• Charlotte Mazel-Cabasse


The book starts with a brief but critical discussion of questions such as: What is at stake when we talk about risk? How has the concept been constructed historically? Following the research agenda proposed by Bruno Latour, the author explores the different “assemblages,” “associations,” and “modes of existence” that define earthquake risk.


  1. Abe, Y. (2013). Why safecast matters: A case study in collective risk assessment. A STS forum on Fukushima. Berkeley. Retrieved from
  2. Ahn, J., Carson, C., Jensen, M., Juraku, K., Mizokami, S., & Kumagai, Y. (2015). Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Heidelberg and New York: Springer. Scholar
  3. Ahn, J., Guarnieri, F., & Furuta, K. (2017). Resilience: A new paradigm of nuclear safety: From accident mitigation to resilient society facing extreme situations. Heidelberg and New York: Springer. Scholar
  4. Akera, A. (2007). Constructing a representation for an ecology of knowledge: Methodological advances in the integration of knowledge and its various contexts. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 413–441. Scholar
  5. Amir, S. (2018). The sociotechnical constitution of resilience: A new perspective on governing risk and disaster. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, B., & Harrison, P. (2010). Taking-place: Non-representational theory and geography. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Bossu, R., Gilles, S., Mazet-Roux, G., Roussel, F., Frobert, L., & Kamb, L. (2011). Flash sourcing, or rapid detection and characterization of earthquake effects through website traffic analysis. Annals of Geophysics, 54(6), 716–727. Scholar
  8. Bondi, L. (2005). Making connections and thinking through emotions: Between geography and psychotherapy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(4), 433–448. Scholar
  9. Boudia, S., & Jas, N. (2007). Risk and risk society in historical perspective. History and Technology, 4, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brechin, G. (2006). Imperial San Francisco, urban power, earthly ruin. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Breviglieri, M. (2006). Penser l’habiter, estimer l’habitabilité. Tracés, 23, 9–14.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, S. (2002). Michel Serres: Science, translation and the logic of the parasite. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(3), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint-Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Callon, M. (1997). Actor-network theory—The market test. Actor Network and After’ Workshop.Google Scholar
  15. Callon, M., & Ferrary, M. (2006). Les réseaux sociaux à l’aune de la théorie de l’acteur-réseau. Sociologies Pratiques, 2(13), 37–44. Scholar
  16. Callon, M., & Law, J. (2005). On qualculation, agency, and otherness. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 717–733. Scholar
  17. Callon, M., Méadel, C., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2000). L’économie des qualités. Politix, 13(52), 211–239. Scholar
  18. Chateauraynaud, F. (2008). Les mobiles de l’expertise Entretien avec Francis Chateauraynaud. Experts, 78, 4.Google Scholar
  19. Chavrolin, F. (2013). Pense-bêtes, astuces et recettes de jardiniers-observateurs de papillons. Retour sur une science citoyenne. Revue d’Anthropologie Des Connaissances, 7(2), 485–500.Google Scholar
  20. Coen, D. (2013). The Earthquake observers: Disaster science from Lisbon to Richter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Datson, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. Cambridge: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disasters. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  23. Davidson, J., Bondi, L., & Smith, M. (2005). Emotional geographies. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  24. de Certeau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dosse, F. (1995). L’Empire du Sens. L’Humanisation des Sciences Humaines. Paris: La Decouverte.Google Scholar
  26. Flichy, P. (2008). The internet imaginaire. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Frankel, H. (2012). The continental drift controversy: Evolution into plate tectonics (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fressoz, J.-B. (2008). Comment sommes nous devenus modernes? Petite histoire philosophique du risque et de l’expertise à propos de l’innoculation de la vaccine, 1750–1800. In S. Topçu, S. Cuny, & K. Serrano-Velarde (Eds.), Savoirs en débat: Perspectives Franco-Allemandes (Vol. 39, pp. 1–24). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  29. Frickel, S., & Bess, V. (2007). Katrina, contamination, and the unintended organization of ignorance. Technology in Society, 29, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geschwind, C.-H. (2001). California earthquake, science, risk and the politic of hazard mitigation. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gomart, E., & Hennion, A. (1999). A sociology of attachment: Music amateurs, drug users. The Editorial Board of the Sociological Review. Scholar
