Craig Calhoun poses an interesting paradigm when he splits society’s management of disaster into the three categories of minimizing risks, preparing to respond to disaster, and considering ways of sharing the subsequent burdens. He posits that American, even global, society has only focused in responding to disaster and has ignored the preparatory considerations and the inherent inequality of disasters’ effects on different levels of society.

Personally, I see this problem as stemming from what neoconservatives and the general population’s idolatry of the “rugged individual” who cares for himself on the frontier of life. This, of course, ignores the inequalities of resources, education, and social position laid upon less fortunate Americans who would like to help themselves but just don’t see a way. Individualism would be possible in a society where a more even playing field is laid out. As a market economy and a republican government are not likely to enforce equality (which would then impair the individual’s freedom), it would be wise for us to consider what we consider to be a proper response to and preparation for disasters. No one person is going to construct a levee to protect his own house from a hurricane. The government should be used by the people in order to maximize their own safety and quality of life; the government should not use the people’s money in the name of “safety” to line their own pockets while ignoring the plight of the less privileged.

People have responded to disasters independently of the government in a few ways, but not to a long term effect. Social media, for example, is a great platform for raising funds and awareness. But in the long term, it could be better used to further policy initiatives. Charities can only respond to disasters — so when the government insists that private organizations should care for afflicted citizenry, it would do well to consider that it alone has the power to create policy that directs and protects whole bodies of people.