Challenging disaster myths and destructive narratives

This is an English language version of an article published in Tia Sang magazine (in Vietnamese) on 09/07/2018 by Jason von Meding - original here

———————

In the Vietnamese language, when we talk about a “disaster” we generally refer to it as a “natural disaster”. But there is an important distinction between the two. A failure to differentiate leaves us discussing people’s loss, pain and suffering in a certain way. Often, we think of it as a result of the “wrath of Mother nature”. Perhaps we even call it “the will of God”.  

When we focus on the “natural” we often neglect to discuss the social, economic and political parts of disasters.

My work investigating the root causes of disasters has led me to argue that they are actually quite unnatural. They are the result of human decisions about risk in society, about consumption, about rights and about ownership.

Sadly, disasters are inevitable in a world of increasing inequality.

Disasters aren’t natural

It is not a new concept to say that disasters are not natural. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the first person on record to make this observation in 1756, after an earthquake and tsunami devastated Lisbon, Portugal. He argued that the casualties were due to the decisions and behaviours of people rather than nature.

Over the next 200 years, disasters were nevertheless discussed as natural or as acts of God. In the 1970s, scientists in various fields began to challenge this orthodox narrative. Since then, there have been constant challenges to the dominant position, but the terminology has only become more entrenched. There are now hundreds of thousands of references to “natural disaster” in the scientific literature.

So, what does make a disaster? Disasters often have natural triggers, and that is where we get this popular phrase “Natural disaster”. Hazards such as tsunamis, typhoons, bushfires and earthquakes do of course occur naturally. But disaster risk is determined by a combination of 2 things - 1) the hazard and 2) the vulnerability of the people in harm's way.

The truth is that around the world the victims of disasters are disproportionately impoverished, live in low-income countries and are marginalised in their society based on class, gender, religion, ethnicity and disability. And this is the way that societies are designed.

The most vulnerable suffer

Disaster impact is shaped by levels of human vulnerability. People are vulnerable for many reasons, but not because they choose to be. More often than not, someone else has made the decisions that determine their level of risk.

Injustice is built into our societies. In Vietnam we have only to look at how profoundly disasters impact on ethnic minorities. Flooding and landslides affect northwestern Vietnam periodically. In the past week, more than 20 people lost their lives, while in August 2017 dozens were killed.

These disasters cause severe hardship across provinces like Son La, Dien Bien, Yen Bai and Lai Chau. 80% of the population there belong to ethnic minorities. The poverty rate among ethnic minorities is unusually high in the region (73% - compared to a nationwide 2.9% for Kinh majority).

This is an example of how disaster risk is largely man-made. Ethnic minorities are often forgotten people in Vietnam. Attempts by the government to design policy measures to improve living standards often fail to recognise the diverse socio-economic development experience of ethnic minorities. Many ethnic minority communities have indeed benefited from development, but compared to the Kinh majority they have overwhelmingly been left behind.

Policy must therefore become more nuanced and targeted towards the specific socio-economic needs of each ethnic minority. Only then can the government start to address deficiencies in access to education, infrastructure, transportation, health care and other services. Inaction, or a simplistic and bureaucratic approach, has consequences. It is people that create disasters.

Every time a disaster occur, few people look into the role of poverty, marginalisation, environmental degradation or land use decisions in their analysis. This needs to change.

The injustices that people face define their day to day living conditions. This is how they end up living with a high level of risk. If we really want to understand the root causes of disaster, our starting point needs to be this - political, social and economic disadvantage.

These conditions are imposed on the vulnerable. It’s as simple as that. And this is where calling disasters “Natural” can be so dishonest and misleading.

Myths about disaster are commonplace

The “natural disaster” issue is not the only problem that we are facing in terms of how the public understands disasters. Society is shaped by certain prevailing narratives that are so often misleading.

Myths are widely accepted as truth. Here is a prime example. Around the world it is widely held that people behave negatively in crisis; selfishly, without compassion, irrationally and in panic. However, this simply does not fit with the available evidence. Disaster sociologists have been telling us for decades that we always see the best of human behaviour in such times. The reality is that communities come together in a disaster.

In the midst of trauma, we see the best of human "nature". People demonstrate solidarity. They give generously. They serve each other. They sacrifice not only for their family and friends, but for complete strangers. After a disaster there is a decline in crime. Victims do not loot, rape and murder. They come together.

Neighbours become first responders - something almost never picked up by the media as their stories follow international rescue teams. Communities organise and mobilise and utilise their incredible capacity to protect and assist and serve.

Sometimes when the authorities and so-called “experts” finally arrive, they actually disrupt a recovery process that is already well advanced. They often fail to recognise the importance of local capacity.

Importance of language

The words that we use are important. If a disaster is “natural” then nobody is accountable. We don’t have to think about uncomfortable root causes. Explaining disasters away as “natural” can actually prevent action to address the real root social, political and economic root causes.

In Vietnam, who benefits from this language? Which powerful interests would be unhappy if we were to speak more about the root causes of disaster rather than “nature”? Vietnam’s rapid development is not benefiting everyone equally. Inequality is growing, causing fractures in society, while the ecological impacts of rapid growth are profound. Disasters are often preceded by poor development decision-making.

One way to keep decision-makers accountable is to question the dominant narrative and language. Every time that we talk about any disaster we should be talking about vulnerability and injustice and rights. This rarely happens when we use the language of “natural disasters”.

Of course, there is always opposition to any suggestion to change the status quo. But in my experience, the opposition to abandoning the falsehood of “natural disaster” comes from those in positions of power and privilege. Some (for example academics and journalists) derive benefit from maintaining the language, because it is central to their vocabulary and they claim that it is all that the public understand. Others (for example politicians), because they might be challenged by any discussion of disaster root causes.

Although the public also commonly use this language, they are not invested in it. Most people are actually quite interested to discuss why disasters are not natural and they understand quickly.

Role of science communication and the media

So why are we so misinformed about disasters? The language is important, but it is only one factor. The media are also out for sensational stories and headlines. Disasters rarely make the news unless there is a large death toll. Rich countries are prioritised over poor ones. Consider the relative coverage of the impact of the Atlantic hurricane season on the United States to the 2017 monsoon impacts across South-Asia. Most of the media focused on the U.S.

