A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster

Solnit's thesis is that people come together in times of crisis and work for the common good, and that any belief that people more commonly act or their own self interest at such times, and become looters and hoarders, is overstated. Much more likely to occur is an “elite panic” that casts the

Show More

people as a mob to be feared and controlled. She primarily uses the historical examples from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the massively destructive explosion in Halifax of a ship carrying munitions for World War I, and more recent disasters such as the earthquake in Mexico City in 1985, the 9/11 attacks and when New Orleans was almost destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

Solnit researched and reports on the work done by early thinkers on the subject, and recent sociologists who have studied disasters. She greatly values the work done by Charles Fritz, who wrote that during disasters “[t]he widespread sharing of danger, loss, and deprivation produces an intimate, primarily group solidarity among the survivors, which overcomes social isolation, provides a channel for intimate communication and expression, and provides a major source of physical and emotional support and reassurance.” This phenomena, together with the satisfaction that people derive from the altruistic actions that they take on in providing mutual aid to their fellow survivors can instill great joy. Thus, disaster can offer temporary solutions to the alienations and isolations of everyday life, producing a changed sense of self. This is the paradise of her title, and she wistfully imagines a world where we can experience this paradise in our everyday lives. At the end of the book, she writes, “making paradise is the work that we were meant to do.”

The book really picked up for me in the second half, in the portions devoted to the 9/11 attack in New York City and Hurricane Katrina's impact on New Orleans. I found that part of the book very compelling, and I read it voraciously. I was surprised that I was still unaware of many terrible events that occurred in Katrina's aftermath. I was also happy to read about the efforts that arose to restore community there in the weeks, months and years that followed, which I was also unaware of.

Show Less

Solnit’s book is built on the hypothesis that times of disasters bring out the best in humanity as people band together to help one another to survive. It’s an optimistic view that runs counter to the usual narrative of self-interest and mob violence but one Solnit illustrates with examples

Show More

from history including the San Francisco Earthquake, the explosion in Halifax harbor, the London Blitz, the Mexico City earthquake and Hurricane Katrina. In all of these cases ordinary people responded to help one another and build community. The response of governments and authorities in these scenarios is depicted as at best too slow to mobilize to respond to the immediate needs of communities in distress and at worse too ready to treat citizens as criminals through policies such shooting “looters.” Solnit introduces the interesting concept of “elite panic” where the wealthy and power expect chaos and anarchy and thus respond with force where none is needed. Solnit details how this negative view of human nature misinforms public policy in response to disaster and leads to greater suffering. Hurricane Katrina is a particularly horrifying account as authorities were ready to arrest and imprison people rather than offer rescue and relief. Armed white people were able to get away with slaughtering poor black people because of the belief that they were criminals rather than survivors in need of compassion. This book is a must read to gain a better understanding of human nature in both its best and worst elements.

Show Less

If we are able to find joy in banding together, helping each other, and being creative and useful in disasters, what stops us from doing it in regular life? How is the vicious-savage/weeping-mess victim myth perpetuated, and how can we prevent it from causing more damage when an actual disaster

Show More

occurs? These questions are well explored in this book, and I would recc. it to anyone involved in disaster relief/community building/ resilience building.

Show Less

I am a big fan of Solnit’s and consider her River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West one of my all time favorites. For the first two thirds of A Paradise Built in Hell, however,I found the repetition of the author's main point that quasi-utopian communities often, or

