1.1. Definitions and Scope of Caring

This paper defines the term “caring,” focusing on three main usages in Japan.

First, “caring” appears in policies and institutions, such as care management, trauma care, and mental health care ¹. Second, the term is used in academic discussions to refer to overlooked needs that problem-concerned parties have not addressed, as in feminism, nursing, medical studies, and the humanities and social sciences ^2,3. Third, caring is thoughtfulness, consideration, and assistance in everyday life, and it creatively responds to suffering that is difficult to remove ⁴. These issues should be reconsidered in the context of social problems such as care workers, family life, division of labor, burnout syndrome, and the shortage of care workers. In other words, this reveals that the distortion of caring, which has been marginalized in modern society where individualism and freedom are highly valued, has come to light ⁵.

The various actions of caring suggest that everyone relies on others in the social network through donative actions such as child-rearing, support for the elderly, and nursing care. The ethics of care ² asks how others’ needs are addressed, and this is an issue everyone should consider, regardless of class. Although the term “caring” is used by everyone, its precise meaning and scope vary across fields, and it is often used vaguely.

Along with the previously mentioned ideas of caring, caring is a common action, focusing on caring practices in everyday life and institutions. Caring involves thoughtful consideration for and engagement with others and objects, including activities such as adjustment and trial and error in relationships, as well as efforts to maintain and reproduce society, order, relationships, and labor through both face-to-face and remote support, as well as public social welfare services provided by families and professionals. Additionally, caring as an idea represents a fundamental re-evaluation of the self, viewing others and objects as opportunities, and fosters creative cooperation through actions between oneself and others.

In this paper, therefore, caring is understood not as a fixed category or a morally self-evident good, but as a relational practice of attending to and responding to concrete situations in which life, dignity, and relationships become unstable. Caring involves not only providing support but also negotiating what can be done, said, withheld, or revised in relation to others’ voices, vulnerabilities, and changing circumstances. This definition allows us to examine caring across institutional, professional, and informal settings without reducing it to either formal intervention or spontaneous benevolence. These caring actions are embedded in historical context, societal values, and the environment. Rather than treating care merely as institutional support, professional intervention, or moral obligation, this paper examines caring as a relational and ongoing process that emerges across the continuum between everyday life and disaster. In doing so, this study contributes to disaster research by highlighting forms of care that are often fragmented, informal, and difficult to institutionalize, while also extending care studies by attending to uncertainty, instability, and the temporal condition.

1.2. Phases Emerging in the Time of Disaster and Restoration

Raphael describes the society in which disaster victims relieve others’ suffering and take on both the roles of victim and rescuer to help one another as an “altruistic and healing society full of active feeling” ⁶. Solnit observes a temporary, fleeting form of mutual aid, in which disaster victims contribute what they can and build community and solidarity amid a sense of exaltation ⁷. Furthermore, as shown by Graeber’s concept of “baseline communism,” the fundamental human principle that people give according to ability and receive according to needs—rather than for personal gain—is common in mutual aid during disasters. Such relationships sometimes emerge as a “rough and ready community” ⁸.

Zack, who discusses the ethics of disaster, notes that all individuals in positions of responsibility, whether personal or professional, understand that they will be needed by others during a disaster and take “moral responsibility” to respond to an expected emergency based on their skills, strength, and responsibilities ⁹. These discussions are part of the actions and norms that demonstrate caring during a time of disaster and recovery.

Focusing on a concrete example, Erikson’s case of Buffalo Creek, a coal-mining town in the mountainous region of West Virginia, is worth examining ¹⁰. The community there is rooted in daily relations and affection. In addition to the old and strong Christian love of neighbors, camaraderie fostered by working at the same coal mining company, and family ties, are visible. In everyday life, caring actions are repeated, such as residents talking with familiar people on the street, sharing food and drinks, and supporting each other with shopping. However, the muddy stream carrying slag caused by unusually heavy rain and a coal-waste avalanche destroyed the town, wiping out the foundations of everyday life in an instant. As a result, the residents, who relied on the community, lose their sense of purpose, and “collective trauma” arises because the layers of connections built into daily life, people, society, and nature have been stripped away. This trauma is deeply felt, marked by a profound sense of loss. This case illustrates ^11,12 that not only mental care but also “care of relations” to rebuild community and landscape is essential, teaching us these needs firsthand.

