Contested Hazardification: Raising, Suppressing, and Resolving Conflicts on Emergency Definition

Abstract (English)

While we often take for granted what counts as a 'hazard,' 'emergency,' or 'disaster,' the social construction of these categories profoundly shapes what crises are worth responding to, who receives aid, and even what grassroots and self-protective responses are allowed. Building on Jay Balagna's "hazardification" framework, we use a variety of case studies to explore the ways in which the 'hazardification' of a particular threat by those in power is contested. We argue that the lines of power - who exerts power and control over the definition of hazards; who tries to shed these responsibilities; and how non-privileged actors push back on these framings - are often in flux, and that a framework of 'hazardification' needs to incorporate a critical studies approach to examining how emergencies are defined and redefined.