Ecology of Fear

The capacity of identifying different problems and issues correspond to a specific level of analysis that takes into account factors that revolve around its implementation and practice. Such dynamics then allow better means of analyzing its relevance and application towards reality. The book by Mike Davis corresponds not only towards offering a new perspective that mixes environmentalism, historical analysis and geographical considerations but also identifying key trends that have shaped the limited perspective in realizing the value of how man contributes towards the escalation of its own protective policies against disasters.

Analyzing the main theme supplemented by Davis in the book, it can be seen that its argument resounds in the idea of seeking to understand the capacity of exploring directions towards the expansion and development of urbanization and value of Los Angeles. By taking into account how these happened best explains the process of how inhabitants continue to adapt to the corresponding trends related to the environmental risks associated in the location (Harvey, p. 1). By exploring this area, Davis takes then into account the validity of how people in Los Angeles responded to these realities and what makes it problematic in several accounts.

To begin with this analysis, Davis tries to explore the corresponding risks associated in Los Angeles to readers. The main thrust of this has been to involve readers in understanding the evolution not only of how people respond to these calamities but also in the manner on how policies have evolved in accordance to these scenarios. By using a historical analysis, David immerses into investigation of these relevant patterns and tries to debunk meaning on each one and relates them to the overall value of fostering transcendence over such issues.

In particular, Orsi argues that “the citizens of Los Angeles have imagined disasters through a lens of fear and misunderstanding and that the result is a profoundly inegalitarian society is apocalyptically out of balance with its environment” (p. 1). One evident example explored by Davis in the book corresponds to the ability of Los Angeles to face the existence of natural calamities. Here, careful consideration was made in tracing disasters in history and provided the justification that the location remains to be dangerous and risky to be habituated.

However, there must have been a detente of such occurrence that have paved the way for people to take part in community building measures. Though this may seem to be the case, the inevitability of these threats remains to be existent and would only involve paranoia and fear on the part of locals (Davis, p. 55). After trying to unlock the environmental and geographical history of Los Angeles by exposing its natural calamities, the succeeding chapter tries to establish man-made changes in the area since it has been first inhabited.

Here, the main argument explored by Davis situates itself in the value man has made to instill further suspicion about the real situation in the environment and what the community has made in relation to these calls (Harvey, p. 3). In essence, this specific chapter sought to consolidate the human approach in dealing with these scenarios and how they had been used as instruments not only in adhering to self-interest goals but also the manner wherein one can gain profit from.

It is through such reality that Davis criticizes the current system and places the blame on what these aspects can do towards the mindset of the citizenry in relation to disasters and policy development. The succeeding chapters then connote the establishment of connections between the social realm and the responsiveness of people in Los Angeles with the environment. Here, it tries to showcase the immediate changes that have happened through history and illustrated what type of reactions and actions were made in order to avert these problems.

In essence, these elements then provided the necessary disruption not only with regards to the status quo but also the perceptions among communities concerning the significance and value of living in such areas. One example highlighted by Davis explores the relationship between the wildfires of Malbu and that modifying and improving fire prevention and protection. This media hyped category then infused better means of bridging together the essential policies and how they had been treated with specific attention to policy development and not in the challenges it has brought to the community in terms of loss of lives (Davis, p.

88). These in turn open up better means of facilitating an idea of how limited the capacity of responsiveness is and what areas have been used to supplement this for an ulterior purpose and goals. Exploring further the instillation of fear and paranoia to the people also brought about the killings of animals and natural wildlife in California. Here, the corresponding drive towards ensuring security and protection provided the rationale for urbanization and continued exhaustion of natural resources in the region (Orsi, p. 2).

This specific analogy then depicts an analysis that not only supplements the meaning and value of how reactions to these situations are made but also the ability of social constructs and instruments were used in order to fulfill its specific objectives and goals. Similarly, this was further supplemented by the old and new literature depicting disaster in Los Angeles. Such portrayal of these scenes becomes the sufficient justification in reinforcing paranoia and suspicion towards the capacity of individuals to respond accordingly given man’s specific limitations.

Though the book may argue that these films satisfied their particular goal and purpose, it failed to consider its social impact within the community and their ability to shape particular directions related to expansion and furthering opportunities related to environmental awareness and sustenance by collaboration (Davis, p. 422). Overall, the book of Davis seeks to provide the justification in seeking to establish the connection between social standards and realties with that of environmentalism.

By utilizing a historical documentation and investigation, the book was able to transcend common patterns that have shaped identity building and associations by people from Los Angeles to their environment. However, due to man’s continued exploits to seek personal gains and interests, it has then provided a misguided and alternative view of seeing these realities. In the end, the book provides an important ability to convey the meaning of disasters towards inhabitants. Here, it showcases the value and ability to connote meanings to social associations.

Seeing this, though Davis was critical towards the manner it was portrayed to people in Los Angeles, it also serves a good way to analyze the costs of these dynamics as it relates to elements related to social principles such as race, gender, and the socialization process itself. Works Cited Davis, Mike. Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disaster. 1999 (US; Vintage Books). Harvey, David. ‘Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disaster by Mike Davis – A Review. ’ Harvard Design Magazine. 1999 no. 8, pp. 1-3 Orsi, Jared. ‘Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. ’ H-Net Reviews. 1998, pp. 1-4

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published.