In Japan, the words that encompass caring and their paraphrases are quite diverse. This variety is also evident in instances where opportunities for caring appear during disasters and during the phases of recovery and rebuilding. Mitsui points out, “when a volunteer appears for a victim as another person who takes care of the victim and will be emotionally supportive, the victim gets out of the frame of a victim to be helped and volunteer to provide help in a moment and asks a question of who the volunteer is and why the volunteer comes here” ¹³. In this scene, the victim shifts from a position of “being helped” to asking the volunteer “who the volunteer is and why the volunteer comes here.” Such moments shake the asymmetrical relationship between supporter and supported person, reverse their roles, and change the framework for understanding, opening the door to mutuality in caring ¹⁴.

Itakura argues that caring should not be limited to the social image of the weak, judged solely by attributes, but should instead include all individuals who face concrete difficulties during a disaster ¹⁵. Kimura’s long-term fieldwork depicts the reality of a local community in which social welfare, considered a caring entity, is insufficient during the transition period when a disaster victim ages and continues to live with nursing care ¹⁶. In that situation, peripheral caring can be found within the household unit, connecting the region, facility, family, and caregiving figures throughout the period from disaster suffering and life rebuilding to end-of-life daily living.

The relations and practices of caring during a disaster do not always appear as idealized or conceptual but often as fragments. Therefore, alternative perspectives and vocabularies introduced by thought, philosophy, and practice in the humanities and social sciences, including critical viewpoints, can be drawn on when considering caring in relation to, and through analogy with, everyday life. It is especially valuable in this paper to describe and examine how relationships between people emerge and disappear during a disaster and how these relationships may differ from those in everyday life.

1.3. Aim and Contribution of This Paper

During disasters, when the flow of people, goods, money, and information is highly active and technologies are advanced, caring is often treated as insignificant and pushed aside in discussions. When caring is incorporated into disaster prevention, evacuation, and recovery, it is usually framed rationally and collectively within systems, institutions, and mutual actions, including medical services, mental health, trauma care, public health, evacuation procedures, ethics of disaster management, technologies, and humanitarian principles ^17,18,19,20. In this context, feminist perspectives and questions such as “who plays what role, whether there is dependency or not” are often overlooked, and caring is typically regarded as good and necessary but is uncritically accepted within ethics and norms ^21,22. As a result, these issues are often overlooked, and they can be identified during the process of restoring and rebuilding a new everyday life.

Some examples of such issues include the process in which care remains unstable or is stuck in a reality where care no longer functions; the reality and voices introduced by care; the space that supports individual concerns and relationships; and individuals who are caught in a gap at the interface with social institutions and are difficult to categorize as autonomous or not, as well as decisions concerning these individuals. These examples are quite common in the context of restoration and everyday life, but thought often halts before addressing the problem, and there is not enough focus on the foundational aspects.

This paper examines terminology and discussions in established caring theory, nursing, social welfare, and the humanities and social sciences, and attempts to identify connections to disaster research. Drawing on disaster research, a wide range of researchers in fields such as anthropology, nursing, disaster psychology, and group dynamics address related issues. The aspects of mutually constituted relational caring are analyzed using methodology and field experience that do not fit within institutionalized caring theory. The knowledge gained in this paper could serve as a clue for developing various forms of caring not only for the recent urgent problem of the Noto Peninsula compound disaster but also for the heavy rains in Kyushu, past disasters, and future incidents. It also aims to lay the foundation for less institutionalized or relational practices.

