STATES OF EMERGENCY - Patrick Lagadec

240 Landmarks for action. Questions about managementthe defensive mechanism), it is not at all unusual to see a conference of topexecutives suddenly tremble when a speaker mentions a blatant error made bya journalist. Fear of "the other" is often greater than the capacity for takingone's distances from an event.But of course the problem is not that simple. We are actually seeingcybernetic processes at work: a manager's reticences can also be explained byhis or her fears of other partners, whose own worries heighten as themanager's fears become more pronounced. On the other side of the fence, thefears are equally deep-rooted: fear of catastrophe, fear of officials who seemto be primarily concerned with the survival of their company or theiradministration, i.e. with ensuring technological continuity, economic stability,or law and order.To break out of these vicious circles, the best approach is doubtless tomove step by step, building on successive achievements while advancingtowards increasing the safety of technological systems and raising theawareness of all the actors involved. Calling fear by its name, identifying thedifficulties, listing distracting non-issues, and raising questions that remain tobe discussed and solved - all these demands must be met as part of a collectivelearning process intended, naturally, to lead to a real control of risks andvulnerability.The pilot operation in the Isère region of France, mentioned earlier byHaroun Tazieff, offers an interesting application of this perspective. Itsuccessfully combined inventorying risks, searching for concrete measures,and informing various populations. It was founded on the participation ofnumerous businesses and public agencies, including the press, and even groupscritical of this approach (2). As the Minister of the Environment emphasized,its primary interest lay in "the dynamic it created" (3).To return to the image of Augsburg, the besieged city, the foremost goalwe should pursue is to transform our risk-filled civilization so that we nolonger feel we are living in a state of siege. When our dialogue with fearbecomes obsessional, life is nothing but a nightmare. Then any behavior,however studied, can only provide a trigger for a chain reaction of mishaps.Nevertheless, this goal is hard to reach, because fear isn't just a puremanifestation of irrationality. It is indeed illusory to think high-risk systemscan be totally controlled. In short, while it is possible and desirable to tamefear, it is impossible - and even dangerous - to throw this natural alarmsystem overboard. This is the archetype of the ambiguous and irreducibleissues that will be raised in the final chapter. As always, major hazards cannotbe considered as if their various elements could be sealed in separate, leakproofdrums.