Hollywood depicts a rescuer/victim dynamic in disaster narratives and focuses on the need to maintain law and order. Think of any disaster movie that you have watched. The people affected are panicking, selfish, irrational, helpless. This couldn’t be further from reality - but it serves a purpose to sell such a story.

Those in power have a lot to gain from perpetuating these myths. If the wider public believes that communities affected by disaster are behaving antisocially, they will not complain when force is used to “keep the law”. In the U.S. in particular, there is a history of authority-led violence after disasters. There is panic after disasters - but it comes from those afraid to lose power and control, rather than from affected communities.

Ultimately, what disaster science tells us just doesn’t square with the way that disasters are portrayed in the media or by Hollywood. Policy-makers know this and are not concerned. Therefore the rest of us must demand better.

So the next time you hear someone say “natural disaster”, inquire as to what the real cause of the disaster might be. If you see it in writing, challenge the author. We can all be a part of something positive here and shift the public discourse.

Most important of all, we need to be having the right conversation; one that is about root causes and shakes the halls of power.

Resilience vs Vulnerability

I recently read a very insightful paper on resilience and it stirred up a lot of thoughts like- when researchers refer to resilience as a societal trait for adaptation, what do they mean?; Is it an individual trait or for a whole group?; can it be measured objectively (can a community totally lack resilience or be 100% resilient)? And so on.

A good number of scholarly articles have pointed out the shortcomings of resilience but does that mean that the concept should be neglected? According to Barrios (2016), the use of the term has gained too much ground to be gotten rid of but what is most important is the appropriate use of the term. Some authors have argued that the widespread use of the term can be attributed to political interests in the use of the term which sometimes in literature places the responsibility for recovery on the affected communities.

Barrios (2016) argued that the focus of disaster researchers should not be on resilience building but on vulnerability reduction. He added that the notion of resilience seeks to maintain structures that create vulnerability and risks; hence, although resilience is all about capacity to cope with risks it seems to ignore systems that create risks and force people to adapt despite the system. It is not okay to emphasize the need for resilience to a vicious cycle of risk creation when efforts are not made to change the systems that create risk.

I posit that resilience is an important term in disaster discourse, however, its usage ignores the root causes of disasters. Barrios (2016) explained that:

“If resilience in the context of climate change becomes adaptation to the atmospheric and hydrometereological conditions created by an anthropogenic process, then resilience means ignoring the root social and development causes of this particular slow disaster. Becoming resilient, in the context of climate change, then, goes hand in hand with the social production of vulnerability rather than vulnerability reduction.” (Barrios, 2016. pp 32)

Although resilience is important because the impacts of climate change are already evident in the increasing frequency of climate-related hazards and undoing this change cannot be achieved immediately, not focusing on mitigation is like postponing the onset of the disaster. A wealth of literature have stated that disasters are products of hazards and vulnerability. Since some hazards (natural hazards) cannot be avoided, our focus should be addressing vulnerability.

While some resilience literature see resilience and vulnerability as opposites, the relationship between the two does not seem that simple because building resilience can in fact indirectly create vulnerability. If careful attention is paid to the quote above by Barrios, building resilience can give the impression that the risks cannot be controlled and that we have unlimited capacity to defeat nature.

Why transformation?




To reduce vulnerability, a significant change and deviation from the status quo is required. Although transformation is concerned with building capacity but more importantly concerned with changing systems that create risk. This concept addressed the shortcoming of resilience while not totally ignoring the need for resilience and adaptation. Transformation is the creation of fundamentally new systems when ecological, economic, social, and political conditions make the existing system untenable (Walker et al, 2004). Scientific research has revealed that a significant change in consumption is necessary to stop the drastic climate change. Likewise, we need significant changes and re-evaluation of socio-economic and political systems for vulnerability to be reduced.

Transformative adaptation addresses the root causes as well as the symptoms (disasters) and it does not place the whole responsibility for change on just a particular group; in fact, everyone is responsbile for transformation. If the issue of increasing disasters is to be addressed, transformation is needed.


References

Barrios, R. (2016). Resilience: A commentary from the vantage point of anthropology. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 40(1), 28-38. doi:10.1111/napa.12085

Walker, B. et al. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2).

UON Disaster Research Updates

So much has happened over the last few months - it is time for a post to mention some of the highlights! If I miss anything that you would like to add, please let me know.


New grants: 

1. Council on Australia Latin America Relations (COALAR): Disaster Resilience Education Capacity Building in Latin America - The project establishes partnerships between UON and Universidad Diego Portales, Universidad Javeriana and Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. This project will build regional capacity, share knowledge and create synergy in disaster resilience and risk reduction education/research. CI - Dr Sittimont Kanjanabootra. Project Personnel, A/P Gajendran, A/P Mackee, A/P Brewer, Dr von Meding, Dr Giggins and Dr Ahmed.

2. Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN): Understanding the opportunities and challenges of compliance to safe building codes for disaster resilience in South Asia - the cases of Bangladesh and Nepal - This project will explore the opportunities and challenges to compliance of safe building codes for disaster resilience in South Asia, focusing on two countries of the region, Bangladesh and Nepal. UON will partner with the University of Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Tribhuvan University (Nepal). CI - Dr Ifte Ahmed. Project Personnel, A/P Gajendran,  A/P Brewer, Dr Maund and Dr von Meding. 

3. SABE Research Impact Acceleration Grant: Resilience and Resistance in the Upper Hunter Valley - This project will engage directly with communities in the Upper Hunter Valley (primarily Muswellbrook and Singleton) around themes of resilience and resistance in the post-carbon future of the region. Focussing on issues of resilience, post-industrialisation, land rehabilitation and social equity, we will host a series of events in partnership with Upper Hunter communities that are under threat; a community workshop, a public seminar and a research exhibition including creative practice and traditional research. CI - Dr Jason von Meding. Project Personnel, Prof Chapman,  A/P Brewer, Dr Tucker.

Science journalism:

In Vietnam poverty and poor development, not just floods, kill the most marginalised, The Conversation, Jason von Meding & Hang Thai

Religion is not the only reason Rohingyas are being forced out of Myanmar, The Conversation, Giuseppe Forino, Jason von Meding & Thomas Johnson

Vietnam’s typhoon disaster highlights the plight of its poorest people, The Conversation, Chinh Luu & Jason von Meding

Show Up, Stand Up and Step Up: Bold Action in the Wake of Storms, Common Dreams, Jason von Meding & Heidi Harmon

Why natural disasters aren't all that natural, openDemocracy, Ksenia Chmutina, Jason von Meding, JC Gaillard & Lee Bosher


In the media:

Jason on BBC World Service and Morning Marketplace Report speaking about vested interests in Myanmar.

Jason speaks about Typhoon Doksuri on 2ser radio, Sydney, 21st Sept.

Jason interviewed by Aya Bayrawy at the Associated Press for this article about the Rohingya, 21st Sept. 

Jason on 2ser radio, Sydney, discussing the Rohingya, 18th Sept. 

Jason on WMNF, Florida, to discuss the political aspect of the recent hurricanes to strike the US, 14th Sept. 

Jason on 3 CR radio Melbourne talking about the Rohingya crisis, 13th Sept. 

Sacred Cows of Cancun (and some elephants in the room)

The Sendai Framework for DRR, like the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, represents a successful global negotiation leading to a commitment to address pressing issues for humanity. This week we gather at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Cancun to talk about the move from "commitment to action."

While we should appreciate the goals that are aspired to, and the intention behind them, it would be remiss of us to exclude the promoted strategies to achieve success from critique. Shouldn't we be willing to listen to and respond to criticisms, particularly with such vital outcomes at stake?

We have heard a lot about action this week. Have we really taken action though? Is it the right action? Private sector engagement. Innovation. Technology. Entrepreneurship. Growth. 

Certain assumptions and voluntary blind spots are required in order to promote this approach to "taking action" with little or no debate. Therefore I have put together the following (slightly tongue in cheek) list of issues that I feel a) are simply out of bounds in polite DRR conversation or b) we ignore for convenience.

Sacred Cows of Cancun

1. Economic Growth - we are still attached to the idea that economic growth is essential. Should we measure success differently? Particularly when we consider 2.
2. Limitless Consumption - we deny the reality of a finite planet and put all of our eggs in the "decoupling" basket.

Elephants in the Room

3. Absolute Corporate Power - we have seen a great transfer of power to the private sector. Is this the world that we want to live in? We will see some gains through philanthropy perhaps, but is it worth it? 
4. Neoliberalism is Failing - 2016 showed a dramatic loss of trust. The public can see that mooted solutions require magical thinking. The rise of reactionary politics is putting more people at risk.
5. Usually, the Powerful Simply do Not Care - By and large, those in power demonstrate over and over that they do not care if people die, starve or suffer. This is not changing, as much as we might like it to.

We frame our collective action as a force to reduce the impacts of disaster; and more broadly to fight against poverty, hunger, inequality and climate change. But what if we are still not getting to the root causes? The structural injustices? Why are people poor, hungry, marginalised and vulnerable to disasters? 

We might approach these problems with the assumption that our solutions must honour the Sacred Cows and ignore the Elephants. We might double down on failed strategies because we are afraid of challenging the status quo. The academic community has become as inept as the political class at working for the common good, when it demands radical thinking. That cannot continue.

This week we should be having a frank discussion about the uncomfortable issues. Everything is NOT going great. We do NOT have it under control. Radical thinking IS required. 

We need to resist before it is too late. 

Christchurch, a Man Made Disaster?

In April this year, I was member of a group from UoN, looking at the impact on and recovery from the disasters of 2010 and 2011 that impacted Christchurch, New Zealand.

My interest was why a modern vibrant almost sister city, could be unexpectedly laid flat by a series of earthquakes, and how it handled the post-disaster recovery and reconstruction.

On the first morning, I stopped in my tracks outside my hotel viewing the desolate scene, my previous experience with hazards had been on TV.   I did feel numbed wondering what happened to the people who had worked in the invisible buildings.   They would still have their families, mortgages, ideals and aspirations but no workplace.

And that was my first handshake with Christchurch!   The people of Christchurch we met did not complain about losing their jobs, they did comment about: no community consultation; the Red Zone; the stressful insurance negotiations, and the inadequate settlements; the escalating cost of rebuilding, (where is a builder when you want one).

Christchurch had found “the eternal elixir of job creation”, it was called “post disaster building boom”.   It also unfortunately found “upper middle class poverty”.   Family, mid early forty’s; kids at Uni; good jobs; manageable debt, ---The DISASTER --- house deemed unsafe; alternative accommodation; office demolished, got job???; home site acquired unilaterally; home insurance under half expectations, takes 4 years; depression; anger; hopelessness; no assets; bank wants its money, takes insurance and government money; kids university fees???; divorce expensive; admittance to mental health facility.   The Newspapers continued to publish wellbeing surveys (the traumatised are the surveyed), all is well, Christchurch is rebounding.   Which is the truth?

Sorry for that side-track into Christchurch’s real world.   Back to our itinerary, the Anglican Cathedral, its carcass lies in the heart of Christchurch, having been struck a solid blow by the 2010 hazard, suffering a more severe blow through the bishop of Christchurch initiating and then staying demolition early in 2011, in the intervening years suffering an almost fatal blow by dereliction.   Whilst the bishop wants to pull this grand historic building down, the community and the government are fighting her decision in the courts.   Lets all hope that she is vanquished.

We then visited the beautiful Christchurch Art Gallery, reopened in December 2015 after a NZ $ 58 millions refit, including the implementation of a base loading mitigation facility.   A mitigation strategy against the impact of horizontal acceleration during an earthquake.   Unfortunately, it did not address the vertical acceleration that also impacts Christchurch during earthquakes.   Does that mean that the art gallery is half resilient?

Onward to The Exchange (EXCH), a great example of resiliency evolving from a community drop-in centre, a pleasure to visit and to experience such a successful resiliency program in action.

Then to Cultivate Urban Farm, ‘a saint in sheep’s clothing’, offering a sustainability program selling herbs and vegetables to local restaurants and collecting their green waste.   Its real objective, being to nurture and make better troubled youth by engendering self worth whilst they are employed in the gardens.   The unusual method of achieving this goal is to treat their charges as peers, with dignity, respect and purpose, strange isn’t it!

Onward to Resilient Organisations, an enterprise established on the extensive research by academics at Christchurch University into resiliency.   The resiliency referred to, being the resiliency of businesses to survive systemic hazards, a completely different definition of resiliency then we would use in the DRR context, but essential for sustainability.

