates of ‘professional sociology’ (Tierney 2007). With the influence of disciplines such as critical geography and anthropology, however, disaster sociology has also seen the development of critical disaster sociology in parallel with the growing relevance of crisis situations related to the intensification of economic globalization, the simultaneous emergence of a ‘global risk society’ (Beck 2006) and the deepening of ecological problems, especially climate change (Tierney 2007). Within this context, the public intellectual and activist Naomi Klein produced a highly debated and influential analysis of the disaster-prone nature of contemporary societies as related to the neoliberal ‘shock doctrine’ that guides ‘dis- aster capitalism’ (Klein 2007). Examples abound of sociologists engaged in supporting processes of inquiry and denun- ciation alongside disaster-affected communities, such as those related to mobilizations for ‘environmental justice’ (Allen et al. 2017; Jobin 2021). The environmental justice framework was first developed by social movement activists and was then used and reflected on as an analytical tool in academia before returning to the social movements domain enriched with new understandings and perspectives (Martinez-Alier et al. 2014). This example confirms that the path that critical sociological knowledge travels to arrive at public relevance, both as a contribution to the transformation of common sense and as an engagement with specific publics, is non-linear. Activists and other actors engaged on the ground are often at the source (rather than being the final recipients) of theoretical innovations (Arribas Lozano 2018). The public relevance of sociological knowledge thus results from diverse, interconnected forms of circulation across the boundaries that separate academia and other social spheres of knowledge production. Based on her personal experience, the sociologist Diane Vaughan (2006) reflected on the ‘relational complexity’ and porous, overlapping nature of the boundaries between the categories that Burawoy (2005a) identified as ‘professional sociology’, ‘critical sociology’, ‘policy sociology’ and traditional ‘public sociology’. Vaughan also emphasized the difficul- ties of working in the interstices between professional and public sociology, especially the ‘emotional work’ that this liminal position imposes on researchers, and the risks for junior researchers’ future career prospects. It is nevertheless precisely this interstitial condition that: (1) ensures the permeability of the boundaries that separate the different types of sociology; and (2) explains how theoretical frameworks can become meaningful resources for social actors engaged in the construction of public issues and transformative social processes. Building on these premises, we first discuss different ways in which the sociology of dis- aster can be analysed as a public sociology engaged in the elaboration of: (1) useful expertise for public action; (2) critical approaches that reveal the social determinants of disasters; (3) socioanthropological approaches focused on sense-making processes. We then argue that the worsening of systemic crises as a result of the increasing financialized and globalized nature of contemporary capitalism (Foundational Economy Collective 2018) today requires a critical and ‘reconstructive’ (in the sense of Vandenberghe 2018) sociology of disasters that is actively engaged both in denouncing structural inequalities and in collaborating in ‘prefigurative’ experiments with social movements, affected citizens and ‘reflective practitioners’ (Trainor et al. 2018). In particular, the public engagement of sociologists and other social scientists in disaster situations is crucial to initiate and sustain collaborations among affected actors in order to design alternative, place-based pathways to recovery. To substantiate this last point, we draw on our experience of conducting research on disas- ters in the Italian context (Centemeri 2010; Mela et al. 2016). In particular, we briefly revisit the activities of the collective, self-managed research group Emidio di Treviri (EdT) in the aftermath of the 2016 earthquake in the Central Apennines. EdT has been conducting research (and disseminating knowledge) on the various dimensions of the post-earthquake recovery in this region. Since its beginnings, it has been oriented towards creating an interstitial space of encounter between theoretical reflections and direct social action alongside the populations most affected by the disaster and, more broadly, the affected territories and their ecologies (Olori and Menghi 2019). As we will argue, this initiative shows the difficulties of applying public sociology in ‘fragile areas’ (Osti and Carrosio 2017), that is, (mainly rural) contexts in which communities have long experienced processes of fragmentation, which in some cases have led to their almost total disappearance. The long-term engagement of sociologists is essential to support the reconstructive processes, including first and foremost collective ‘capabilities for voice’ (de Leonardis et al. 2012), which can elaborate and advocate an alter- native vision of recovery to that promoted by aggressive pro-growth coalitions whose land valorization logics actually increase socioecological vulnerability to old and new catastrophe