Show More

even almost always, arise during disasters a bit tedious. Most interesting to me were the details of the particular disasters themselves. I appreciated the accounts rather more than the theorizing. Solnit seems at first to be offering a fairly unnuanced alternative reading of disaster to that of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism and, indeed, Solnit mentions Klein and her different depiction of how we react to disaster.
The sections of the book that focus on the 1906 San Francisco and 1985 Mexico City earthquakes as well as the bombing of the World Trade Center towers in New York City in 2001, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco, the explosion of a munitions ship in Halifax in 1917 and several other incidents can be summed up by a quote from Dorothy Day, “While the crisis lasted, people loved each other.” The earthquake in Mexico City stands out in Solnit's view because peoples’ response to that disaster and the government's mishandling of it resulted in enduring changes to Mexican politics and government. She claims that Mexico offers a glimpse of what might be if the spontaneous blossoming of civic society that happens during a disaster could be normalized into an exuberant everyday phenomenon; in her words, the challenge is “how to maintain a sense of purpose and solidarity in the absence of emergencies.” She also claims that “the real revolution may be the period between regimes, not the new regime . . . .Certainly the period immediately after, or during, the revolution comes closest to the anarchist ideal of a society without a state, a moment when everyone has agency and no one has ultimate authority, when the society invents itself as it goes along.”
Solnit gives many examples of the “elite panic” that perpetuates and acts based upon urban disaster myths, in the mistaken belief that their role is to maintain order and stability and defend against the murder, mayhem and especially property “crimes” such as “looting” that they expect, rather than to mitigate suffering or save lives. In the final section of the book, “New Orleans: Common Grounds and Killers,” Solnit's analysis becomes more complex, and this section provides, I think, the real meat of the book and redeems it from its earlier redundancy and obviousness. Solnit reinforced my sense that that particular disaster, even more than 9/11, has been a defining one for our nation. When I first saw the photos coming out of New Orleans in August of 2005, I thought that finally, the entire world was seeing the U.S. at its ugliest: the poverty, the racism, the contempt for human welfare and human lives on the part of virtually all levels of government, but especially the federal government. Once again, I found that my rather entrenched cynicism could be shocked afresh . And yet, as Solnit eloquently demonstrates, there is another side to the story, as there is to the story of 9/11: how some people (sometimes, most people) come together to do what is necessary and help each other out, without considerations of personal gain or even safety and how that becomes a peak positive experience for many, all the while the disaster is horrific, and, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, catastrophic.

Show Less

Her thesis is that after disasters, ordinary people quickly find ways to help each other and come together in new communities of hope and optimism, despite loss. Authorities and elites are certain that there will be riots and chaos and come in to rule with a heavy hand - for instance, after the

Show More

1906 San Francisco earthquake, communal kitchens were quickly set up and neighbors helped each other fight fires, while the authorities drove off amateur fire fighting attempts and caused more damage, and the police declared martial law and issued shoot to kill orders for anyone in the damaged area (including rescuers.) It's an interesting idea and she's done a lot of research to back it up.

This is one of those books that should have been a long New Yorker article. She describes various kinds of disasters and the grassroots efforts versus the government reactions with many examples. I skimmed the last half because it became too repetitive. However, it was edifying for me because I wasn't aware of many of the atrocities in the wake of Katrina.

Show Less

Another reminder that I don't like sociology, even though I think I should. I expected this book to be more informational, and less theoretical and opinion driven. While each section does begin by describing the disaster and the aftermath, it then shifts to theoretical analysis of the response

Show More

process. While Solnit doesn't wish disasters on anyone, she believes that they are good for communities, leading to greater cooperation and social interaction, until the government and relief agencies step in and ruin it all. She has some points that I hope are true, such as that far more people are altruistic than selfish, and others that I'm afraid are true, such as the government placing its own interests over the interests of victims. I didn't finish the book, not only because I disagreed with a lot of what she had to say, but because she kept saying it over and over again.

Show Less

Great look at how people act in the midst of disaster, catastrophe, crisis. Lord of the Flies it ain't. People act far better than we are led to expect. And people in power act far worse. If you think beliefs about human nature don't have real-world ramifications, think again...and read the book.

4.5 probably. This is a rare book that makes you fundamentally assess your view of humanity. Solnit uses the sociology of disasters to examine human nature, highlighting that hugely positive way that communities and individuals respond in times of stress. She highlights the breaking down of social

Show More

barriers and the sense of purpose and almost joy that people report in the aftermath of earthquakes, floods and other disasters. In contrast to popular (and government) beliefs, people don't revert to brutal individualists when social structures break down, instead they often pull together, share resources, risk their lives for strangers and build remarkable grassroots communities under immense stress.

The contrast with how people experience day to day life is marked, and Solnit explores the implications of this positive view of human nature for the ways in which we structure society. She's an unashamed radical and there are times when the book veers a little close to polemic, but the overarching effect is revelatory - the world as we largely experience it fails to really capitalise on the extraordinary human potential for community and generosity. The individual case studies are captivating in their own right (and heart-breaking, particularly the New Orleans story), but the book is much more than just a history of disaster responses.

Show Less

Solnit has an axe to grind, the supidity of governments and their problems coping with disasters and i can't argue with her about that. the concept of "elite panic" is excellent, and illuminating. The theme about how much individuals enjoy the process of coping with a disaster, how "good" it is for

Show More

them troubles me. How can we as a society do that without blowing things up?

Show Less

I embarked on a quest for books celebrating the human spirit, as a relief from the horrible 2016 presidential election campaign news, and this one sounded like a good choice. Well, it's certainly a good book and well worth reading, but NOT a feel-good book by any means!

It does indeed celebrate the

Show More

human spirit, as indicated in the subtitle. However it's a scathing condemnation of the mismanagement of crises by the people in power, what the author calls "elite panic." She analyzes five historical disasters (listed in the GR summary of the book) but includes instances of many others, and finds that while the ordinary people quickly responded with cooperation and altruism, the officials in charge often mismanaged the response badly and even brutally.

Each of the five sections is rather a jumble of examples from other disasters, discussion of sociological theories, uplifting stories, grim brutal stories, and political commentary. The author's biases are so clear that it's a bit hard to regard the selection of examples as being at all objective, but the overall narrative is very compelling and gave me much to think about.

(By the way, the text is only 313 pages; there are 40 pages of acknowledgments and end notes)

Show Less

Stories of human altruism in natural disasters. Solnit argues that most people behave their best in natural(ish) disasters, rather than panicking or selfishly trampling others to survive. Though there are always a few bad apples, she points out that, both in San Francisco in 1906 and New Orleans

Show More

after Katrina, it was the troops/police that did most of the greedy (nonsurvival) looting. In fact, it’s elites who tend to panic about property rights, causing much more suffering and even freewheeling, but often discriminatory, murder. The average person is much more likely, as people did in the Twin Towers, to help others escape danger at risk of their own lives. Solnit suggests that this is because most people have a powerful need to feel useful and to be part of something larger; because ordinary life under late capitalism is so draining—a disaster in slow motion—crisis brings not only loss and suffering but also opportunity to forget the past and the future and focus on taking care of each other in the moment. Solnit’s examples are heartening, but also limited by the fact that they involve people focused on physical, nonhuman threats—when we fight each other, we’re not quite as altruistic.

Show Less

I picked up this book after I heard [[Cory Doctorow]] talk about how it influenced his work on [Walkaway]. The premise is incredibly important: in emergencies, most people are resourceful and altruistic, not selfish and violent like our popular myths assume. Solnit does a great job drawing together

Show More

research, philosophy, and stories from a variety of different disasters to support her narrative. The book falters a bit in the long middle, meandering far from the events it's ostensibly discussing, and there are a few things said about trauma and mental illness that range from just plain rude to dangerously dismissive. But by the end, it's quite educational about what happened on the ground after 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina specifically.
TL;DR I have really mixed feelings about this book, because it's really important, but parts of it just didn't work for me.

Show Less

One of the most important books I've ever read, honestly. Clear-eyed, beautifully written hope. I very much want the speculative fiction authors I love to read this and be inspired.

There seems no better time to launch into the writing of Rebecca Solnit than now, and I have sought out A Paradise Built in Hell (Penguin). Here she examines several disasters – The San Francisco Earthquake, London in The Blitz, Hurricane Katrina, 9/11 – and examines the amazing sense of

Show More

community through remarkable stories of people acting in truly altruistic ways not seen often outside of such extreme occasions. The physical formats of the book seem out of print in the UK and sadly the audiobook is a bit of a shocker. Used paperback copies from the US seem to be half the price they are here.

Show Less

This is a provocative and engaging read that has helped me reconsider the way I have viewed disaster. Solnit examines several North American disasters from 1906 onward, and her chapters on 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina are particularly enlightening. I recommend this book as a study in disaster,

Show More

community, and the way elite panic destroys this community.

Show Less

I struggled how to properly review this. The best way to put it is that it felt like both more than and less than one book. More because this was an ambitious look at disasters over a century-plus, including macro looks at their impacts, personal stories, and the contribution to the author's

Show More

overall thesis. It was almost too much to take in, and it especially seemed like the post-Hurricane Katrina violence was compelling and original enough to have its own publication.

