ABSTRACT
To avoid misinterpretation it must be emphasised that my analysis should not in any way be construed as ‘disaster denialism ’. Instead of denying the problem of disaster or the sentiments from which the initial idea of disaster reduction emerged, the argument is simply that this industry, created to alleviate very real dangers, has taken on a form that is not very beneficial, if not at times detrimental, to the initial cause. The book does not offer the alternative recipe for emancipation a critic might demand. That would be impossible, as such prescription cannot possibly contend with the uniqueness of each context. The book holds certain arguments at the aggregate or national level of analysis, but it recognises that meaningful interventions at lower levels can be tailored only through consistent and open-ended dialogue, with ordinary citizens contributing their particular interpretations of a context of which they are perhaps most knowledgeable.