  32. Greenberg, J. (2010). From Betamax to blockbuster: Video stores and the invention of movies on video. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Guarnieri, F., & Travadel, S. (2018). Un récit de Fukushima. Le directeur parle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  34. Haring, K. (2006). Ham radio’s technical culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Harman, G., Bryant, L., & Srnicek, N. (Eds.). (2009). The speculative turn continental materialism and realism (Anamnesis, pp. 304–334). Melbourne: Retrieved from
  36. Hasegawa, R. (2013). Disaster evacuation from Japan’s 2011 tsunami disaster and the Fukushima nuclear accident—Studies no. 05/13. Paris. Retrieved from
  37. Hennion, A. (2004). Une sociologie des attachements. D’une sociologie de la culture à une pragmatique de l’amateur. Sociétés. Pratiques Musicales, 3(85), 9–24.Google Scholar
  38. Hennion, A. (2007). Those things that hold us together: Taste and sociology. Cultural Sociology, 1(1), 97–114. Scholar
  39. Hoffman, S. M., & Oliver-Smith, A. (2002). Catastrophe and culture: The anthropology of disasters (S. M. Hoffman & A. Oliver-Smith, Eds.). School of American Research Press and James Currey. Google Scholar
  40. Houdart, S. (2008). La cour des miracles: Ethnologie d’un laboratoire japonais (Sociologie). Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  41. Houdart, S., & Thiery, O. (2011). Humains non humains. Comment repeupler les sciences sociales? Paris: La Découverte. Google Scholar
  42. James, W. (1906). On some mental effects of the earthquake. The Youth’s Companion. Reprinted in James, H. Jr, 1911, Memories and studies (H. James, Jr.). New York: Longmans, Green, & Co. (Vol. June).Google Scholar
  43. Jervollino, D. (2006). The future of phenomenology: Towards a philosophy of translation inspired by a phenomenological hermeneutics. Retrieved from
  44. Johnson, L. (2011). Insuring climate change: Science, fear, and value in reinsurance markets. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  45. Juraku, K. (2015). Why is it so difficult to learn from accidents? In International Workshop on Nuclear Safety: From Accident Mitigation to Resilient Society Facing Extreme Situations. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  46. Kalmbach, K. (2015). From Chernobyl to Fukushima: The impact of the accidents on the French nuclear discourse. In T. Bohn & (Eds.), The Impact of disaster: Social and cultural approaches to Fukushima and Chernobyl (pp. 67–96). Berlin: EB Verlag. Retrieved from
  47. Knowles, S. (2011). The disaster experts: Mastering risk in modern America. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from
  49. Lamy, A. (2007). Récits médiatiques, mémoires électives. EspacesTemps.Net. Retrieved from
  50. Lane, S., Odoni, N., Landstrom, C., Whatmore, S., Ward, N., & Bardley, S. (2010). Doing flood risk science differently: An experiment in radical scientific method. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers, 36, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., & Wynne, B. (1996). Risk environment and modernity: Toward a new ecology (L, Ed.) (Published). London: Sage. Google Scholar
  52. Latour, B. (1991). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Essai d’anthropologie symétrique (Poche). Paris: La Découverte. Google Scholar
  53. Latour, B. (2011). Reflections on Etienne Souriau’s Les differents modes d’existence. In G. Harman, L. Bryant, & N. Srnicek (Eds.), The speculative turn continental materialism and realism (Anamnesis, pp. 304–334). Melbourne: Retrieved from
  54. Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Law, J., & Lien, M. E. (2013). Slippery: Field notes in empirical ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 363–378. Scholar
  56. Lazzarotti, O. (2006). Habiter, la condition géographique (Mapemonde). Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
  57. Lévy, J., & Lussault, M. (2000). Logique de l’espace, esprit des lieux. Géographie à Cerisy. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
  58. Lewis, J. (2008, October 21). The coming quake: Is Los Angeles ready for the Big One? High Country News. Retrieved from
  59. Lussault, M. (2007). L’homme spatial, la construction sociale de l’espace humain. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Google Scholar
  60. Lynch, M. (2013). Ontography: Investigating the production of things, deflating ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 444–462. Scholar
  61. Mahony, M., & Hulme, M. (2016). Epistemic geographies of climate change. Progress in Human Geography. Scholar
