DISCRIMINATION———, and K. Tierney, eds. 1994 Disasters, Collective
Behavior, and Social Organization. Newark, Del.: Uni-
versity of Delaware Press.
Dynes, R. R., B. De Marchi, and C. Pelanda (eds.) 1987
Sociology of Disasters: Contributions of Sociology to Disas-
ter Research. Milan: Franco Angeli.
Fritz, C. 1961 ‘‘Disasters.’’ In R. K. Merton and R. A.
Nisbet, eds., Contemporary Social Problems. New York:
Harcourt.
Kreps, G. 1984 ‘‘Sociological Inquiry and Disaster Re-
search.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 10:309–330.
——— 1989 Social Structure and Disaster. Newark, Del.:
University of Delaware Press.
Mikami, S., O. Hiroi, E. L. Quarantelli, and D. Wenger
1992 ‘‘A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study of Mass
Communication in Disasters.’’ Bulletin of Faculty of
Sociology. Toyo University 29:59–202.
Olson, Richard, and A. Cooper Druy 1997 ‘‘Un-Thera-
peutic Communities: A Cross-National Analysis of
Post-Disaster Political Unrest.’’ International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 15:221–238.
Perrow, C. 1984 Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk
Technologies. New York: Basic Books.
Prince, S. 1920 Catastrophe and Social Change. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Quarantelli, E. L. 1987 ‘‘Disaster Studies: An Analysis of
the Social Historical Factors Affecting the Develop-
ment of Research in the Area.’’ International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 5:285–310.
——— 1993 ‘‘Community Crises: An Exploratory Com-
parison of the Characteristics and Consequences of
Disasters and Riots.’’ Journal of Contingencies and
Crisis Management 1:67–78.
——— 1994 ‘‘Disaster Studies: The Consequences of
the Historical Use of a Sociological Approach in the
Development of Research.’’ International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters 12:25–49.
———,ed. 1998 What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the
Question. London: Routledge.
———, and R. R. Dynes 1977 ‘‘Response to Social Crisis
and Disaster.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 3:23–49.
Rosenthal, U., and P. Hart, eds. 1998 Flood Response and
Crisis Management in Western Europe: A Comparative
Analysis. New York: Springer Verlag.
Rosenthal, U., and A. Kouzmin 1993 ‘‘Globalizing an
Agenda for Contingencies and Crisis Management.’’
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 1:1–12.
Schmuck-Widmann, Hanna 1996 Living with the Floods:
Survival Strategies of Char-Dwellers in Bangladesh. Ber-
lin: FDCL.
Schorr, J. 1987 ‘‘Some Contributions of German
Katastrophensoziologie to the Sociology of Disas-
ter.’’ International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters 5:115–135.
Short, James F. 1984 ‘‘The Social Fabric at Risk: Toward
the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis.’’ Ameri-
can Sociological Review 49:711–725.
Sorokin, Pitirim 1942 Man and Society in Calamity. New
York: Dutton.
Wenger, Dennis 1987 ‘‘Collective Behavior and Disaster
Research.’’ In R. R. Dynes, B. De Marchi, and C.
Pelanda, eds., Sociology of Disasters: Contribution of
Sociology to Disaster Research, 213–238. Milan: Fran-
co Angeli.E. L. QUARANTELLIDISCRIMINATION
Discrimination, in its sociological meaning, in-
volves highly complex social processes. The term
derives from the Latin discriminatio, which means
to perceive distinctions among phenomena or to
be selective in one’s judgment. Cognitive psychology
retains the first of these meanings, popular usage
the second. Individual behavior that limits the
opportunities of a particular group is encompassed
in many sociological considerations of discrimina-
tion. But exclusively individualistic approaches are
too narrow for robust sociological treatment. In-
stead, sociologists understand discrimination not
as isolated individual acts, but as a complex system
of social relations that produces intergroup ineq-
uities in social outcomes.This definitional expansion transforms ‘‘dis-
crimination’’ into a truly sociological concept. But
in its breadth, the sociological definition leaves
room for ambiguity and controversy. Obstacles to
consensus on what constitutes discrimination stem
from two sources—one empirical, the other ideo-
logical and political. First, deficiencies in analysis
and evidence limit our ability to trace thoroughly
the dynamic web of effects produced by discrimi-
nation. Second, because social discrimination is
contrary to professed national values and law, a
judgment that unequal outcomes reflect discrimi-
nation is a call for costly remedies. Variable will-
ingness to bear those social costs contributes to
dissension about the extent of discrimination.