This research was conducted at the intersection of disaster and care studies. Existing disaster research has extensively examined mutual aid, volunteerism, community resilience, professional intervention, and institutional support. Care studies, meanwhile, have developed critical vocabularies for understanding dependency, vulnerability, relationality, and the maintenance of life. Building on these discussions, this paper does not treat caring as merely another form of support during disasters. Instead, it examines how caring pluralizes disaster response by making visible the fragmented, informal, and relational practices that emerge across everyday life, emergency response, and long-term recovery. In doing so, the paper clarifies how disaster research can be extended through care studies and how care studies can be reworked through disaster contexts marked by uncertainty, repetition, and institutional incompleteness. Importantly, this paper does not position caring outside or against institutions. Rather, it examines how caring may complement, negotiate, and reconfigure institutional frameworks when formal systems alone cannot fully address the situated needs, voices, and relationships that arise in disaster contexts.

2.1. Updating Caring Theory

The term “caring” varies across viewpoints and practices. Ueno, who writes about the sociology of care and has influence in this field in Japan, points out that the concept and definition of caring are not so meaningful; instead, it is important to see in what context the action is considered caring, because the concepts of caring and care work depend on the context ²³. The authors do not cover the entire picture of caring below but extract and arrange some significant issues of recent caring theories for discussion in the following sections.

Accordng to Fisher and Tronto, caring is defined as “a species of activity that includes everything we do to maintain, continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as possible” ²⁴. Tronto emphasizes that caring involves socially and politically functioning activities, whereas most activities are culturally defined and vary across cultures. She rejects the idea that caring is limited to the dichotomy of “caring person/cared person” and the belief that specific attributes, such as woman and mother, confer a stronger capacity for caring. She shows that caring also includes ethical and emotional dimensions, as indicated by the phrases “care about” and “take care of,” which are realized by connecting these dimensions to works of maintenance and concrete practices.

Annemarie Mol, a medical anthropologist and empirical philosopher, observes diabetic patients and the surrounding persons, things, and environment in detail in a Dutch hospital. According to Mol, the objective of caring is “exploring how a good life may be lived is, just like diabetes, chronic” ²⁵. In this context, “chronic” means that even in diseases with no expectation of complete recovery, the exploration continues, and countless efforts are made to achieve a good life. However, a sick body is unpredictable, and even with effort, progress is sometimes hindered. Therefore, care does not produce tangible results, and what constitutes a good outcome is not predefined.

Furthermore, Mol rejects the assumption of modern ethics that treats “individualization,” a conventional Western ideal, as an ideal, emphasizing autonomous individuals. Instead, she stresses that care arises from the complex entanglement involving non-human factors such as objects, technology, relationships, and the environment; the process of caring involves repetition within this entanglement, characterized by trial, error, and adjustment, relying on past experiences and future possibilities ²⁵.

For example, as Kimura et al. ²⁶ argue, this perspective resonates with the practical stance adopted by primary care physicians in the context of COVID-19 vaccination: while generally recommending vaccination, they accepted refusal as a matter of individual judgment. Given concerns about paternalism, these physicians maintained, as a basic orientation, an individualized and attentive approach to each person ²⁷.

Both Tronto and Mol argue that caring encompasses all the actions we take to pursue a good life. Importantly, these actions are not prescribed by institutions and procedures but aim for the concrete goodness of life. This goodness is not dictated by external norms and morals but is realized through the accumulation of actions. There are various types of caring, viewed as perspectives on and involvement in practice.

Thelen emphasizes that caring practices have the capacity to construct and resolve relations across different fields of action, and we should discuss them not on the basis of established relations but on the practices that are told and performed ²⁸. By observing these practices and their changes, the concept of caring may reveal unexpected insights. Mori also understands caring as a process of interaction built through relationships with people, things, institutions, and experiences, and positions it as a set of activities that dynamically shape the interface with society, even though caring involves asymmetry ²⁹. To say that care, as defined by Nishi et al., encompasses everything we do in pursuit of a good life is to emphasize that such “doing” is not prescribed by institutions or procedures. Rather, it is a practice oriented toward the concrete goodness of life. This goodness is not determined by generalized norms or moral principles; instead, it emerges through the accumulation of situated, concrete actions ²².