Then The Lyttelton Project, a community organised and supported project with sustainability the driver of each individual program, we experienced their Saturday farmers market, our support and enthusiasm well demonstrated by the extra kilos we carried back to the bus (and not in carry bags).

Enter the Twilight Zone, in Christchurch called the Red Zone, I had never been in a ghost town, where there were no houses, or any other indication other than the drives across the footpath, that there were once over 8,000 homes in what was a major liquefaction area of Christchurch.   Everyone was somewhat suppressed after our stroll through “nowhere”, Christchurch.

A quick walk around the city area, showed construction, and also the lack of construction.   After six years I thought Christchurch would be a mini Dubai, with cranes everywhere.

My observations 

Was Christchurch a disaster waiting to happen, has it stopped: pre-disaster, irrefutable advice that mitigation was required was ignored; post-disaster, it ignored the community and their reconstruction, another disaster?   A man-made disaster?

Hazards: unpredictable in occurrence and scope; indiscriminate in the social structures they impact; do not adhere to their human assessed “return” periods; leave devastation in their wake; but they do not cause disasters.  

Humans: predictable in their pursuit of profit and self-interest; discriminate towards those who are vulnerable; respond rapidly after a hazard; leave confusion and desolation in their wake; and they do cause disasters.

DRECB-SEA project activities in Manila a great success

From November 23th-25th 2016, a consortium of researchers from 5 countries, led by the University of Newcastle and funded by the Australia-ASEAN Council, collaborated to host a series of activities in Manila. The events coincided with the 70th anniversary celebration of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines and allowed the AAC board and Australian Embassy to participate in project activities.

Over 200 participants attended a much anticipated Symposium, entitled "Building Resilience through Synergies in Education" on the 23rd, hosted by the University of Philippines, School of Urban and Regional Planning. AAC board member Professor Alice Woodhead was among the keynote speakers on a day that featured three expert discussion panels; on Disaster Education; Disaster Governance; and Disaster Research and Innovation.

DRECB Manila Symposium - Highlights from Jason von Meding on Vimeo.

The DRECB team launched its new website and the DRR curriculum mapping tool that is under development. There were lively debates between panelists and public participants with respect to key concern in DRR education, research and governance.

In addition to the Symposium event, the DRECB team held a DRR curriculum mapping workshop drawing 30 representatives of different stakeholder groups on the 24th November. Participants worked in groups including practitioners, educators and community actors to analyse and reflect on the Sendai Framework mapping that the project has undertaken. The results of these workshops will be forthcoming in 2017.

The project team wrapped up the week's activities with a visit to Valenzuela City on the 25th, meeting with community leaders, disaster risk reduction practitioners and emergency responders. Special thanks to the UP-SURP organising team and in particular Professor Mario Delos Reyes and Dr Mark Morales for their leadership in making all of these events possible.

Slashed OLT represents lost opportunities for innovation in DRR

By Giuseppe Forino and Jason von Meding

2015 represented an important year for disaster scholars, with the release of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in March, the launch of new Sustainable Development Goals in New York in September, and the December agreement for carbon emission reduction at COP21 under the UNFCCC in Paris. The value and the effectiveness of these international agreements are certainly open to debate. George Monbiot (2004, p.75) questions the democratic value of the UN, arguing that 'the nation states tacitly conspire against their peoples,' and that 'we the people' in the UN Charter should read 'we the States.' Furthermore, if we do not start questioning our current methods of production, consumption, and development, any well-intentioned international frameworks may ultimately represent no more than empty promises. 

At their best, these milestones can enable a new roadmap in research, policy, and practice of DRR to emerge that will enable us to move forward significantly in the next 15 years. We must interrogate governance; the role of the State, the private sector and local communities and the balance of power; as well as understanding how various issues from globalisation to climate change contribute to shape exposure and vulnerability, and become imperative in DRR science. Such a roadmap must inform teaching and learning related to disaster risk reduction in higher education. The increase in the number of undergraduate and postgraduate courses and programs exploring disasters and related issues illustrates the recognition of the challenges faced by the global community and therefore an emerging market to train experts. However, higher education is also shifting and we onus is on educators to develop better ways to engage learners that may not actually be participating in learning activities in the same place or time. 

Haigh and Amaratunga (2015) developed a roadmap for the ANDROID research network, which gathers different universities and scholars with different backgrounds and perspectives related to disaster resilience, DRR, and CCA. In this roadmap, the main challenge presenting for disaster resilience in higher education is the reduction of the policy–science gap, insomuch that research be translated to action.

Five critical opportunities and challenges for higher education were identified:

1. linking research, education and action;

2. integrating all hazards, stakeholders and disciplines;

3. collaborating regionally and globally;

4. facilitating policy dialogue, knowledge sharing and capacity development; and

5. developing flexible and customisable education programmes.

At the University of Newcastle, we are somewhat unique in that we teach disaster resilience/DRR into our Bachelor of Construction Management degree. We do this because we believe that DRR needs to be a core competency in built environment professions. In our Master of Disaster Preparedness and Reconstruction, we progress to a much more detailed exploration of various elements of disasters. 

In 2015 we launched the RES-SIM project, a collaboration with RMIT and funded by the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT). This project proposes to develop the conceptual model for a virtually distributed computer-based teaching and learning tool that enables students within and across disciplines (e.g. engineering, architecture, logistics), both on and off campus, to collaboratively acquire essential decision-making skills through immersion in a dynamic disaster system simulation. 

The research team works with practitioners to develop
disaster scenarios

Our field work gave us the opportunity to interview and share knowledge with eminent scholars in DRR, information technology and construction management. It also allowed us to meet volunteers and practitioners involved in emergency management across New South Wales and Victoria, to talk with them about procedures, priorities, and expectations, and to build a network for knowledge exchange and future collaboration. The 1 year project has represented an opportunity, as academic scholars, to contribute to reducing the gap between our world and that of practitioners and volunteers, contributing to the central necessity outlined in the ANDROID roadmap. 

This grant by the OLT gave us the seed funding to do something otherwise not possible. 

