The Tutanic disaster: the social and class structure and the chances of survival

The author undertakes the first in the Russian and, maybe, world scientific literature sociological research into the disaster of the Titanic. It is researched the social and class structure of the community of passengers of the Titanic on the ground of statistical data on prices of tickets and on occupations of passengers. This data discovers that passengers of the Titanic belonged to different social classes. The author researched the connection between social and class structure and chances of survival. The destiny of passengers and the crew were determined by regulated and unregulated chances of survival. The regulated chances of survival were connected with the politics of the command of the Titanic, that was foremost pointed to, firstly, the rescue of passengers (but not the crew), secondly, passengers of 1^st and 2^nd classes (but not passengers of 3^rd class) and thirdly, women and children (but not men). The unregulated chances of survival were connected with ethnic, linguistic and age-related characteristics of passengers. The author considers the disaster of the Titanic within the framework of globalization.

“Титаник”, социология катастроф, историческая социология, кораблекрушение, классовый анализ, социальная структура, шансы на спасение, “Titanic”, disaster research, disaster study, sociology of disaster, historical sociology, shipwreck, class analyses, social structure, chances of survival

1. Губачек М. Титаник. М., 2000.

2. Butler D.A. Unsinkable: the full story of RMS Titanic. Mechanicsburg, 1998.

3. Drabek T.E., McEntire D.A. Emergent phenomena and the sociology of disaster: lessons, trends and opportunities from the research literature // Disaster Prevention and Management. 2003. Vol. 12. N 2. P. 97-112.

4. Eaton J.P., Haas Ch.A. Titanic: triumph and tragedy. N.Y., 1995.

5. Frey B.S., Savage D.A., Torgler B. Behavior under extreme conditions: the “Titanic” disaster // The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2011. Vol. 25. N 1. P. 209-221.

6. Handbook of disaster research / Ed. by H. Rodríguez, E.L. Quarantelli, R.R. Dynes. N.Y., 2007.

7. Islam M.S., Lim S.H. When “nature” strikes a sociology of climate change and disaster vulnerabilities in Asia // Nature and Culture. 2015. N 10 (1). P. 57-80.

8. Iversen R.R., Armstrong A.L. Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans: what might a sociological embeddedness perspective offer disaster research and planning? // Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2008. Vol. 8. N 1. P. 183-209.

9. Lewis J. Some aspects of disaster research // Disasters. 1977. Vol. I. N 3. P. 241-244.

10. Norris F.H. Disaster research methods: past progress and future directions // Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2006. Apr. Vol. 19. N 2. P. 173-184.

11. Stallings R.A. Weberian political sociology and sociological disaster studies // Sociological Forum. 2002. June. Vol. 17. N 2. P. 281-305.

12. Tierney K. A bridge to somewhere: William Freudenburg, environmental sociology and disaster research // Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 2012. Vol. 2. P. 58-68.

13. Titanic-Titanic.com. URL: http://www.titanic-titanic.com/index.shtml (дата обращения: 30.08.2015).

14. Titanic: Encyclopedia Titanica. URL: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/ (дата обращения: 31.08.2015).

15. Torry W. Anthropology and Disaster Research // Disasters. 1979. Vol. 3. N 1. P. 43-52.

16. Zani S.J. Traumatic disaster and Titanic recuperation: popular/historical representations of the Titanic // Journal of Popular Film and Television. 2003. Vol. 31. N 3. P. 125-131.

17. Ziaukas T. Titanic and public relations: a case study // Journal of Public Relations Research. 1999. Vol. 11. N 2. P. 105-123.

18. Wang J.-J. Post-disaster cross-nation mutual aid in natural hazards: case analysis from sociology of disaster and disaster politics perspectives // Nat Hazards. 2013. N 66. P. 413-438.

19. Wells A. Sinking feelings: representing and resisting the Titanic disaster in Britain, 1914-ca.1960 // Journal of British Studies. 2003. Vol. 52. Iss. 02. P. 464-490.