aim was to link an objective reference frame back to appraisal-based coping theory by accounting for object resources and energies, which include time or money. How-ever, from an epistemological perspective caution is required if inherent qualities of objectivity and definiteness are projected on to material features. If we distinguish analytically between the object itself, our perception of it, and the functions and meanings attributed to it, constructivist approaches suggest that our epistemological access is limited to perception and interpretation, because any access to the object itself is inevitably mediated by social construction processes.1 Nevertheless, bio-physical objects are more than purely discursive or social phenomena, as we have argued in Chap. 1, with respect to the exosemiotic forces of nature (Oliver-Smith 2002). As biophysical aspects shape social contexts and condition the way humans engage with them through their specific material qualities, we follow Clarke’s (2005) suggestion and adopt a materialist social constructivism.
The material aspects of coping are embedded in interpretative patterns and world-views, as well as in social practices and settings. A cultural psychology approach to material resources must therefore account for its contextual qualities and dynamics.
Economics is much more than just survival and necessity, as utilitarists claim: eco-nomic anthropologists have emphasized that despite being the foundation of survival, economic activity is always a cultural practice in itself and, as such, is embedded in sociocultural contexts which provide normative settings for livelihood strategies, construction practices, or consumption (see Rössler2006). Similarly, housing is not just about the basic need for shelter, but constitutes a cultural practice involving aspects such as status expressions, lifestyle choices, norms and limits, or emotional attachments. Threatening lives and destroying physical surroundings, disasters of-ten expose the interrelations of material and sociocultural life (Oliver-Smith2002) because, in the aftermath of disaster, the physical world is rebuilt and losses as well as resources are (re)evaluated.
The following analysis aims at developing an understanding of the complex dy-namics of (material) coping and disaster aid “on the ground.” The mostly qualitative account of material features of disaster coping serves to eliminate the interrelations between subjective coping processes, social dynamics, and material conditions. By highlighting the subjective experience of these material features, such as emotional responses, ascribed values and meanings, and strategies and attitudes, my aim is to ex-pand on prevailing disaster management perspectives. The first three sections of this chapter are organized in a roughly chronological order and trace the dynamics of ma-terial resource loss through the earthquake to compensation or gain in its aftermath. I begin with an analysis of survivors’ initial assessments of their physical environment and then proceed to discuss emergency relief and long-term recovery, understanding both of these disaster management phases, not as strictly temporal but rather as man-agerial and analytical. I will conclude by turning to the narrative and interpretative level of material coping, pointing to interrelations with other coping dimensions, such as life conduct, social and religious features. Balancing the requirements of
1Our interview data provide us with a first-degree interpretative account of these material features, while a second-degree interpretation of qualitative research analysis is presented here.
comprehensiveness and in-depth analysis, I have chosen to highlight the aspects of food, livelihoods, and shelter, while setting aside others here, such as infrastructure.
9.1 Initial Assessment of the Physical Environment
At first, when it happened, nobody realized that this was an earthquake. Because we heard the sound of an awful explosion. [. . . ] and then, it became dark, [. . . ] because of all the dust. Ya, ‘bler’ and all of a sudden everything . . . was razed to the ground. Like after a bomb attack. (Pak Ahmad, Sendang)
For most of the villagers, when the earthquake struck, it represented an unexpected and direct interruption to their daily lives. When it began at 5.55 a.m., only a few people were still asleep, and most were already following their morning routines. The onset itself is often reported as a strange sound from underneath the earth, suddenly followed by the ground trembling. Subsequently, everything collapsed into ruins, causing vast amounts of dust to spread. The limited visibility reinforced an overall sense of disorientation: What had just happened? The immediate response was that everyone was concerned with securing their own survival, locating family members, and rescuing those trapped in the ruins. The overwhelming extent of the disaster demanded spontaneous prioritizations, and most people chose to care for their own families first before assisting their neighbors (see Chap. 10). Soon villagers started to improvise medical treatment, sought food, water, and shelter, and proceeded to bury the dead.
