[Radix] Burma/Myanmar Cyclone Disaster Diplomacy

[Guy Sapirstein]

Max,
To the best of my recollection, the model was phenomenological rather  
than quantitative in nature.  "Community Cohesion" referred to the  
affected population and their sense of "coming together".  Since the  
model was developed for planning mental health interventions it  
focused on the population at large rather than on its leadership.  To  
the best my knowledge they were not referring to external agencies  
(NGO's, governmental, etc.).

It would seem to me that collaboration would best be fostered in the  
earlier stage (Heroism, culminating in cohesion) along side awareness  
building that this state of unity will not prevail unless the entire   
community comes together in the recovery efforts as well as  
mitigation of future hazards (natural or human).  The early phase, in  
my experience, is a time where more vulnerable segments of the  
population (e.g. women, poor) are as important in terms of their  
contribution to the efforts as traditionally more powerful segments.   
It is during that early phase that engagement of the vulnerable needs  
to take place -- both in terms of their own sense of agency and in  
terms of "having a seat at the table" -- future collaboration and  
decision making.

My own personal bias, being a psychologist, is to engage people based  
on their psycho-social needs.  During and after crisis and disaster  
those needs can be summarized as: Safety, Predictability and  
Control.  "Transcending two sides of civil conflict" can occur (more  
easily) when those needs are addressed and met.

Regarding metrics:  The field of social psychology (and perhaps  
sociology) has metrics for cohesion (although it's been a while since  
I was up on the current state of the research).

Best,

Guy
______________________________
Guy Sapirstein
ORI, llc



On May 6, 2008, at 5:03 AM, Max Boykoff wrote:

> Thanks for the attachment. I wondered with the figure though how  
> was ‘cohesion’ defined? What are the parameters? Across community  
> leaders? Everyone? Within certain sectors? With aid agencies? There  
> are multiple interpretations possible and many with mixed results  
> over the long-term.
>
> This also refers back to George Kent and Ben Wisner’s comments on  
> ‘transcending two sides of civil conflict’.
>
> I wonder if this ‘cohesion’ metric ends up as useful/useless as  
> ‘social capital’.
>
> Cheers,
> max
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Max Boykoff, Ph.D.
> James Martin 21st Century Research Fellow
> Environmental Change Institute
> University of Oxford
> www.eci.ox.ac.uk/people/boykoffmax.php
> From: radix-bounces at ecie.org [mailto:radix-bounces at ecie.org] On  
> Behalf Of Guy Sapirstein
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:34 AM
> To: bwisner at igc.org
> Cc: George Kent; radix at ecie.org; Gabrielle Kruks-Wisner; Richard  
> Krajeski
> Subject: Re: [Radix] Burma/Myanmar Cyclone Disaster Diplomacy
>
> The previous points regarding cohesion following the event and  
> subsequent conflict are nicely depicted in the attached slide  
> describing the timeline of the psycho-social impact of disasters.
>
> (Please feel free to use, source is:ZUNIN, L. M. & MYERS, D.  
> (2000). Training Manual for Human Service Workers inMajor  
> Disasters. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Department of Health and  
> HumanServices Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services  
> Administration, Center forMental Health Services; DHHS Publication  
> No. ADM 90-538. [available online]http://www.mentalhealth.org/ 
> publications/allpubs/ADM90-538/tmpreface.asp).
>
> Best,
>
> Guy
> ______________________________
> Guy Sapirstein
> ORI, llc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ecie.org/pipermail/radix/attachments/20080506/94bffda8/attachment-0001.htm