Foundations of Science

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 245–257 | Cite as

Data Mining the Intellectual Revival of ‘Catastrophic’ Mother Nature

Article

Abstract

Earth-shaping catastrophic events have long focused the attention of the geographical and geological sciences, and captured the public imagination. During the past 40 years, neocatastrophism has emerged as a key paradigm that reflects widespread changes involving cultural, scientific, political and technological spheres. Nonetheless, the extent, chronology and origin of this trend are equivocal. Here, we use Google Ngram to quantitatively explore the recent development of catastrophism. We elucidate a discernable rise in neocatastrophic thinking during the last quarter of the twenty-first century that can be linked to the environmental awakening of the 1960s. It is suggested that these discourses of ‘shock’ and ‘fear’ partly correspond to a media-driven dramatization of natural hazards, exploited by scientists and journalists to attract wider readership.

Keywords

Catastrophism Neocatastrophism Disaster science Natural hazards 

References

  1. Ager D. (1993) The new catastrophism: The importance of the rare event in geological history. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez L. W., Alvarez W., Asaro F., Michel H. V. (1980) Extraterrestrial cause for the cretaceous—tertiary extinction. Science 208: 1095–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo A. C. (2006) The Lisbon earthquake of 1755—public distress and political propaganda. e-JPH 4: 1–11Google Scholar
  4. Babin C. (2005) Autour du catastrophisme: Des mythes et légendes aux sciences de la vie et de la Terre. Vuibert, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck U. (1992) Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Betâmio de Almeida, A. (2009). The 1755 Lisbon earthquake and the genesis of the risk management concept. In L. Mendes-Victor, C. Sousa Oliveira, J. Azevedo, & A. Ribeiro (Eds.), The 1755 Lisbon earthquake: revisited (pp. 147–165). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Boştenaru-Dan, M. (2010). The earthquakes and the tsunami of 1755 and 2004—historic accidents Bulletin of the Polytechnic Institute of Jassy, LVI(LX), 107–120.Google Scholar
  8. Boykoff J., Boykoff M. T. (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: A case study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38(6): 1190–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boykoff M. T. (2008) Media and scientific communication: A case of climate change. Geological Society 305: 11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buell F. (2003) From apocalypse to way of life: Environmental crisis in the American Century. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Commoner B. (1971) The closing circle: Nature, man, and technology. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Courtillot V. (1999) Evolutionary catastrophes: The science of mass extinction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Cronon W. (1992) A place for stories: Nature, history, and narrative. Journal of American History 78: 1347–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Debord G. (1977) The society of the spectacle. Black & Red Books, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunlap T. (2004) Faith in nature: Environmentalism as religious quest. University of Washington Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Durham F. (2008) Media ritual in catastrophic time: The populist turn in television coverage of Hurricane Katrina. Journalism 9: 95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dynes R. (2005) The Lisbon earthquake in 1755: The first modern disaster. In: Braun T. E. D., Radner J. B. (Eds.), The Lisbon earthquake of 1755: Representations and reactions. Voltaire Foundation, Oxford, pp PP–3449Google Scholar
  18. Garfield E. (2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association 293: 90–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grundmann R., Krishnamurthy R. (2010) The discourse of climate change: A corpus-based approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 4: 125–146Google Scholar
  20. Hecht J. (2009) Beware earth-shattering headlines. New Scientist 201(2694): 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hooykaas R. (1959) Natural law and divine miracle: A historical–critical study of the principle of uniformity in geology, biology and theology. Brill Publication, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  22. Huggett R. J. (1997) Catastrophism: Asteroids, comets and other dynamic events in earth history. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hulme M. (2008) The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geographical Journal 174: 5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Killingsworth M. J., Palmer J. S. (1996) Millennial Ecology: The apocalyptic narrative from silent spring to global warming. In: Herndl C. G., Brown S. C. Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America. University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin, p 2145Google Scholar
  25. Levins R., Lewontin R. (1985) The dialectical biologist. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Marriner N., Morhange C., Skrimshire S. (2010) Geoscience meets the four horsemen? Tracking the rise of neocatastrophism. Global and Planetary Change 74: 43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michel, J. B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K.Google books team., Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., & Aiden, E. L. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331, 176–182.Google Scholar
  28. Moisi D. (2009) The geopolitics of emotion: How cultures of fear, humiliation, and hope are reshaping the world. Anchor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Oerlemans O. (2002) Romanticism and the materiality of nature. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer T. (1994) Catastrophism, neocatastrophism and evolution. Nottingham Trent University Press, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmer T. (2003) Perilous planet earth. Catastrophes and Catastrophism through the Ages. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Quenet G. (2005) Les Tremblements de Terre aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. La naissance d’un risque. Champ Vallon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Risbey J. B. (2008) The new climate discourse: Alarmist or alarming?. Global Environmental Change 18: 26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rudwick M. J. S. (2007) Bursting the limits of time: The reconstruction of geohistory in the age of revolution. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Rudwick M. J. S. (2008) Worlds before adam: The reconstruction of geohistory in the age of reform. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanders T. D., Zeilingade Boer J. (2005) Earthquakes in human history: The far-reaching effects of seismic disruptions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Schindewolf O. H. (1963) Studien zur Stammesgeschichte der Ammoniten. Abhandlungen der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen. Klasse Jahrgang 6: 289–432Google Scholar
  38. Shoemaker E. M. (1977) Why study impact craters?. In: Roddy D. J., Pepin R. O., Merrill R. B. (Eds.), Impact and explosion cratering. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 1–110Google Scholar
  39. Steinberg T. (2002) Down to earth: Nature’s role in American history. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Ungar S. (2000) Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: Climate change versus the ozone hole. Public Understanding of Science 9: 297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walter F. (2008) Catastrophes. Une histoire culturelle. Seuil, Paris, pp XVIe–XXIeGoogle Scholar
  42. Whewell, W. (1832). Review of Lyell’s principles of geology…, vol. II, London, 1832. The Quaterly Review, XLVII, 103–132.Google Scholar
  43. Zerefos C., Gerogiannis V., Balis D., Zerefos S., Kazantzidis A. (2007) Atmospheric effects of volcanic eruptions as seen by famous artists and depicted in their paintings. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 7: 4027–4042CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEREGE CNRS UMR 7330Université Aix-MarseilleAix-en-Provence cedex 04France

Personalised recommendations