Sociology of setback and misfortune

All social disasters have those responsible. Whether we're talking about a global financial crisis or a pandemic, the consequences of a natural disaster or a general power outage, dispatched. Furthermore, in serious countries, decisions are made to prevent these disasters from recurring or to minimize their effects in the event of an unforeseen event. From automobile to third-party insurance to comprehensive insurance. Intervening to avoid a financial crisis, being prepared for a hypothetical pandemic, having channeled a river with sufficient investment to prevent flooding, or having an electrical grid that is impervious to any incident is not only a question of knowledge and experience, but also of the magnitude of public investment.

Of course, in cases of natural, health, economic, or technological disasters, we all want explanations. The absence of explanations is almost as disturbing as the consequences of the disaster itself. The role of the media is key, but it unified the rhetoric needed to fill hours and hours of lack of information, especially if, out of responsibility, we don't want to fall prey to speculative misinformation. And furthermore, knowing that without light, it wasn't possible to satisfy the majority's desire to know.

Still, a brief comment is in order for those who see calamities as an opportunity to settle patriotic, political, or ideological scores. First, we have those who argue that "this only happens in this country," something empirically false. Then, there are those who argue for capitalism and speculation, "cutbacks," lack of investment, privatization, the right—when the left isn't in power—or the left—if the right is in opposition. And here, always with the hope that with independence this wouldn't happen. The point is, in the absence of explanations, to take advantage of adversity to turn it to one's advantage.

But I think there's another consideration to be made in the face of misfortunes, and that is how the victims react. I don't see myself having the heart to undertake a psychopathology of misfortune, much less generalize. We know how our immediate surroundings have reacted, and we see the choices journalists have made to capture the voices of the street. But we have no systematic approach to the capacity for social resilience in the face of misfortunes and serious setbacks, such as the one last Monday. Furthermore, it should be related to the degree of impact. You don't react the same if you have to spend eight hours locked in a train as if you can get in your car and leave work at the first minute. Not being able to eat hot food during a meal isn't the same as losing all the restaurant's stock where the hot dishes were supposed to be served. However, at first glance, we can distinguish the stoic reactions of those who take adversity calmly, patiently, and with resignation, and the indignant reactions, which find it unacceptable that their daily plans should be altered. And it's difficult to know whether there are more of the former than the latter, because stoicism doesn't make noise or draw attention, and indignation is striking and easily captured in the News.

Be that as it may, never as in this type of setbacks, especially when there are no fatalities, it is appropriate to realize the importance that routine has in our lives. Routine It's a word with a bad reputation, and we generally say that we should aim to break routines by having new experiences, that routine spoils relationships, that we should avoid routine jobs... But sociology shows us that, deep down, what we put most of our energy into is building systems of routines that make our lives easy and predictable. Nobody wants surprises and adventures like last Monday.