Tensión entre carne y espíritu en el corazón del hombre (17-XII-80/21-XII-80)

Stevan Hobfoll (1989),in a “Conservation of Resources” (COR) theoretical framework, describes “psychological stress” as a major factor affecting people’s health and well-being and the avoidance of stress as an essential motivating influence in human behavior. Hobfoll defines psychological stress as a reaction to the environment in which there is the threat of a net loss of resources, the net loss of resources, or a lack of resource gain following the investment of resources (Hobfoll 1989, 516). COR theory places primacy on our desire to avoid material and social resource loss and considers the attainment and retainment of four classes of resources as predictors of stress or eustress (i.e. well-being): “Object resources” such as cars, houses, and material goods which represent shelter and socioeconomic status; “Conditions” which serve as resources that are often valued and sought after such as power, prestige, tenure and seniority; “Personal Characteristics” which act as resources to resist stress such as self-efficacy and self- esteem; and “Energies” which represent resources such as time, money, knowledge, and social networks.

The following analysis of the political and health geographies of disasters in the U.S. utilizes a pluralistic theoretical construct (Bohman 1997) that is framed by Hobfoll’s COR perspective regarding the primacy of resource preservation amongst the respective agents in, both, the disaster declaration decision-making process and in the disaster recovery process. In regard to the preservation of resources associated with prior claims of inequities in the

26

prestige, influence, and the retainment of status for the president, governors, congressional representatives, and FEMA operatives involved in the disaster declaration decision-making process. In regard to the loss of resources associated with the individuals and communities who have been exposed to the consequences of disaster declarations and denials, the reference is to the full extent of social and material “Object” resources that are at risk of loss in the midst of devastation from disasters. As disparate as these perspectives may appear, they are

concomitantly adherent to the fundamental premise of COR theory. The central tenet of

Hobfoll’s COR model is that individuals maximize the obtainment, retainment, and protection of those things that they value in order to avoid psychological stress and establish a sense of well- being. (Hobfoll 1988; Hobfoll, 2001, 341). It is Hobfoll’s assertion (1989, 517), that individuals maximally “strive to develop resource surpluses in order to offset the possibility of future loss” and that the primacy of avoiding the loss of resources supersedes the desire to acquire gains. This theoretical construct has been applied in a variety of contexts from “political messaging” (Farinella 2012) to “burnout and stress in organizational settings” (Lee and Ashforth 1996) and has been utilized in prior research as a framework for understanding the vulnerabilities and resiliencies that are associated with psychological distress and resource loss in disaster scenarios (Freedy et al. 1992; Benight et al. 1999; Arata et al. 2001). This dissertation employs the COR theoretical framework to examine the “Condition” and “Energy” resource considerations of disaster declaration decision makers, which may lead to the inequitable distribution of federal relief , and the “Object” and “Personal Characteristic” resources of disaster affected individuals who have differential access to post-disaster federal resources.

If we acknowledge Hobfoll’s assertion that our resource preservation tactics are

27

being (eustress), it becomes evident that in some cases, “rational choice” agents may choose an inequitable partisan path to assure the self-preservation of the acquired resources of power, prestige, and elected office. This is the conclusion of the previously cited researchers who have determined that there are improprieties in the actions of the president, congressional

representatives, and administrative appointees with respect to the selective appropriation of disaster declarations and denials under the provisions of the Stafford Act. Barnes (1987, 84) informs us that, in a world of scarce means but unlimited desires, individuals must make choices and he refers to a rational actor, known as Homo economicus, who makes choices that maximize his/her personal gain (resources) given the limited means that are available. Homo economicus is the offspring of “rational choice” theory, a concept that has historical roots in the invisible hand of Adam Smith‘s free market ideology (Barnes and Sheppard 1992) and Bentham‘s

Utilitarianism; a belief in the individual maximization of the resource of happiness (Hurtado 2008). Alexander Hamilton (1775) appears to have been an early adherent to the principles of rational choice theory in stating that "every man ought to be supposed a knave and to have no other end in all his actions but private interest". Homo economicus is a person who will settle for nothing less than the best (Simon 1978). In the most radical form, he/she plays the role of a self- serving egoistic unfettered capitalistic decision maker. This is a creature who acts upon an assumed essentialist instinct of personal gain and accumulation without complete awareness of the long term societal consequences of his/her actions.

Homo economicus exists as a stakeholder in the field of political science under the constructs of “public choice” theory which proposes that politicians react to issues they face based on personal gain, as manifested through the attainment and preservation of power and prestige, and independent of motivation that is focused on public benefit and need (Buchanan

28

and Tullock 1962; Garrett and Sobel 2003). Garrett and Sobel (2003) utilize the “public choice model” to explain presidential motive in disaster declaration decision making. Similarly, Frisch (2006, 18) references the “distributive model” of congressional organization in stating that members of Congress seek membership in committees that will best serve their interest in reelection. Peterson‘s (1995) “legislative theory” suggests that the president is primarily motivated by political incentive and that congressional influence will prevail in bargaining between the president and Congress. Individual political gain supplants altruistic motive under the premise of a public choice model, a distributive model, or legislative theory. This concept is readily applied to political motivations regarding disaster request declarations and turndowns and the intergovernmental relationships that exist amongst a variety of bureaucratic, legislative, and executive stakeholders.