However, only a few hours later, rescue activities were interrupted by the rumor of a subsequent tsunami. Panic spread fast, as most people instantly recalled horrifying media images of the Aceh/Nias tsunami of 2004. Depicting a general atmosphere of fear and chaos, most respondents recall their instant response being to flee. How-ever, fleeing posed difficult dilemmas: Should we leave our property unsupervised?
Should I locate all my family members prior to fleeing? Or should I at least save the one child who is with me? Should we run to survive, but leave the weak and injured behind? Should we abandon the corpses? Confronted with these questions, several families decided to stay despite their fear. Others followed the mass move-ment toward the north, until hours later, governmove-ment officials successfully corrected the misinformation and encouraged people to return to their villages. By official standards, only the area of Mulya Sari qualifies as a tsunami risk zone because of its proximity to the sea. However, the panic had spread far inland, beyond all our research sites up to the city of Yogyakarta, which is located over 25 km from the coast and is 100 m above sea level (Schlehe2006). However, few respondents in Sido Kabul and Sendang reported that they resisted the rumor and critically assessed its basis, with some of them referring to the risk calculation of the geographical area, while others sought confirmation from relatives living on the coast or inspected the water level of the nearby river.
Apart from this wave of panic, the emergency was further intensified by adverse weather conditions and aftershocks. The first night especially is often described as a
horrifying scenario, in which a constant level of perceived threat prevailed until the next morning. A region-wide power blackout had left the villages in total darkness:
After the earthquake, there was no food for one day and one night—it was totally dark.
Off and on “yeeg, yeeg”, another earthquake came. Not as awful as the original one, but approximately every five to ten minutes there was an earthquake, day and night. It was raining heavily; we had no electricity; it was totally dark. Everyone sought shelter with whatever they could find. There was no food, no food at all. (Pak Daryono, Sendang) No external aid had yet reached the villages, and communication with the outside world was extremely limited.2 In an atmosphere of disorientation, fear, and de-spair, people fearfully asked themselves what would happen next. Some felt that the world might be coming to an end, that doomsday (kiamat) had come. Inter-pretations like this need to be analyzed against the (discursive) presence of three geological hazards—volcanic eruption, earthquake, and tsunami—as well as the adverse weather conditions. People were exposed to a combination of (perceived) natural forces, and even though there was no tsunami, through the power of rumor, fear of it became an integral part of the disaster situation itself and shaped people’s perceptions and responses. The effects of this collectively perceived threat, as well as the frightening experience of the first night, need to be analyzed as interrelated sources of extreme emotional distress and hence as elements of disaster exposure.
Crisis behavior was adjusted to how survivors assessed their physical environment.
There was initial confusion concerning the agent of the destruction, even though minor tremors are a common occurrence in the area. This was because, prior to the earthquake, experts had mobilized the public for an imminent volcanic eruption of Mount Merapi, located 27 km north of Yogyakarta city, far enough for Mulya Sari, Sido Kabul, and Sendang not to count as risk zones. Overwhelmed by the sensual–
emotional experience of the destructive tremor, people only gradually developed an understanding of the situation (see Sect. 11.3). At first, they could only guess at the extent of the destruction as their perception was impaired physically by the dust and psychologically by an emotional state of shock and confusion. If we look at the extremes, some respondents initially assumed that the destruction was minor and that only their house or village had collapsed, while others speculated the whole world coming to an end. These immediate presumptions represent different instant interpretations of the situation, which were later amended. Quite a few respondents mentioned a feeling of relief when they first realized that not only their own house had collapsed but that their entire neighborhood was in ruins. This runs counter to the quantitative logic of material resources, according to which rebuilding a single house seems much easier than rebuilding a whole village or region. However, in contrast, respondents found solace in sharing their loss and facing the same challenges as their neighbors. As members of the local community, they feared being singled out in suffering: Neighbors could talk and speculate about the self-induced reasons for such a collapse, from bad construction to sinful behavior. On the other hand, the household that had lost its home would need to ask everyone else for help, without being able to
2Communication networks reportedly did not break down immediately, and some mobile phones could be used on occasion to contact relatives or the emergency services.