Tragedy often fails to bring Americans together in modern times. Every year, devastating events cause immense suffering. Many of these are privately tragic, directly impacting only those harmed and their close contacts. However, some become politically famous and thus publicly tragic. Incidents like natural disasters, school shootings, terrorist attacks, and economic crises can escalate into public tragedies. Recently, public awareness has grown around issues such as sexual assaults by powerful men, predominantly affecting women, and police violence against African Americans, which has led to political unrest across the United States. Even the COVID-19 pandemic, initially perceived as a natural disaster, rapidly evolved into a public tragedy as the rising death toll, coupled with widespread perceptions of mismanagement, distrust, and blame, polarized the public across the political spectrum.
These occurrences signify a shift in the portrayal and response to tragic events in the United States and beyond. Public tragedies are distressing events that attract significant public attention and trigger organized public reactions like outrage, social blame, victim claims, protests, and memorialization. My book, “After Tragedy Strikes,” delves into the recent increase of public tragedies as a unique form of political crisis that has resulted in significant positive and negative impacts on societal and political relationships in the 21st century. As a sociologist focused on risk, politics, and social movements, my intention was not to assess the authenticity of claims related to public tragedies. Instead, through comparison, I aimed to better comprehend why certain events wield great influence, whereas others, seemingly similar, do not. Public tragedies have exacerbated political polarization and the divisive tone of political discourse today.
One question my book seeks to answer is why this is the case. The concise explanation is that the public’s interpretation of tragic events has evolved. Throughout most of the 20th century, tragedies were typically attributed to different causes than today. These explanations often included forces such as God, fate, misfortune, blameless accidents, or, in line with the U.S. liberal tradition, personal responsibility. Even when the suffering was severe and known to be caused or aggravated by others’ actions or inactions, explanations often followed these patterns. Consider the 1889 Johnstown Flood in Pennsylvania, where more than 2,200 people perished, and much of the city was devastated after a dam collapse. The dam had been constructed by the affluent South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club to create a private lake. Despite its failure due to inadequate construction and maintenance, neither the club nor its wealthy members were deemed responsible. In the most notable legal case against the club, the verdict attributed the tragic outcomes to an act of God.
Today, such an explanation would not hold. Following a tragedy, narratives now emphasize attributing blame. Typically, they center on social blame, wherein institutions like the government, industry, civil society, and even American culture are held accountable. Social blame attributes harm to societal forces instead of individuals or divine forces. This tendency results in political conflict surrounding public tragedies, as some social group or aspect is blamed. Another reason for the political significance of public tragedies is the shift in the contemporary American mindset. Surveys indicate that many Americans feel fear and vulnerability to uncontrollable events. This perspective fosters empathy for victims of tragic situations, especially when their suffering is depicted by political figures, the media, and social activists as stemming from political failures and injustice. Political interests on both sides of the spectrum now commonly employ claims of victimization to garner support and gain an advantage. Consider the case of George Floyd, who was killed in 2020 by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Floyd’s death ignited national outrage as video footage circulated on social media and through extensive news coverage. The narrative emphasized his innocence: as a Black man, he was wrongfully killed by the police. This portrayal was atypical for the time
Standard coverage of such incidents often focused on resistance during arrests, previous misconduct, or the victim’s criminal history, suggesting personal responsibility. Coverage of Floyd’s death did not highlight these aspects. Nor did it portray Floyd’s death as a necessary act in law enforcement’s battle against crime—a common angle in news reports. The narrative also did not imply that Chauvin was solely responsible, as a rogue officer would be. Instead, the stories linked Floyd’s killing to widespread police violence, suggesting it was common practice. Consequently, Floyd’s murder was attributed to “policing,” gaining enormous public attention and political influence. It became a public tragedy, underscoring societal issues related to Floyd’s death in a way few police killings of Black men had. Historically, Americans might have ascribed Floyd’s death to fate, misfortune, accident, or individual accountability, which might have reduced public outrage. However, such explanations are not as credible today. Instead, the heart-wrenching narratives typical of public tragedies follow a consistent storyline known as the “trauma script.” It is a crafted narrative that taps into American fears and vulnerabilities, prompting emotional reactions and moral panic. This script focuses on innocent victims affected by unforeseen, uncontrollable, and unjust circumstances attributed to societal actions or inactions.
In this view, public tragedies illustrate a moral battle in which good individuals are subjugated by a flawed society. This battle is not personal and internal but external and socially driven. It depicts situations where bad things happen to good people who have no options. Over time, the public perception of trauma and loss and its causes have evolved. In earlier times, Americans often justified hardships as part of the sacrifices necessary for progress. Now, there is a notable shift toward viewing hardships as unjust, caused by societal circumstances. This shift reflects a cultural transition from a focus on progress to an emphasis on risk. As Americans grow more aware of risks, they increasingly view these as outcomes of political decisions. Issues such as climate change, energy, firearms, sexual harassment, discrimination, policing, abortion, and even free speech are seen as involving choices about risks that benefit some while victimizing others.
Politically, these have become contentious, zero-sum issues, leading to increased political polarization and distrust of American institutions. Recent Pew Research surveys reveal that two-thirds of Americans believe that other citizens have minimal or no confidence in the government or their fellow citizens. Similarly, Gallup has demonstrated that American trust in the government and major institutions has reached historic lows. This growing distrust toward fellow citizens and perceptions of an unfair government have exacerbated political competition. Americans are increasingly inclined to blame their political adversaries for their difficulties and express sympathy only for those who share their views. This shift has fostered empathy for societal victimization claims and elevated victimhood as a central political identity.