Workshops allow educators and practitioners to describe
their world as a system

At the end of June, the OLT will cease to offer any new projects, based on cuts announced in the federal budget. We had advanced warning of this since 2015, but a commitment previously made to establish a successor 'institute' for research in teaching and learning has now also been scrapped. The closure of the OLT, as well as the loss of its grants and fellowships, removes from Australian higher education the national commitment to innovation and improved performance in learning and teaching (Gardner, 2016).

The closure of the OLT is a dark day for both researchers and citizens who believe in the betterment of countries and societies through education, culture, and engagement. Under a cloak of 'innovation' and 'industry engagement' the government has set its own agenda above that of the people. We must therefore stand up against these cuts and proclaim that research for the common good is of value. We have a democratic society and it is time for the government to recognise the will of the people over corporate interests. 

References:

Gardner M. (2016). Innovation in teaching and learning is too important to cut. The Conversation.

Haigh, R., & Amaratunga, D. (2015). Moving from 2015 to 2030: challenges and opportunities for higher education. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(3).

Monbiot, G. (2004) The age of consent. HarperPerennial.

Thoughts from UNISDR Science and Technology Conference

The UNISDR Science and Technology Conference has provided a platform for discussion of many pertinent topics relating to the implementation of the Sendai Framework. However, what has really struck me is the absence of what I would have thought were important discussion points. Perhaps these issues are outside of the scope of this conference. But does their absence (or brief appearance) in the dialogue undermine the objectives of DRR scientists?



1. Root causes of disaster

It is certainly not popular to discuss poverty, inequality, conflict, discrimination, globalisation etc. as drivers of vulnerability and therefore disaster risk at forums like this. Perhaps scientists feel powerless to address these issues. Ok, but we must lend our voice to the cause of the vulnerable, rather than colluding to perpetuate structural violence. We must make clear that many of the solutions of science cannot succeed while global inequality and injustice flourish.


2. Inequality

The existence of inequality in not only wealth, but access to knowledge and opportunities was raised briefly on day 1. This issue came up again as individuals decried the academic paywall and the fact that much DRR knowledge is inaccessible to those who need access the most. In addition, we must ask whether the push that we are seeing towards privatising DRR is a healthy shift? Corporate control in DRR, climate change and sustainable development (*shudders*) is growing. Will this reduce vulnerability, or have the opposite effect by creating a bigger gap?


3. Discrimination

We are of course much more sensitive to discrimination against minority groups now than ever before. Thankfully we have witnessed great societal shifts, with rights being won for many. However, we must guard against cultural norms that are still inherently discriminatory against groups that we may not normally perceive as marginalised. One clear issue arising from this conference is that of discrimination against young scientists. 'You are so young'. 'You have to earn your credibility.' 'Wait till you have a PhD and then talk to me.' You only have to speak to a sample of PhD students to realise the gravity of the issues that young scientists face. We need mentoring, opportunities, resources, recognition for brilliant young minds. Uncorrupted. Uncompromised. Idealist. I'd prefer that they made decisions about our future than those currently holding power.


4. Political will

Disasters are political beasts. Much of the discussion has avoided the simple fact that the global political structure is highly resilient to change. I feel that the solutions being offered at this conference are based on the assumption that a system driven by growth, consumption and domination cannot be challenged. Our current system is creating new problems and exacerbating existing problems faster than we can solve them. Can science and technology solve problems that are inherently social, economic and political? Perhaps not directly, but we can become advocates and even activists. We know that there is an absence of will to change in the political establishment. Is there also an absence of will to advocate for change among researchers who rely upon the support of the establishment to further their careers?


Overall, we have heard some interesting perspectives on SFDRR implementation and about fascinating advances in science and technology. These things give me hope. However, like Sendai I will depart a bit frustrated at the general reluctance to engage with the systemic issues that uphold the status quo. All of our advances will be useless if we ignore these. As a speaker pointed out yesterday, we are in a special position where the public trusts our community of knowledge. We have a responsibility to communicate, not only about the technical aspects of our work but as commentators on the big issues society faces. As DRR researchers, we are uniquely qualified to do so.

A successful year for the REACT Network!

On Monday 26th October, the REACT Network partners will gather in Beijing for the final activities of our year-long project. The key event (poster below) will be a resilience seminar featuring Dr Jamie Mackee from the University of Newcastle and Dr Wen-Yen Lin from Ming Chuan, followed by a discussion forum with a panel comprising Dr Gary Wei (SwissRe), Dr Jason von Meding (UON), Prof Qian Ye (BNU) and Dr Jie-Ying Wu (MCU).

The REACT Network would like to thank the Australia-China Council and our respective institutions for the financial support that has allowed us to build lasting personal relationships and embark on significant collaborative initiatives. Please check back here for a report on the Beijing visit in a couple of weeks!

What type of game do you want to play?

Anyone who’s been to the zoo, happen to spend time with children or seen a David Attenborough documentary will tell you how young primates are forever playing. But are they playing actual games with rules? or are they just following their imagination and free will?

As children blend these structured and free form activities, we learn different things in different ways. For example wresting with your sibling when you’re both in your super-hero costumes allows you to practice strategies and responses in a relatively safe way, so that you’re able to adapt in case you ever encountered a scenario like this.

Where as a game of monopoly with your parents introduces the constructions and tests associated skills such as: interpreting regulations, negotiation, planning, business acumen and the importance of chance and risk in decision making.

In my childhood monopoly was for long rainy days and wrestling was done outside. Two very different games have very different learning outcomes.

At a fundamental level The Resilience Simulator (RES-SIM) project endeavors to create a game. But what type of game would best introduce university students to the complexity of disasters and how they affect the interconnected systems most of us take for granted?

These are the questions we are grappling with as we begin to process the results from our interviews with disaster practitioners and educators. Any design process is iterative, as the stakeholders come together to create common understanding of what could, and more importantly should, a simulator look like. It’s difficult not to image a tangible preemptive outcome, but (crucial to) trust the design processes in generating innovative solutions.

As the projects underpinning methodology Concept mapping is simple but broad in visually representing the gathered data in ways that convey meaning and validate insights for multiple agents. RES-SIM applies concept mapping principles through multiple approaches including; Agglomerative clustering (Trochim), nested Heirachies (Novak) and to accommodate the dynamic nature of disaster Cyclic (Safayeni). Through interviews project contributors have added their expertise about how to conceptualise emergencies, their management by agencies and society and most importantly what simulators provide.

