Abstract
We examine the social burden associated with resilience to environmental shocks in pre-modern societies. We argue that analyses of state-level interventions to mitigate the consequences of catastrophic events tend to isolate these measures from their larger social contexts and thereby overlook the uneven distribution of their burden across different groups. We use three cases of pre-modern societies in the northeastern Mediterranean - the sixth century Roman Empire, the tenth century Byzantine Empire, and the sixteenth century Ottoman Empire. We demonstrate how the adaptive processes that reinforced resilience at the state level incurred different burdens for those at lower levels of the social hierarchy. We found that some groups sustained losses while others gained unexpected benefits in the context of temporary systemic instability. We also found that although elites enjoyed enhanced buffers against the adverse effects in comparison with non-elites, this did not consistently guarantee them a better outcome. We conclude that the differentiated burden of resilience could in some cases entrench existing political or economic configurations, and in other cases, overturn them. Our case studies indirectly address the pressing issue of environmental justice.
Highlights
The popularity of resilience in academic literature and policymaking has increased over the past few decades (Folke 2006)
The term was soon introduced to the social systems and even the humanities
The three case studies below examine complex societies in the northeastern Mediterranean and the ways in which they spread the social burden of resilience across their different constituent
Summary
The popularity of resilience in academic literature and policymaking has increased over the past few decades (Folke 2006). The three case studies below examine complex societies in the northeastern Mediterranean (the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman empires) and the ways in which they spread the social burden of resilience across their different constituent. Cutter et al (2003) aggregated about 20 general factors that can affect the social vulnerability of individuals or groups Using modern data, they found that the most important of these were personal wealth, age, density of the built environment, single-sector economic dependence, and housing stock and tenancy. They found that the most important of these were personal wealth, age, density of the built environment, single-sector economic dependence, and housing stock and tenancy Together, these five factors explain about 50% of the variability in social vulnerability at the US county level. Social complexity is an abstract, continuous variable, which is typically correlated with increased population, inequality, and heterogeneous occupational specialization
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have