Ethnocultural perspectives on disaster and trauma can be considered one of the fewer books relating to the ethnic and cultural differences between victims and responders in context of disasters. This valuable book examines in depth the role played by culture not only the process of recovery but also in the communication process. The book is structured in three sections and 14 well‐written chapters authored by a set of invited international scholars. Ethnocultural and racial variation are of paramount importance to determine the effects of disaster in societies. The main argument throughout this book is that ethnocultural minorities develop different forms to intellectualize the impacts post‐disaster adjusting the focus in the process of resilience. Following this, the Section I gives preliminary information about the concept of disaster as well as the cultural encounter between responders and survivors. Section II, which is likely the stronger one of the book, refers to the vulnerable role of minorities inside and beyond American society. Section III deals with two short papers which explore the overview of disaster‐related literature in developing countries.
Based on the precondition that culture is conceived as a historically and learned behavior socially transferred for survival purposes which determine our own sense of reality, Marsella, Watson, Johnson and Gryczynski consider that the trauma‐related disorder after experiencing a serious emotional loss corresponds with the manner each society responds to psychological distress. It is important to note that good efforts and policies to manage a process of recovery often fail because planners do not taken into consideration the community cultural values. Therefore, the ethnocultural study of trauma in context of disasters, even if unexplored for the existent specialized literature, plays a pivotal role in enhancing the well‐being of affected people. As the previous argument given, the communication as a negotiated process of exchange involves often two parts, which not always share the same codes. Sensibility, emotions, trusts, and immediate, hierarchy cathartic effects can be concepts that should be negotiated by stakeholders in the process of reconstruction. Authors go on to say “the term cultural competence has emerged in the last decade as a popular way to encourage helping professionals to acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to function competently within the cultural context of the people they are serving. The idea behind this is quite simple: in order to provide effective services, it is essential that you understand the lived experience of the client/patient/victim. Failing to do so can lead to errors in assessment, diagnosis, and treatment, increasing problems rather than helping to resolve them” (p. 8).
Similarly, starting from the premise disasters are being multiplied in number and intensity worldwide, it is important to visualize and develop personal skills to overcome cultural glitches in the process of communication after a catastrophe. Since a wide range of diverse facet involved a disaster before and after the event, one might realize that an acute response and mobilized resources are more than important for learning and prevent the disaster takes shape again. Even though this book provides readers with a robust conceptual framework to understand the convergence between skills, theories and practices of what a cross‐cultural trauma means, it has a conceptual limitation which merits to be discussed in the following lines.
Ethnocentrism can be defined as a trend to consider the own cultural beliefs are centrally more important and superior than others. From the inception of anthropology as a scientific discipline, ethnocentrism played a crucial role in the process of colonization of empires simply because it created the sustainable basis where ideology operated. France, Great Britain, Spain and other European powers appealed to ethnocentrism to legitimate their own political practices in a territory which was hostile. Under such a context, ideology often is constituted along with specific measurable criteria of exclusion as intelligence, civilization, richness, beautiness, brightness and so forth. To clarify, this does not mean these characteristics can be strictly measured, but powers elucidate a set of steps and protocols with the end of showing and quantify their own sentiment of superiority (the science, arts and other genres of literature are functional to these goals). However, ethnocentrism can work in many diverse senses. It is worthwhile not to loose the sight the ethnocentrism seems to be accompanied with a broader sentiment of paternalism, which is no other thing than the psychological needs of civilizing the barbarians to strengthen the political axioms that gave birth to Empire. Often ethnocentrism and ideology exert more influence by alluding to implicit narratives.
While some groups at the top of social hierarchy elaborate certain construes to label others minorities as “afro, latin American or Asians,” one of the aspects that distinguish ethnocentrism from other social institutions seems to be that markers never are marked. Anthropologically speaking, ethnocentrism is based on the articulation of a wide (almost always invisible) discourse, which gives further legitimacy to the privileged groups (status quo). As earlier explained, what does “ethnocultural perspective” mean?, what perspective is being represented in the cross cultural literature? Why the other is represented as ethnic?
To some extent, Ethnocultural Perspective on Disasters involuntarily falls in the quandaries of ethnocentrism because authors consider the term ethnicity as a feature of others. To wit, the book is fraught of cases of ethnic minorities in the USA as Latin Americans, Afro‐Americans, Asian‐Americans and so forth. Nevertheless, there is no reference respecting to the needs of Anglo‐Americans in context of emergencies throughout this interesting book. For some reason, Anglo‐Americans are not represented in a visible group whose priorities and needs in context of disasters should be pondered. This represents one of the most serious limitations of this insight work. Quite aside from this comment, we strongly recommend Ethnocultural Perspectives On Disasters and Trauma as one of the best biographical alternatives for those who are interested in the role of culture in the recovery efforts. One might speculate that science was historically concerned about the needs of pourer and more vulnerable groups, but this review reminds the importance to re‐consider a scientific discipline that expands the scrutiny over top‐ranked aristocracies.