By outlining the concepts of a disaster into related subsystems, such as the built environment, combat agencies, local communities and exposing inter-relationships facilitated workshops will generate a conceptual model. The model will ultimately ‘run’ scenarios such as a ‘bushfire response’ or ‘cyclone rebuild’ that have been developed in the projects upcoming focus groups.

Due to the inherent learning potential (particularly systems-conceptualisation) of using concept mapping, there’s even rationale for the actual simulator to lead participants through a dynamic Concept mapping process. But the questions remain, would you want to play that game? And what would you learn from it?

If you think you would like to contribute to this ground breaking project please get in touch with the team about how you and your organisation could play a part.



By Jai Allison - RES-SIM Project Researcher

The Displacement Crisis Revealing our Humanity

The world is finally waking up to a global displacement crisis. While we debate what to call the displaced, refugees...asylum seekers...migrants...the number of people seeking a new 'place' as a matter of urgency is swelling like never before in history. What is 'place' and who deserves one to call their own? Do citizens of failed states have a right to seek another place? As we consider the cauldron of violence and instability that is the Middle East, are we asking questions about the underlying causes of displacement?

Photo by Giuseppe Forino

This crisis is only likely to grow. As Australia and the UK prepare to join the US-led bombing campaign in Syria, will the politicians making the decision to kill ever more civilians be held accountable for the impact? How has this strategy worked out before in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? Violence is a lucrative pastime. The global arms trade generates massive revenues, and soaring military spending is justified based on the perceived risks posed globally, often as a result of intentional destabilization. Quite a business model.

However, it is not only conflict that creates displacement. Climate change is occurring whether you like science or not. Disaster impacts are evolving as societies urbanize and people adopt less sustainable living in the pursuit of 'development'. In many ways, people are become more exposed to disaster risk because of how they choose to live. The drive to 'modernize' and 'advance' inherently supports the incumbent economic system of our time. A devotion to market fundamentalism practically locks us in for whatever disasters will eventually befall our race.

Put it this way. Our economic and social order is built on the premise that limitless growth is healthy. Anything that might challenge this premise is dismissed as problematic, idealistic and unreasonable. Solutions that involve equality and justice for all are labeled socialist. This belief system taken to the extreme brings us humanitarian bombing and coal is good for humanity. Orwell was spot on; blind, selfish, self-absorbed consumers want to believe that 'war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength'.

It is great to see the outpouring of empathy for the Syrian refugees reaching Europe. It gives me hope that most of us really do care about others. Perhaps it takes a picture and the tragic story of a dead toddler to really wake us up from our busy, stressed out existence. My hope is that this crisis will create thousands of activists around the world. There are huge ethical and moral dilemmas to consider, but not a lot of time to take action.

The world certainly needs to come up with rapid and collective solutions to this humanitarian crisis, but we need to be careful not to apply a band-aid to a deep laceration. Increasing refugee intake is commendable, but are we prepared to interrogate the problem at its source?

Mass Media and Disasters

Thank you to Eloisa Rozul, graduating from our Master of Disaster Preparedness and Reconstruction, for this excellent video and some interesting thoughts on media in disasters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In today’s society, people are bombarded with constant exposure to mass media in different modes. These include television, magazines, books, radio, newspapers, movies and the most recent, internet. Media has proven to be a significant contributor of the people’s new ways of thinking, of perceiving and of interacting with their environment. Indeed, media has become an integral part of human existence. For instance, it provides an update of what is the latest fashion trend, new sports icon, the next political leader, the “perfect body” image, the upcoming celebrity star and all other events that arouse the interests of the public. Mass media has become a source of power and meaning.

Significantly, with the increasing number of global crisis and disaster occurrences, mass media has played a significant role in the entire disaster management cycle – from the pre-disaster phase (mitigation and preparedness) up to the post-disaster phase (relief and recovery). It has proven to be successful in fulfilling its strategic role in information distribution, mass communication and education of people in times of relocation, evacuation and relief assistance. Interestingly, mass media has seen to portray a new role – the linkage and emotional utility function. However, sensational portrayals of poverty and vulnerability, government’s shortcomings and helplessness of victims have resulted in inappropriate media stereotypes of the communities concerned. Although it has certainly helped in fund raising campaigns, it appears to have negatively influenced both victims and the concerned governments. As an example, the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines showed the positive and the negative impacts of mass media coverage. This video presents a simple but clear illustration of the power of mass media, focusing on the case of Haiyan.

by Eloisa Rozul

Resilient futures: A game of high stakes

What is a game? It can be a form of competitive activities played according to rules, or an activity for amusement or entertainment, or structured, interactive activities that require thought and adaptation as part of challenges within a learning exercise. Learning by gaming about resilience is particularly ‘high stakes’, given our current climate of uncertainty, and exposes participants to new knowledge and skills without the risk that would otherwise be taken in the field.

Having a resilient future or resilience to a disaster can be learned from typical situations in society where the outcome of one group’s choices is critically dependent on the actions of other groups. Students often lack first-hand experience of disasters or of responding to them. Their understanding of resilience in a disaster context cannot often be learned externally from a real disaster. The ‘game’ therefore offers them that opportunity.

This project is about teaching students about resilience to disasters and about how to deal with the action of others which impact on their resilience. Games are part of all human experience from simple games learned early to complex games devised with rules. Humans are used to games in their experience and many lessons are learned throughout life as part of game playing: competing, strategy making, interacting in structured ways, making decisions and problem solving.

Many students who study disaster management don't have real life experience of disasters. In a management context, they do need experience to practice based on applicable principles learned through simulated contexts. Using practice which has been captured from disaster response and management practitioners and presented in “a system dynamics” format, scenarios can be created within which students can apply learned principles and then learn decision-making processes, in the context of disasters, about disaster response management and the consequences of the decisions they made, leading to understanding the transfer of knowledge to those affected to enable resilience in specific contexts.

The “systems dynamic” model enables multiple actors to act and react in various ways, learning from experience, building knowledge of action and its effectiveness, building principles of practice to apply in as many different disaster scenarios as they can, as effects can vary in almost every disaster event. However, to build this “systems dynamic” model requires extensive levels of knowledge. This knowledge can be captured from practitioners (disaster response and relevant agencies). This knowledge can then be modelled into the system with certain rules and algorithms which allow the system to produce (generate) results according to those rules, enabling learning and re-learning as contexts and conditions change in a ‘game’ situation.

