Hurricane Sandy Response

In response to the Hurricane Sandy blog post, I thought the connections drawn between the residents of Breezy Point, as well as pro-social behavior Professor Talwalker mentions in her article, demonstrate unique insight into what we consider as top-down, paternalistic approaches to aid, and in what circumstances is it beneficial, or detrimental, to apply.

While the Breezy Point residents might be “too proud” to receive aid, and unwelcoming to FEMA volunteers attempting to deliver foodstuffs, shelters, supplies, etc., others would welcome the “handouts” which offer no form of sustainable aid relief, reconstruction, etc.  Thus, the main problems with aid—in any form—from natural disasters, poverty intervention, and environmental injustice, center around the marginalization and power politics of the community.   It also centers around the power dynamics of large, government initiatives to implement interventions (such as the Sach’s debate from GPP 115), or, the local, community-level mobilization and collaboration to provide alleviation (the Easterly debate).  The constant back-and-forth pull between the role of the state, and the role of the community remains a contentious battle. 

While government aid work might seem beneficial, in the case of natural disasters, disaster capitalism also might take into effect as well, in the case of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  The relative privileges and poverty level of both communities provides the distinction as to whether structural rebuilding, aid, and investment will return, and whether the community as a whole will advocate for its own independent voice.