This article constructively challenges the often cited distinction between the so-called hazard and vulnerability perspectives in disaster studies. In a context of increasingly intertwined, dense, and complex socioecological dynamics, disaster scholars often hold onto an apparently untenable distinction between nature and culture, manifested as either a hazard or a vulnerability approach. This article maintains that the typically undesired approach (the hazard approach) is inherent to the preferred (vulnerability) perspective. The article builds on Oliver-Smith’s (2013) critique of the magnitude of requirements placed upon practitioners given the full implications of the vulnerability perspective. Although critical of the vulnerability perspective, this article does not fundamentally disagree with the validity of its claims. Instead, by drawing on the pragmatist philosophy of Rorty (1989) and by demonstrating the potential value of posthumanism for disaster studies, I wish to argue for greater pragmatism within disaster scholarship. The article considers the recent petition or manifesto for disaster studies (Gaillard et al. 2019) for more inclusive disaster research as a potential opportunity to challenge the aforementioned nature–culture distinction in the field, as the petition signed by a number of disaster scholars outlines various concerns over the asymmetrical power relations between local and external researchers. These power relations have adverse consequences for the appropriateness of knowledge production in many contexts. I am primarily concerned with the very local level of disaster occurrence, where posthumanism might be most valuable.

本文以建设性的方式挑战了灾难研究中经常提及的所谓危害与脆弱性观点之间的区别。在日益交织在一起的，密集的和复杂的社会生态动态的背景下，灾难学者常常坚持自然与文化之间似乎站不住脚的区分，表现为一种危险或脆弱性方法。本文认为，通常首选的方法（危险方法）是首选（脆弱性）观点所固有的。文章基于奥利弗·史密斯（Oliver-Smith（2013））的批评，即鉴于漏洞观点的全部含义，对从业人员提出的要求数量庞大。尽管批评脆弱性观点，但本文从根本上不同意其声明的有效性。代替，通过借鉴罗蒂（Rorty，1989）的实用主义哲学，并论证了后人文主义在灾难研究中的潜在价值，我希望在灾难学术中主张更大的实用主义。这篇文章认为最近的灾害研究请愿书或宣言（Gaillard等人，2019年）是更具包容性的灾害研究的一个潜在机会，可以挑战上述领域的上述自然文化差异，正如许多灾害学者签署的请愿书概述的那样关于本地和外部研究人员之间的不对称权力关系的各种担忧。在许多情况下，这些权力关系都会对知识生产的适当性产生不利影响。我主要关注的是灾难发生在当地的地方，在那之后人文主义可能是最有价值的。