The game played by these rules can then identify students who have demonstrated the ability to learn and adapt to rules and uncertainty which was captured from real life. The skills derived from this game of high stakes learning process will equip students to be ready for a disaster Resilient Future.

Call for papers: International Journal of Project Management Special issue “Managing Disaster Recovery Projects”

FOR THE ATTENTION OF international scholars researching project management aspects of post-disaster recovery!

You are invited to submit abstracts (by 31st December)  for an upcoming special issue entitled 'Managing Disaster Recovery Projects' in the International Journal of Project Management. We invite research papers on disaster recovery project management case studies, project issues and best practices that have had significant contributions to the success of disaster recovery projects.

Papers may address any aspect of project management for disaster recovery projects, such as risk management, scope management and project scheduling. Topics may include but not limited to:

• The role of project management methods in attaining successful disaster recovery 
• The methods, tools, processes, practices and/or knowledge areas used in managing disaster recovery projects 
• Experience and lessons in managing large disaster recovery projects (what worked, what didn't and why) 
• Governance and organization of disaster recovery projects 
• Stakeholders management and coordination 
• Factors affecting the success of managing disaster recovery projects 
• Measuring the performance of disaster recovery projects 
• Incorporation of disaster resilience paradigm in managing disaster recovery projects 
• Solving wicked problems in disaster recovery 
• Professionalism and disaster recovery

Both theoretical developments and case studies on the different levels and themes are welcome. All submissions will be sent to at least two independent reviewers. Authors should submit a maximum 1000 word abstract to get feedback about the suitability of the topic for the special issue. Please submit abstract directly to Professor Randy Rapp and Dr. Yan Chang-Richards. Once invited by the Guest Editors to submit for the special issue, papers should be submitted online, carefully following the Guide for Authors. Submitted papers will undergo a double-blind review process with multiple reviewers. All queries should be submitted directly to the guest editor.

Timeline:
• Abstract submission deadline: 31 December 2015
• Paper submission deadline: 1 April 2016
• Notifications to authors: 1 August 2016
• Expected publication date: early 2017


*much of this CFP was first published by IJPM *

Developing RES-SIM - A game changer

A little over a year ago, Sittimont and I thrashed out the initial concept for RES-SIM over lunch at the Tanner Bar. We brought Helen and Vanessa (RMIT) on board, as well as a strong advisory panel. Competition for OLT funding is more competitive than ever, but we pulled it off. In March, we officially commenced work on our OLT grant 'Modelling disaster resilience: enhancing student learning through trans-disciplinary simulation of wicked scenarios (RES-SIM)'.

RES-SIM will 'develop the conceptual model for a virtually distributed computer-based teaching and learning tool that enables students within and across disciplines (e.g. engineering, architecture, logistics), both on and off campus, to collaboratively acquire essential decision-making skills through immersion in a dynamic disaster system simulation.' 

In an educational environment, we need to search for innovative ways to replicate real-world scenarios. The last thing we want is for our graduates to be caught by surprise when faced with scenarios not encountered during the study of their disciplinary knowledge base. In many fields, a valuable strategy to bridge this experiential gap is to incorporate games/simulations/virtual experiences.

My first exposure to this was when I used a software tool that simulated the operations of a construction company as part of an assessment for architecture/engineering/construction management students in a Project Management course. The students worked in multi-disciplinary groups and made weekly decisions regarding different aspects of their company. Every weekend, a different scenario played out and afterwards, the group was able to analyse the impact of the decisions they had previously made.

As a researcher in disaster risk reduction, I have long been interested in how societal systems and subsystems respond to disturbance, both natural and human induced. Existing studies do attempt to classify and delineate these variables, however a multi-disciplinary evidence-base fit for the purpose of educating our students is far from complete. This project gives us the opportunity to compile the field data required to underpin a system resilience education tool.

'RES-SIM presents a revolutionary method of evaluating and responding to disaster scenarios, based on a holistic understanding of the affected systems and subsystems of society. This ‘whole-system’ approach will allow students (future emergency responders) to hone their judgement and decision-making in a safe environment that provides valuable feedback based on engineering-based, sociological-based and economic-based system dynamics.'

We live in challenging times. The educational landscape is shifting. Students engage differently. Graduate attributes in demand evolve alongside industries themselves, and our curriculum must keep up. In addition, the future of our global society is uncertain. Disaster risk continues to increase for many people inhabiting our planet. Besides the purely professional competencies embedded in the utilization of this learning tool, there is little doubt that society demands graduates with an understanding of disaster risk in complex systems in order to address the systemic problems that it faces.

When Sittimont and I first discussed the concept, we were excited by the possibilities. Now, the project team truly believes in making this a reality. RES-SIM can be a game changer.

The rising challenge to entitlement: disasters, migration and western values

2015 is a year of global agreements regarding climate change, disaster risk reduction and sustainable development. The new frameworks proposed will invariably require innovative strategies for change. But is society ready to accept change and adaptation for the good of future generations? Change invariably involves sacrifice. The belief that our very way of life is being eroded by the demands of environmentalists is prevalent, but we must consider who this narrative serves. The ‘risk’ of change to those who have accumulated power, wealth and resources under the status quo must not be ignored. An assessment of ruling-class risk may indeed help us to contextualise some of the important debate of 2015.

Entitled to Succeed

If schooling has taught us anything, it is that success manifests as wealth, power, achievements and accolades. ‘Work hard and succeed`, they say. ‘If you don't succeed, you didn't try hard enough’. Nobody likes to admit that disadvantage runs deep and 'failure' according to our system is more accurately predicted by socio-economic indicators than by work ethic. Those 'born to rule' hate to admit that privilege is a factor and will point to rags to riches success stories that supposedly prove that a meritocracy exists. However, the systemic inequality that is all around us challenges the very values of a free society that our democracies uphold.

What, in fact, are 'western values'? Freedom, justice, compassion? The freedom to accumulate. Retributive justice. Conditional compassion. Perhaps it's the expectation that someone be employed and pays taxes (so that our government can fund war and distribute private sector welfare).