  62. Marres, N. (2013). Why political ontology must be experimentalized: On eco-show homes as devices of participation. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 417–443. Scholar
  63. Mialet, H. (2012). Hawking incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the anthropology of the knowing subject. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mol, A. (2013). Mind your plate! The ontonorms of Dutch dieting. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 379–396. Scholar
  65. November, V., Camacho-Hübner, E., & Latour, B. (2010). Entering a risky territory: Space in the age of digital navigation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(4), 581–599. Scholar
  66. November, V., & Leanza, Y. (2015). Risk, disaster and crisis reduction. Cham: Springer. Scholar
  67. November, V., Penelas, M., & Viot, P. (2009). When flood risk transforms a territory: The Lully effect. Geography, 94, 189–197.Google Scholar
  68. Oliver-Smith, A., & Hoffman, S. M. (1999). In A. Oliver-Smith & S. M. Hoffman (Eds.), The angry earth: Disaster in anthropological perspective (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Paquot, T., Lussalut, M., & Younes, C. (2007). Habiter, le propre de l’humain. Villes, territoires et philosophie (Armillaire). Paris: La Decouverte.Google Scholar
  70. Perkins, J. B., Chakos, A., Olson, R. A., Tobin, L. T., & Turner, F. (2006). A retrospective on the 1906 earthquake’s impact on Bay Area and California public policy. Earthquake Spectra, 22(S2), S237. Scholar
  71. Quarantelli, E. L. (1998). What is a disaster?: A dozen perspectives on the question. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  72. Quenet, G. (2005). Les Tremblements de terre aux dix-septième et dix-huitième siècles. La naissance d’un risque. Seyssel: Champ Vallon.Google Scholar
  73. Shineha, R., & Tanaka, M. (2017). Deprivation of media attention by Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident: Comparison between national and local newspapers. In J. Ahn, F. Guarnieri, & K. Furuta (Eds.), Resilience: A new paradigm of nuclear safety: From accident mitigation to resilient society facing extreme situations (pp. 111–125). Heidelberg and New York: Springer. Scholar
  74. Slater, D., Keiko, N., & Kindstrand, L. (2012). Social media, information and political activism in Japan’s 3.11 crisis. The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 10(24). Retrieved August 12, 2019, from
  75. Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. London: Viking.Google Scholar
  76. Souriau, E. (2009). Les différents modes d’existence. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stengers, I., & Latour, B. (2009). Le sphinx de l’oeuvre. In Les différents modes d’existence: Suivi de Du mode d’existence de l’oeuvre à faire (pp. 1–75). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  78. Stock, M. (2004). L’habiter comme pratique des lieux géographiques. Retrieved from
  79. Strong, T. (2008). A review of Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison’s objectivity. The Weekly Qualitative Report, 1(10), 62–66.Google Scholar
  80. Taira, T., Silver, P. G., Niu, F., & Nadeau, R. M. (2009). Remote triggering of fault-strength changes on the San Andreas fault at Parkfield. Nature, 461(7264), 636–639. Scholar
  81. Tierney, K. J. (2001). How will social science help us deal with earthquake?. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  82. Thien, D. (2005). After or beyond feeling? A consideration of affect and emotion in geography. Area, 37(4), 450–454. Scholar
  83. Tobriner, S. (2006). Bracing for disaster: Earthquake-resistant architecture and engineering in San Francisco, 1838–1933. Berkeley: The Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
  84. Vincent, C. (2017, December 29). En 2018, vous ne verrez plus le réchauffement climatique comme une fatalité grâce à la philosophe Emilie Hache. Le Monde. Retrieved from
  85. Von Winterfieldt, D., Roselund, N., & Kisuse, A. (2000). Framing earthquake retrofitting decisions : The case of hillside home in Los Angeles. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Retrieved from
  86. Walker, R. (1990). The playground for US capitalism? The political economy of San Francisco Bay Area in the 80’s. In M. Davis, S. Hiatt, M. Kennedy, S. Ruddick, & M. Sprinker (Eds.), Fire in hearth: The radical politics of place in America. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  87. White, G. (1945). Human adjustment to floods—A geographical approach to the flood problem in the United-States. The University of Chicago. Retrieved from
  88. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2006). At risk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte Mazel-Cabasse
    • 1
  1. 1.Data ScienceBerkeley Institute for Data ScienceBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations