Traumatic Legacies: Shaping the Space of Risk

  • Charlotte Mazel-Cabasse


This chapter pursues the investigation on traces of risk in the landscape, and through memories of longtime residents. A discussion of the Oakland Fire and the legacy of the 1906 earthquake are used as example of the unfolding of a natural disaster and the subsequent question of definitions and reconstruction. Controversies about scale and the legacies of past disasters, urban practices inherited from the time of the region’s early urban planning, and relationships between residents and their territory add a further layer of complexity to the definition of earthquake risk. Building on these elements, the chapter discusses the theoretical foundation of a concept of “network of attention to the risk” and how it connects with individuals that nurture it: the Earthquake Junkies.


  1. Adler, P. (1992). Fire in the hills. Auto-published.Google Scholar
  2. Amador, F. (2004). The causes of 1755 Lisbon earthquake on Kant. Actas VIII Congreso de La Sociedad Espanola de Historia de Las Ciencias Y de Los Tecnicos, 485–495. Retrieved from
  3. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2007). Cultural-economy and cities. Progress in Human Geography, 31(2), 143–161. Scholar
  4. Barbalet, J. (2007). Classical pragmatism, classical sociology: William James, religion and emotion. In P. Baert & B. Turner (Eds.), Pragmatism and European social theory (pp. 20–21). Oxford: The Bardwell Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. (2004). The force of things: Steps toward an ecology of matter. Political Theory, 32(3), 347–372. Scholar
  6. Benveniste, E. (1973). Problems in general linguistics. In Problems in general linguistics (p. 317). Miami: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bessy, C., & Chateauraynaud, F. (1995). Experts et Faussaires. Paris: Métailié.Google Scholar
  8. Bingham, N., & Thrift, N. (2000). Thinking space. In M. Crang & N. Thrift (Eds.), Thinking space (pp. 281–301). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bird, E. A. R. (1987). The social construction of nature: Theoretical approaches to the history of environmental problems. Environmental Review, 11(4), 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coen, D. (2013). The earthquake observers: Disaster science from Lisbon to Richter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cutter, S. (2005). Are we asking the right questions? In R. Perry & E. L. Quarantelli (Eds.), What is a disaster? New answer to old questions (pp. 39–49). Philadelphia: Xlibris.Google Scholar
  12. Datson, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. Cambridge: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disasters. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  14. de Certeau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Demeritt, D. (2002). What is the “social construction of nature”? A typology and sympathetic critique. Progress in Human Geography, 26(6), 767–790. Scholar
  16. Depraz, N. (2013). Attention et Affection: la micro-genèse husserlienne de l’attention à la lumière des perspectives empiriques de Stumpf, James, de Külpe et de Titchener. In Phenomenology 2005, Vol. 3: Selected essays from Euro-Mediterranean area, Part 1 (English, Spanish and French Edition, pp. 103–135). Bucharest: Zeta Books.Google Scholar
  17. Dynes, R. R. (1971). The dialogue between Voltaire and Rousseau on the Lisbon earthquake: The emergence of social science view (No. DE 19716).Google Scholar
  18. Dynes, R. R. (1997). The Lisbon earthquake in 1755: Contested meaning in the first modern disaster (No. #255).Google Scholar
  19. Favier, R., & Granet-Abisset, A.-M. (2009). Society and natural risk in France, 1500–2000: Changing historical perspectives. In C. Mauch & C. Pfister (Eds.), Natural disasters cultural response (pp. 103–136). Lanham: Lexington Book. Google Scholar
  20. Fressoz, J. (2007). Beck back in the 19th century: Towards a genealogy of risk society. History and Technology, 23(4), 333–350. Scholar
  21. Galin, D. (1994). The structure of awareness: Contemporary applications of William James’ forgotten concept of fringe. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 15(4), 375–400.Google Scholar
  22. Genthes, A. (1936). As I remember. Retrieved from
  23. Gilbert, C. (2007). Crisis analysis: Between normalization and avoidance. Journal of Risk Research, 10(7), 925–940. Scholar
  24. Gomart, E., & Hennion, A. (1999a). A sociology of attachment: Music amateurs, drug users. The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review. Scholar
  25. Gomart, E., & Hennion, A. (1999b). A sociology of attachment: Music amateurs, drug users. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar
  26. Hache, E. (2011). Ce à quoi nous tenons. Propositions pour une écologie pragmatique (Les empech). Paris: La Decouverte. Google Scholar
  27. Hansen, G. (1989). Denial of disaster: The untold story and photographs of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. San Francisco: Cameron & Company.Google Scholar
  28. Harvey, D. (1997). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Heller, A. (2006). Re-creating the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Retrieved from