In these times of austerity, most Western governments favour neoliberal economic ideologies and, as a consequence, policies that target the least at fault for economic crisis and the least able to afford cuts, taxes and levies. Underpinning this agenda is an insidious belief that the poor are lazy and the disabled are frauds. We are told that to help such poor souls, we must impose some sort of punishment. It’s the moral thing to do, after all.

Outsiders:

How does our perception of western values (and the incentives and punishments attached to these values) affect our attitude towards those outside our borders, and indeed towards the ‘others’ within our borders? It's hard to know what our values truly are, if you consider the rhetoric of our elected leaders. They preach social justice while passing legislation to persecute the vulnerable. Perhaps that is what social justice means to such ideologues. How do we view more than two billion in poverty worldwide, populations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine exposed to ongoing conflict or the disproportionate number of people in developing countries vulnerable to climate change?

Despite all of our advances, every second child on the planet lives in poverty. Of the world’s 2.2 billion children there are 1 billion in poverty. 18,000 children (under 5) still die every day from poverty, hunger and preventable disease. As UNICEF articulated in 2000, these children,

“die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

Do we consider that many of the problems felt beyond our borders persist as a result of inequality? Indeed, systemic inequality is capitalized upon by western corporate and governmental entities to maintain growth and accumulate wealth for the 1%. However unintentionally, we in the west are born with a perceived entitlement to benefit from this inequality, established hundreds of years ago, largely through slavery and the global domination and destruction of indigenous people groups.

Climate change, migration and disaster risk reduction:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts that,

"people who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally or otherwise marginalised are especially vulnerable to climate change."

Those most vulnerable; children, women, the elderly and the disabled, located in developing countries, already suffer disproportionately due to conflict and disaster. Needless to say, programs that address the underlying causes of this vulnerability have a significant impact on long term disaster risk. However, the current near-consensus towards technocratic solutions to poverty does little to reduce growing inequality and lack of individual freedom. Indeed, the solutions imposed by development experts often serve to increase vulnerability among the most marginalised in a society.

Extreme events force many more people from their homes than conflict, yet few governments are facing up to the potential of future mass migration. As of end-2013, 51.2million people were forcibly displaced worldwide. We cannot be entirely sure what the consequences will be of planetary boundaries being exceeded, but it is hardly a stretch to imagine that more people than ever would be forced to seek safe refuge from violent conflicts, stronger and more frequent natural hazards and food and water shortages.

Photo credit: worldmaritimenews

Perhaps the Hunger Games narrative isn’t so far-fetched.

Risk reduction holds a different meaning for the wealthy and for the poor. As renewable energy alternatives become accessible to all, entire industries are at risk. The opponents of freely available sustainable energy will fight on for their ‘right’ to collect profit in the years to come. Global agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will attempt to reinforce structures designed purely for profit and domination. Whether it is energy generation or food production - sustainability and resilience for you and I come at a cost to the global elite. Sustainability demands that we moderate/reduce consumption (largely procure from established corporate elite) while resilience empowers ‘people’ to cope for themselves (thus reducing reliance upon elite derived/powered systems and products).

Sameness or Variety:

No amount of positivity or optimism prevents people dying of thirst and starvation daily. Meanwhile, the west gets fatter. We place our faith in business, in foreign aid, in development, to provide the solution. Are we wrong to assume that this system, created by corporations, banks and government, will act in the interests of humanity? We so easily swallow the narrative that says that ‘the others’ are out to ruin life as we know it- single mothers, unemployed youth, the disabled and asylum seekers. But does our existence really depend on protecting ourselves from these vulnerable groups? The lie is pervasive. Our leaders tell us to just believe, over and over again.

While 3 million people turn out to advocate for free speech in Paris, there is little outrage against what Joseph Conrad called "the merry dance of death and trade." As sections of Western society become more and more polarised and marginalised, the ability to empathise with ‘others’ is rapidly eroded, within and beyond our borders.

Current global systems (economic/social/moral etc.) are ideologically flawed; they assign power, wealth and resources to the few at a detriment to the many. These systems are also highly contemptuous of change. A healthy system should naturally transition through periods of creative destruction, allowing innovation and creativity to flourish. Instead, we have been programmed to favour growth and conservation at all costs, while protecting the status quo.

Voltaire and Inequality

Can we envisage a world where no one starves to death or dies of treatable disease in any given day, and where everyone has access to life’s basic necessities? Do the poor choose to remain poor?

‘The comfort of the rich depends on an abundant supply of the poor.’ - Voltaire

If we truly do aspire to a more equitable and sustainable way of life, what needs to happen to make it a reality? Can current global systems deliver on such a vision or is such thinking ultimately utopian? The current status quo gives us a scenario where the poorest 10% of humanity account for just 0.5% ofconsumption while the wealthiest 10% account for 59%. The demand for global resources and strain on our environment does not arise due to the actions or inactions of the global poor. Economic distress is never caused by families on social welfare, it is caused by banks and corporations that effectively benefit from publicly sourced subsidies (source?). What is the tipping point for injustice, the last straw before moral outrage?

Is the very (western) way of life that we protect and treasure part of the global malaise? Are we so devoted to materialism, consumerism and individualism (the religions of the West, as defined by Russell Brand) that we would cast off all responsibility for the consequences of the flawed ideological underpinnings of empire and globalisation?

Voltaire’s oft-quoted and adapted words, ‘the best is the enemy of the good,’ in the poem La Begueule, are commonly used to justify failed systems or as pretext for trivial solutions. The correct meaning was in fact to warn against greed, envy and lack of gratitude. It was upon such a misconstrued meaning of Voltaire’s words that the Obama administration oversaw the robbery of US taxpayers to feed a reckless and greedy banking sector, as Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz points out. Consider this on a global scale...does the current economic system ‘require’ an abundant supply of the poor? Is growing inequality a positive thing, as argued by Kevin O’Leary? A 2014 report by Oxfam states that the richest 85 people in the world hold the same amount of wealth as the poorer half of humanity. Inequality is increasing all across the globe. The clear warning is that,

“when wealth captures government policymaking, the rules bend to favour the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else.”

Poverty. Inequality. War. The military industrial complex. Human trafficking. Crony capitalism. Humanity requires drastic reorganisation. However, those who benefit from sameness will not make way for variety without resistance.