Based on fieldwork in eldercare facilities in Sri Lanka, Nakamura argues that experiences of “resonating with the suffering of others” or “living through the body of a suffering other” provide the basis for assigning meaning to acts of care that “act upon an Other presumed to be in the midst of suffering, while taking as a premise that one is not oneself exempt from suffering” within Buddhist charitable institutional care ³⁰. Similarly, drawing on her research on eldercare in northern Thailand, Aulino suggests that the question of which values, norms, or social order the acts of care serve should be analytically separated from the emotions, intentions, or beliefs of the actors who perform them ³¹. Although volunteers mobilized by the Thai government in the name of caring for older people and people with disabilities have gained broad public support through their association with Buddhist merit-making, this system does not, in fact, reduce the care burden placed on families. It is therefore important to remember that acceptance of such care and of the realities it sustains may, in some social contexts, be covertly entangled with violence.

Drawing on these discussions, care today can be understood as something that should first be distinguished from direct translations such as nursing care, caregiving, consideration, and attentiveness, as well as from the binary framework of “caring/cared for.” Rather, care should be approached from the standpoint of concrete practices, experiences, places, and relationships.

2.2. Analogy Between Everyday Life and Disaster

These discussions do not place caring outside institutions and power but rather inspire the imagination to see caring as part of efforts to heal the world. Even such a rough list of definitions contains several elements relevant to disaster research. Concepts such as responsibility, ethics, practice, time, trial and error, dependency, relationship, field, norm, institution, control, resilience, and unpredictability are categories that are repeatedly addressed in disaster research and can be connected to the idea of caring.

Considering the above discussions, caring in this paper is briefly defined not as a fixed concept but as relational, ongoing practices and ethics formed through relationships among people and between people and their environment, grounded in the instability of life. Caring is not only the asymmetric structure of giving and receiving but also actions and behaviors that create a space for change, allowing individuals to adapt and seek better paths. In disaster research, caring also encompasses the relationships in which victims find meaning in their lives and daily routines, supporting one another through catastrophe and recovery.

Two overlapping points emerge when considering care and disaster. The first is the relationship between “aim” (mezasu in Japanese) and “spend” (sugosu in Japanese) as Miyamoto proposes ³². In restoration support, current practices are often intentional; for example, a volunteer may stay with a victim or simply remain close to them. Miyamoto emphasizes the importance of presence in these actions—when someone experiences great loss, they may find it difficult to engage in future practices, and supporters from outside emphasize the irreplaceable presence of the victim. This is structured as involvement with “aim” and “spend,” as advocated by clinical communication theory for childcare. Involvement with “spend” assumes that the situation remains unchanged, whereas involvement with “aim” involves assessing the person’s abilities to foster change. In other words, this does not simply mean that the situation remains problematic in both care and disaster; rather, it requires us to examine what is pursued within consummatory and instrumental time in everyday life ³³.

Second, the concept of “in-between disasters” has recently gained attention. Nihei discusses this idea in a paper following the Great East Japan Earthquake and suggests that disasters are not just exceptional events but recur ³⁴. The period of peace should always be recognized as existing between disasters. Nihei points out that people and regions already in difficult situations during normal times are pushed into the most severe conditions during a disaster. He emphasizes that society must shift to support such vulnerable individuals even during ordinary times, which means changing attitudes toward disaster. In other words, the idea of “in-between disasters” does not focus solely on what happens after a disaster but highlights the ongoing processes caused by disasters and how our everyday lives are continuously affected ^35,36.

Nihei points out that there is not always clear spare time between disasters and questions this assumption. He also emphasizes that regions and people already in difficult situations, even during normal times, are pushed into the most severe circumstances during disasters ³⁴. Nihei insists that society must support vulnerable people even in ordinary times, meaning that attitudes toward disasters must change.