  30. Hennion, A. (2004a). Pragmatics of taste. In M. Jacobs & N. Hanrahan (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to the sociology of culture (pp. 131–144). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Hennion, A. (2004b). Une sociologie des attachements. D’une sociologie de la culture à une pragmatique de l’amateur. Sociétés. Pratiques Musicales, 3(85), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hennion, A. (2007). Those things that hold us together: Taste and sociology. Cultural Sociology, 1(1), 97–114. Scholar
  33. Hoffman, S. (1998). Eve and Adam among the embers: Gender patterns after the Oakland Berkeley firestorm. In E. Enarson & B. Hern Morrow (Eds.), The gendered terrain of disaster: Through women’s eyes (pp. 55–61). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. James, W. (1890). Classics in the history of psychology. Henry Holt and Company. Retrieved from
  35. 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.) Longmans, Green, & Co. (Vol. June). New York.Google Scholar
  36. Keeley, J. (2005). Fire history of the San Francisco East Bay region and implications for landscape patterns. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 14, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kingston, M. H. (2003). The fifth book of peace. New York: First Vintage International Edition.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B. (1991). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Essai d’anthropologie symétrique (Poche). Paris: La Découverte. Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (1993). The pasteurisation of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (2005). What is the style if matters of concerns. In Spinoza Lectures (p. 27).Google Scholar
  41. Latour, B. (2009). Sur le Culte Moderne des Dieux Faitiches. Paris: Les Empecheurs de Tourner en Rond, La Decouverte.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Latour, B., & Girard Stark, M. (1999). Factures/fractures: From the concept of network to the concept of attachment. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 36(Autumn), 20–31. Retrieved from
  44. Lévy, J., & Lussault, M. (2000). Logique de l’espace, esprit des lieux. Géographie à Cerisy. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
  45. Lussault, M. (2007). L’homme spatial, la construction sociale de l’espace humain. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  46. Mialet, H. (1994). Le Sujet de l’invention. Etude empirique de la conception d’une idee neuve: comparaison des methodes philosophique et sociologique. Sorbonne Paris I.Google Scholar
  47. Mialet, H. (2012a). Hawking incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the anthropology of the knowing subject. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mialet, H. (2012b). Where would STS be without Latour? What would be missing? Social Studies of Science. Scholar
  49. Mitchell, M. (2011). Fire ruin renewal. The Phenix Firestorm Project. Retrieved from
  50. Mol, A. (2010). Actor-network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 50(1), 253–269.Google Scholar
  51. Murdoch, J. (1998). The spaces of actor-network theory. Geoforum, 29(4), 357–374. Scholar
  52. November, V., Penelas, M., & Viot, P. (2009). When flood risk transforms a territory: The Lully effect. Geography, 94, 189–197.Google Scholar
  53. Pigeon, P. (2005). Géographie Critique des Risques (Antropos). Paris: Economica. Google Scholar
  54. Pratt, M. L. (1992). Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  55. Routley, G. J. (1991). The East Bay Hills fire Oakland-Berkeley, California USFA-TR-060. Oakland-Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from
  56. Schenk, G. J. (2007). Historical disaster research, state of research, concepts, methods and case study. Historical Social Research, 32(3), 9–31.Google Scholar
  57. Schiewe, J. (2011, October 19). After Oakland Hills fire, residents build of-the-wall homes. Oakland North. Retrieved from
  58. Self, R. (2005). American Babylon: Race and the struggle for postwar Oakland. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Serres, M. (2009). Temps des crises (Manifestes). Le Pommier.Google Scholar
  60. Shapin, S., & Shaffer, S. (2011). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. London: Viking.Google Scholar
  62. Stengers, I. (1999). Savoirs Scolaires : qu’est-ce qui est digne d’être enseigné? In Conseil de l’Europe (Ed.), La responsabilité, du principe aux pratiques Delphes. Retrieved from
  63. Stengers, I. (2002). Un engagement pour le possible. Cosmopolitiques, 1, 27–36.Google Scholar
  64. Taussig, M. (2009). Culture of terror—Space of death: Roger Casement’s Putumayo report and the explanation of torture. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26(3), 467. Scholar
  65. Taylor, T. (2011). 20 years after the fire, revelation and tribute. The New York Time. Retrieved from
  66. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory, space, politics, affect (International Library of Sociology) (J. Urry, Ed.). London: Routledge—Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Walker, R. (1995). Landscape and city life: Four ecologies of residence in San Francisco Bay Area. Cultural Geographies, 2(1), 33–64. Retrieved from
  69. Watts, M. J., & Bohle, H. G. (1993). The space of vulnerability: The causal structure of hunger and famine. Progress in Human Geography, 17(43), 43–67. Scholar
  70. 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