But these individual stories also didn't add up to a coherent story for me; I don't know what many of the subjects like the orphaned kids in Halifax and the out-of-touch municipal leadership in San Francisco really were doing in this story.

Show Less

Solnit's books are always a slow read for me, not sure why. I bogged down a bit early on, but the stories are great and it is worth working through to the end.

Pretty much everything you know about citizens in disasters is wrong.

Solnit's thesis is that the ordinary folk tend to not act like animals when the poop starts flying. Well and good. She has gathered a mountain of research on the subject, which I love to see. My own inclinations (and personal experiences) tend to support her thesis.

What makes this book tough is

Show More

that the writing is profoundly uncritical of the primary sources and while the examples chosen were chosen well, it is hard not to feel like confirmation bias had crept into the writing of the book. Even so, the historical accounts of the San Francisco Earthquake and the Mexico City earthquake were gripping and interesting to compare, as were the historical accounts of the World War I era explosion in Nova Scotia contrasted to New York City on 9/11.

That being said, the more cerebral and theoretical aspects of the book do nicely explain the incredibly inhuman events that took place during Hurricane Katrina and did so with much more internal consistency than official accounts. If you enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, you will loathe this book. You should read it anyway, because while it is not the most critical treatment of the subject, its at least based in some form of reality.

On a personal note, Solnit's thoughts helped to clarify my own personal disdain for general food charities, while being an enthusiastic supporter of Heifer International.

Show Less

Through the exploration of five events over the past century, Solnit explores how Western societies behave during disasters. She debunks the pop-culture myth that crowds turn into angry mobs during disasters, and demonstrates that there is something innate about us that gives people what it takes

Show More

to step up during disasters.

Are there any exceptions to this rule? It turns out that elites, officials, and racists fail to find their humanity during disasters. Katrina in New Orleans highlighted the worst of the wealthy, bureaucracy, and white supremacy. While the news was busy reporting about roving black gangs, white supremacists (including police) went out “game hunting” for blacks, killing dozens if not hundreds of innocent black man, throwing their bodies in the river or burning them.

Sociologists have termed the incompetence of the wealthy during disasters “elite panic,” and it is an increasingly concerning trend. You may have been hearing about billionaires converting old nuclear silos into bunkers, or buying up vast tracts of land in New Zealand. If the apocalypse comes to pass, it will be of their own doing.

Another interesting note: money becomes worthless during disasters, and gift culture dominates. Neither cash nor barter or relevant. Anarchy (decentralized self-organization) is our best bet for survival during disaster.

Through this exploration of extremes, Solnit brings into question the existence of class structure and wealth inequality. If these we can be civil and compassionate with each other in the worst of situations, why do we let people go back to being homeless and forgotten in everyday life? If many people’s lives improve during disasters, shouldn’t that be a canary in the coal mine, alerting us that we’re doing something fundamentally wrong?

If there’s anything we can count on in our future, it is disaster. If you’d like to get a sense of what might be involved, and how these times might become some of the most meaningful periods of your life, this book comes recommended.

Show Less

A powerful idea with a book that makes it's case exhaustively to make it inarguable.

The basic premise is that fundamentally, most people will help other people in a disaster, instead of turning on each other. She takes you through major disasters through history, including 9/11 and Hurricane

Show More

Katrina hitting New Orleans, and it proves the point again and again. (And how in New Orleans, the apparent lawlessness was never as bad as it was pictured.)

Those times where things do actually go bad, it's usually because folks who are scared of losing power or privilege are responding out of fear and then creating a bad situation. (Gathering troops to protect businesses instead of helping rescue people from debris, for example. And when citizens are taking first aid supplies to help the wounded, they get shot.)

She makes the point that disasters create an opportunity for us to be better with each other, and that sometimes, that can persist past the disaster in question.

This book validated my overall optimism in human nature!

My only question, especially in some of the bigger disasters of today, such as COVID-19 and climate change... how can we capitalize on this same social good? The problem with these disasters is that there is too large a gap between the beginning of the problem and it's impact upon us, which makes it harder for us to come together against the problem the same way we would against a fire, an earthquake, or a flood...

Show Less