In Japan, the phrase “disaster-prone region” reflects a shared recognition of the repeated occurrence of disasters. However, this recognition often assumes that each type of disaster—such as earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and floods—ends its own cycle. While some disasters, such as volcanic eruptions and large earthquakes, involve prolonged activity and aftershocks, society often perceives each disaster as an isolated event. Yet, in a society where new disasters can occur amid recovery, each event causes different types of damage compared to a single disaster. Disasters deeply affect victims’ psychology and social relations, leading to low motivation to rebuild, a sense of hopelessness, despair over repeated damage, shame about receiving aid, and dependence ³⁷.

As shown by the compound disasters on the Noto Peninsula, the impacts of “in-between disasters” on residents and society—such as disrupted rebuilding processes—are uncertain and often invisible in today’s world, where risks are intertwined across time and space. In recent years, Japan has gradually developed institutional mechanisms for recovery and survivor support—including disaster-related legislation, disaster case management, disaster response governance, and insurance. However, in an “in-between disasters” society, where declining resources and increasingly frequent disasters are anticipated, scholars have also pointed to the possibility that dysfunctions in welfare and medical systems may become more visible. The vulnerability of institutionalized care—care closely associated with public welfare and social security—is therefore becoming an increasingly immediate concern ³⁸.

At the same time, care outside institutional frameworks, grounded in informal and intangible practices and ideals such as altruism, gift-giving, and volunteering, has shown some effectiveness. Yet it is also becoming clear that such care cannot fully substitute for institutional care, and that sustaining its continuity and spontaneity is considerably difficult ¹⁴. Therefore, a more precise understanding and response are required, demanding ongoing and long-term care.

From this perspective, the connection between caring theory and disaster research becomes evident. For instance, based on Mitsui ¹ and Gilligan ², Mochizuki ³⁹, who considers the purpose of life after the earthquake, finds that victims’ problems are not always meant to be solved. Instead, he points to caring as evident in supporters who stay close to victims and continue to worry about their issues. Mochizuki also seeks to describe early signs of cooperative caring that address personal problems caused by disasters, such as loss of purpose or psychological distress.

Thus, caring should not be reduced to concepts of continuity, process, recovery, or institutional frameworks. Instead, a perspective focused on gradually improving one’s situation—even outside formal institutions—is necessary. Although this viewpoint may seem contradictory and no definitive solution exists, it remains important to recognize the value of varied caring practices and ethics, including methods where caregivers adjust and “tinker” ⁴⁰ with situations repeatedly from where the problem resides. Also, if disaster and community resilience are conceived as a desired state or capacity for recovery ⁴¹, care can be understood as a set of relational and trial-and-error practices oriented toward realizing that condition.

Bringing the multiplicity of care to the fore enables the recognition of practices and experiences that have previously remained invisible and fosters a more closely attuned understanding of the realities of recovery. In this sense, explicitly acknowledging the polysemy of care is essential not only for making visible the practices and relationships obscured by reductive definitions, but also for expanding the conceptual frameworks and practical approaches through which contemporary disaster recovery is understood and addressed.

3.1. Restoration Where Goodness Cannot Be Found

Tsuchida ⁴³ acknowledges hesitation about disposing of things, as it excessively evokes the sense of victims’ lives during disaster volunteer work amid stagnant restoration and reconstruction, especially in debris removal and waste disposal. The act of disposing of others’ belongings often involves resistance and displeasure, whether after a disaster or in everyday life. However, during restoration and reconstruction, the original space undergoes drastic changes. In that context, a view emerges in which items are placed in a disorderly manner and judged to be discarded, given space limitations for unnecessary items and the victims’ length of stay.

The person present in this scene has no choice but to feel the personal memories and the quality of life evoked by such things. This feeling of hesitation is shared among the veteran senior staff member, who has worked at the site of urgent support, and the volunteer staff member, a female university student who has been working at the dispatch activity base for a long time. They catch a glimpse of the house owner’s determination and dignity and also sense resistance to supporting the disposal by their own hands.

This experience reminds us that, prior to support and institutional intervention, there is still uncertainty about what constitutes effective disaster recovery for affected areas and victims. If disposal evokes some understanding of relationships and suggests a direction for community care during uncertain recovery, it is helpful to describe how a network of relationships with others and different existences gradually comes together, and how supporting persons stay close to the concreteness of life, depending on the situation.

