Natural disasters are commonly portrayed as sudden, external shocks — acts of nature that strike without warning and lie beyond human control. In Sri Lanka, floods, landslides, droughts, cyclones, and coastal erosion are frequently described in this manner, particularly in media reporting and public discourse. However, sociology challenges this understanding by emphasising that disasters are not merely natural phenomena but deeply social events shaped by human decisions, institutions, and inequalities. From a sociological perspective, a disaster occurs when a natural hazard intersects with vulnerable social conditions. Heavy rainfall alone does not create a disaster; it becomes one when settlements are located on flood plains, when drainage systems fail, or when communities lack resources to cope. Sri Lanka’s repeated experience with floods in urban and rural areas demonstrates that hazards are predictable, but that vulnerability is socially produced over time through patterns of development and neglect. Understanding disasters sociologically allows society to shift focus from blame and fatalism toward accountability and prevention. Rather than asking only why nature behaved violently, sociology asks why certain people were exposed, why warning systems failed, and why recovery is uneven. This perspective is essential if Sri Lanka is to move from reacting to disasters toward reducing their long-term social impact.
The social vulnerability theory: Who suffers the most and why?
The social vulnerability theory explains that disasters disproportionately affect groups already disadvantaged by poverty, marginalisation, and lack of political voice. In Sri Lanka, low-income families living in informal settlements, plantation communities in the hill country, and coastal fishing populations face heightened exposure to hazards. These groups often inhabit high-risk areas not by choice, but due to limited access to safe land and secure housing. Empirical evidence from Sri Lankan disasters consistently shows that women, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities experience greater hardship during and after disasters. Women often bear increased care burdens, loss of income, and heightened risks of exploitation in displacement settings. Daily wage earners and informal workers lose livelihoods immediately when disasters strike, pushing already vulnerable households deeper into poverty. Sociology highlights that vulnerability is not an individual failing but a structural condition. Limited access to education, healthcare, insurance, and social protection compounds disaster impacts. Without addressing these underlying inequalities, disaster relief efforts remain temporary solutions. Sri Lanka’s disaster experience illustrates that vulnerability is socially patterned, predictable, and therefore preventable.
Development, urbanisation, and the risk society
German sociologist Ulrich Beck’s concept of the ‘risk society’ is particularly relevant to understanding disasters in modern Sri Lanka. As societies pursue economic growth and urban expansion, they often generate new risks that are unintended and unevenly distributed. In Sri Lanka, rapid urbanisation, especially in and around Colombo, has increased exposure to flooding due to wetland reclamation, unregulated construction, and inadequate urban planning. Large-scale infrastructure projects, road development in hilly areas, and commercial agriculture have altered natural ecosystems, increasing landslide risks in Districts such as Kegalle, Badulla, and Nuwara Eliya. These risks are not accidental; they arise from development decisions that prioritise short-term economic gains over environmental sustainability and social safety. Sociology draws attention to how such risks are often borne by those who benefit least from development. The risk society perspective also emphasises that modern risks are increasingly human-made and politically mediated. Decisions taken by planners, investors, and policymakers determine whose lives are placed at risk. In Sri Lanka, disaster vulnerability is thus closely linked to governance-related choices, regulatory failures, and unequal power relations within the society.
Institutional trust, governance, and disaster response
Institutions play a decisive role in shaping disaster outcomes, from early warning and evacuation to relief distribution and long-term recovery. In Sri Lanka, agencies such as the Disaster Management Centre, Local Government authorities, and security forces are central to the disaster response. However, sociology emphasises that institutional effectiveness depends not only on capacity but also on public trust. Where communities trust the authorities, they are more likely to heed warnings, evacuate promptly, and cooperate with relief measures. Conversely, delays, poor coordination, or perceptions of political bias in aid distribution undermine confidence. Past disaster responses in Sri Lanka have sometimes been criticised for unequal treatment, inadequate consultation, and slow resettlement, contributing to public scepticism. Disasters thus act as stress tests for governance systems. They reveal institutional strengths and weaknesses with stark clarity. Sociological analysis suggests that transparency, accountability, and community participation are essential for building institutional legitimacy. Effective disaster governance is not only about technical expertise but also about maintaining social trust during moments of collective crisis.
Community resilience and social capital
One of the most powerful sociological insights into disasters is the role of social capital — the networks of relationships, trust, and mutual support that bind communities together. In Sri Lanka, informal community mechanisms often become the first line of response during disasters. Neighbours share shelter, food, information, and labour long before external assistance arrives. Religious institutions such as temples, mosques, churches, and kovils frequently function as relief centres and sources of emotional support. Community-based organisations and volunteer groups mobilise resources rapidly, demonstrating the strength of collective action. These forms of social solidarity significantly reduce suffering and help communities recover more quickly. However, sociology also warns against over-reliance on community resilience. Social capital varies across regions and social groups, and urbanisation, migration, and social fragmentation can weaken traditional support systems. While community resilience is vital, it must be complemented by strong State support and inclusive policies to ensure that resilience does not become an excuse for institutional withdrawal.
Climate change, displacement, and social justice
Climate change has intensified both sudden disasters, such as floods and cyclones, and slow-onset crises, including drought, sea-level rise, and soil degradation. In Sri Lanka, climate impacts threaten agriculture, fisheries, and water security, placing additional pressure on already vulnerable populations. Sociology frames this as an issue of environmental and climate justice. Those most affected by climate-related disasters are often the least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. Small-scale farmers, estate workers, and coastal communities face livelihood loss and displacement, while having limited capacity to adapt. Climate change thus deepens existing social inequalities, making disaster risk a moral as well as technical problem. Disaster-induced displacement has long-term social consequences beyond the immediate loss of shelter. Relocation disrupts social networks, cultural practices, and economic routines. Sociological studies in Sri Lanka show that poorly planned resettlement can create new vulnerabilities, including unemployment, social isolation, and psychological stress. Addressing disaster displacement requires participatory, rights-based approaches grounded in social justice.
Conclusion: Rethinking disasters as social challenges
Sri Lanka’s disaster experience clearly demonstrates that natural hazards become disasters through social processes. Inequality, development choices, governance-related failures, and weakened social protection systems shape who is affected and how recovery unfolds. Sociology provides a critical lens for understanding disasters not as isolated events but as outcomes of long-term social arrangements. Reducing disaster risk therefore requires more than emergency relief and technical solutions. It demands investment in social protection, inclusive urban planning, environmental regulation, and accountable institutions. Strengthening education, healthcare, housing, and livelihoods is as important as building embankments or forecasting storms. As Sri Lanka faces an uncertain climatic future, integrating sociological insights into disaster policy is no longer optional. Viewing disasters as social challenges enables society to address root causes rather than symptoms. Ultimately, the measure of resilience lies not only in surviving disasters, but in building a more just and equitable society that prevents them from becoming human catastrophes.
Dr. Thilakarathna is an attorney and Senior Law Lecturer at the Colombo University. Madushanka is attached to the same University’s Arts Faculty’s Sociology Department
-------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication