Interagency disaster management Essay

Introduction The term â€Å"disaster† has only transient significance. It is a set off, a flag to signal a meaning, a spur to produce a specific reaction. Yet it has almost no significance for the activities that are carried out under the marque of a disastrous event. Disasters do not cause effects. The effects are what we call a disaster (Dombrowsky 1998, 21). No disaster â€Å"works† and an earthquake is not anything more than shock waves, never a fist that hits a city. The term that â€Å"a disaster strikes† is as wrong as saying â€Å"the winds blow,† as there is no separate process that swells the cheeks to rage. Wind is air in explicit motion, not a separate being that makes the air move. In a definite way, it is the same with disasters: there is no difference between a disaster and its effects. And to cope with disaster, Disaster Management came into existence. Crozier and Friedberg characterize a Disaster Management organization as a â€Å"merger of human beings with the aim to solve their vital problems† (1979:12). The capabilities of the organization for problem-solving, however, develop step by step from those solutions that have been successful in the first place. Read more:  Sharing Responsibility During Disaster Disaster Management, as Crozier and Friedberg put it, and then lean to organize themselves around their success. In the long run, the successful solutions particularly have to be defended against competitors and envy. Thus, the operation of organizations leans to turn into a hedgehog position. Progressively, the operation of the organization is transferred into the centre of the efforts of its members. at that time, an organization has turned to selfishness. Its only interests are self-preservation; the organization is controlling itself, with the original reason for its establishment being turned into a subordinate, accessory matter. Simultaneously, the discernment of reality changes from a creative, problem-oriented awareness, toward a cynical, solution-oriented persistence. Instead of scanning for upcoming problems, the self-preserving organization describes reality within the framework of its available resolutions. The interest is less in focusing on potential solutions for upcoming problems, but more on the applicability of the available solutions. This shift is significant because it marks a difference in the ways of perceiving the world. The primary way is analyzing the problem in favour of finding a passable solution. Thus, basic aim of interagency disaster management is not to focus on the fundamental problems of the victims, but on the solutions they have at hand or can offer. Reality then is completely seen from one approach; the solution defines the problem, and deductively, reality. â€Å"Disaster management † are mainly defined this way. The cases where warm clothing was sent to African famines or thousands of tons of contraceptives or cough mixtures were sent to mass victim situations are not only mistakes, but the rational outcome of the inner dynamics of self-preserving organizations. The concept is characteristically used in disaster medicine and in emergency planning for nuclear accidents. Also directly influenced by practice are those conceptualizations of disaster that are built along the distinctive planning and action systems of emergency management. Successful community-based and participatory approaches to disaster management often distinguish local human capacity as well as susceptibility. Empowering those most pretentious by disaster through a role in management, planning and response can have psychosocial and practical gains. People exposed to disaster might have come close to death, which might shake their belief in themselves and their principles to the foundations. Life might be perceived as chaos, diminishing their ability to respond adequately to the new situation, manage their lives and meet basic needs. Rebuilding the foundation will form meaning from chaos, and much of the foundation in life is build on human relations.