However, the complexities of decision making under the premise of public choice, distributive, and legislative theory have been criticized by several authors (Barnes 1987; Barnes and Sheppard 1992; Miller 1992; Peterson 2005; Frisch 2006). John Rawls (1993) was a strong advocate of both rational and reasonable moral powers that coexist and are central to political decision making. Favoritism in the form of partisan behavior towards members of congress or governors who represent the same political party as the president is indicative of an entrenched method of preserving power amongst like-minded elected representatives. Rawls viewed partisanship as a manifestation of injustice (Muirhead 2003) and this perspective is exemplified in findings that suggest federal disaster relief is disproportionately distributed based on political partisanship that is independent of actual community need or by biased vote-seeking via the selective distribution of a greater frequency of disaster declarations to areas with a higher number of electoral votes and/or during reelection cycles.

29

The Stafford Act mandates that presidential decision-making in times of disaster will be predicated on the "overwhelming" need of a state. The intent of this policy is the antithesis of the notion of a self-serving legislative bureaucracy ruled by Homo economici under the pretext of rational choice or public choice theory. The redistribution of federal revenues under the provisions of the Stafford Act is, in fact, an applied manifestation of the Marxist sentiment, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marx 1875). Additionally, it is worth noting that Adam Smith (1776), whose notions of "laissez faire" capitalism contributed to the conceptualization of Homo economicus, was also the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1761, 5), in which, he notes that, " humans have a natural tendency to care about the well-being of others" particularly when "we see firsthand the fortune or misfortune of another person". It is evident that conflicting tendencies associated with rational and reasonable decision-making processes provide for complexities in the analysis of the equitable

implementation of presidential disaster declarations under the provisions of the Stafford Act. Rational choice and public choice theories provide the framework for several of the previously mentioned studies that address political partisanship in the implementation of the Stafford Act. However, rational choice is based on a construct of "methodological

individualism" which has been critiqued as incompatible with the processes of collective action and the norms of trust, justice, and social obligation that are essential to the effective governance and functioning of a civilized society (Scott 2000). The influence of various social structures on the decision making actions of individuals during disasters suggests that an essentialist notion of the unfettered independent capacity of human agents is inherently flawed. Giddens (1986), in the development of his theory of structuration, informs us that human agents and social structures are not independent entities. The structuring of social actions and social relationships over time

30

and space is dependent on a recursive interactive process that exists between individuals and their respective social systems and social places (Thrift 1985; Sack 1997). Homo sapiens are evidently capable of making decisions based on the influence of private, public, and parochial realms and Giddens offers an alternative to the rigid framework that binds Homo economicus.

Although structuration theory provides a valid foundation for understanding the reciprocal relationship between social structures and individual behavior, concerns have been raised regarding the failure for this theory to adequately address differences that exist between individuals with respect to behavior and decision making (Gove 1994; Pickel 2005). Pickel (2005, 456) informs us that "the individual actor or individual member of a social system is at the same time a complex system itself, i.e. a biopsychosocial system. This implies that in addition to social mechanisms, individuals are subject to biological and psychological

mechanisms shaping personal development and personality change". Engel (1977) emphasizes the interdependency between physical and mental health and the social environment in his biopsychosocial model. Borrell-Carrio et al. (2004, 576) explain that the biopsychosocial model, “is a way of understanding how suffering, disease, and illness are affected by multiple levels of organization, from the societal to the molecular”. These concepts have been further developed by McEwen and Gianaros (2011) and Barr (2008) in defining the role of chronic social and environmental stressors in the development of illness secondary to maladaptive behavioral and physiological processes.

The relationship between the social and environmental stressors that are inherent in disaster scenarios and varied aspects of physical and emotional well-being has been well

established (Madakasira and O'Brien 1987; Lutgendorf et al. 1995; Reacher et al. 2004; Bland et al. 2005; Burton et al. 2009). The role of biopsychosocial influence is particularly relevant to this

31

investigation as individual random effect biological and psychological determinants of well- being were utilized in the assessment of disaster recovery associated with the equitable

distribution of disaster relief under the provisions of the Stafford Act. Hobfoll’s “conservation of resources” framework provides a valid link between the theoretical “public choice” actions of politicians and FEMA operatives who place primacy on the retention of power and prestige resources and the psychological and physiological consequences of uncompensated resource loss in individuals who were potentially disavowed from the presidential disaster declaration process due to a relative lack of political importance.