REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM IMPACT MAGAZINE – AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
A NEW LENS ON DISASTER PREVENTION, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY Kevin Rowell In March 2008, Daniel Goleman, author of the bestseller Emotional Intelligence, deconstructed the emotional impacts of Hurricane Katrina in an article in the magazine Greater Good. He was highlighting a phenomenon that he, and many of us, witnessed in the wake of the hurricane: “Leaders at the highest levels were weirdly detached, despite the abundant evidence on our TV screens that they needed to snap to action.” Were leaders trying to remain “cool in a crisis,” as emphasized by traditional models of disaster response? That stance, Goleman noted, can come across as detachment and apathy. In the case of Katrina, he wrote, “The victims’ pain was exacerbated by such indifference to their suffering.” As we prepare for future floods and other disasters, research on social intelligence— especially empathy—has lessons for policy makers and first responders about the best way to handle themselves during such a crisis. But disaster professionals then need to go further to build a new way of interacting with communities. Understanding Trauma and Empathy The American Psychological Association explains that trauma is an emotional response to a terrible event. Immediately after the event, shock and denial are typical. In the longer term, reactions include unpredictable emotions, flashbacks, strained relationships, and even physical symptoms like headaches or nausea. Disaster is a special, collective kind of trauma, and floods are a special kind of disaster. Hurricanes and floods like Katrina, Sandy, and Maria are now part of the collective American memory. In the time that follows a catastrophe, individual survivors experience trauma that can last a lifetime, and collective trauma ripples through the communities directly affected. As these ripples spread outward, they have physical, social, cultural, environmental, economic, and other kinds of impacts. FMA NEWS
After more than two decades of international work as a shelter and building materials specialist, I have my own emotional memories that stick with me. The smell of burning tires and concrete dust takes me back to the streets of Haiti in the days after the 2010 earthquake. Wiping sweat from my brow in searing heat reminds me of being inside the plastic tarp shelters that house the more than 1.2 million Rohingya refugees who fled genocide in Myanmar for refuge in Bangladesh. While we all respond differently to disaster, these kinds of emotional triggers keep me connected to my own experiences and help arouse the empathy needed to serve others in response to a disaster. It makes me think of the ways our collective human experience requires appreciation for our interdependence. Not all empathy, however, is created equal. In his article, Goleman cites psychologist Paul Ekman, an expert on the ability to read and respond to others’ emotions. Ekman defines three main forms of empathy: Cognitive empathy is knowing how other people feel and what they might be thinking, but because it does not involve internalizing others’ emotions, it can leave people so detached that they do nothing to help sufferers. Emotional empathy is feeling what other people feel. This form of empathy also has a downside: if first responders, for instance, become overwhelmed with distressing emotions, they may find themselves paralyzed or emotionally exhausted. In situations of disaster, like floods and hurricanes, a third kind of empathy is more useful: compassionate empathy, which gives us an understanding of a person’s predicament, allows us to feel with them, and moves us to help if needed. Compassionate empathy is not innate, says Ekman, but rather a skill, the acquired knowledge “that we’re all connected.”