While sorting belongings, Tsuchida repeatedly encountered objects that bore traces of personal histories. One moment stood out: a framed jigsaw puzzle labeled “household waste.” Disassembling it for disposal felt like dismantling accumulated time and care. Such moments resonate with Morimoto’s notion of “living archives” ⁴⁴, in which objects are not inert remnants but ongoing carriers of relationships, care, and temporality. Exploring and practicing cooperative restoration is also part of this. Here, “goodness” does not denote a universal standard of recovery or an externally defined goal. Rather, it refers to a provisional, situated judgment that emerges through hesitation, adjustment, and repeated engagement with people, objects, and damaged environments. In disaster recovery, what appears administratively as debris or waste may still carry memories, relationships, and dignity for those affected. Therefore, caring requires attention to the unstable process by which the meaning of “better” is negotiated in practice. The act of sorting debris exposed tensions between care and necessity, prompting a questioning of purpose itself.

To expand on the above interpretation, the concepts of “the logic of choice” and “the logic of care” ²⁵, as advocated by Annemarie Mol, are examined. The term “logic” here refers to a certain community and attitude that arise from local and diverse practices. “The logic of choice” refers to a way of thinking in which an individual has their own intentions and desires and takes responsibility for the outcomes of their choices in the moment. In the context of medical treatment, informed consent and abortion serve as simple examples. An expert provides information; the patient can freely choose among alternatives, but the patient bears responsibility for the result. This decision-making process unfolds linearly over time, and the individual lives within it. Society often celebrates autonomous individuals and the freedom of choice as consumers or citizens, while expecting them to be responsible. However, assigning responsibility and judgment to individuals according to this logic can restrict the potential for a good life. In situations marked by high uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability, realistic solutions become difficult for both the individual and the caregiver, especially when guided by self-determination, modern ethics, or professional judgment.

This includes decisions such as whether to evacuate, find temporary housing, reconstruct on-site, move or stay, or continue living in a high-risk disaster area. Conversely, “the logic of care” refers to a practice in which the caregiver remains attuned to the individuality and concreteness of the person’s life, adjusting to improve their situation and prevent deterioration. While “the logic of choice” involves a single process, a single turning point, and individual responsibility, “the logic of care” involves ongoing trial and error to improve circumstances, including daily ingenuity and the addressing of failures. In “the logic of care,” practices are essential to collectively pursue a better life, based on mutual aid and considering individual difficulties. It is also crucial that non-human elements—such as tools, technology, institutions, and networks of people and things—continue to support these efforts.

Mol considers it “good” to understand concretely the kind of situation the person involved lives in, including what human and technical resources are available and what the person could select using those resources ²⁵. Based on Mol’s thoughts, Tsuchida notes that it is important to recognize that even when no solution is evident beforehand, various actors such as victims, their families, volunteers, and artifacts like debris and needs sheets get involved to create better care. The normative value of “better” is never fixed and cannot be perfectly grasped by anyone or anything. Therefore, in the fields of disaster prevention, mitigation, restoration, community, and planning, no one should base their ideas solely on the norm “shall.” Instead, a better approach to care should be guided by thoughtfulness and by consideration of the concrete situation and existing conditions. In disaster research, understanding the caring processes that creatively connect relations—highlighting the importance of how people and things in the affected area work together—is essential.

3.2. Foundational Support and Participatory Space

In times of disaster, support from many nonprofit organizations is indispensable. The professional care provided by these organizations is an essential part of aiding disaster victims. However, during large-scale disasters, professional organizations alone cannot provide adequate assistance to victims. Moreover, to effectively respond to victims’ needs, it is not enough to address visible problems; emotional support and close contact are also necessary. This points to a broader understanding of care in disaster contexts—one that extends beyond formal professional roles.

Mitsui ¹³ classifies care-related support into three types: support from conventional professionals, professional care, and foundational support. Support from “conventional professionals” involves assessing the cared-for person’s needs and providing necessities. “Conventional professionals” aim to treat the illness itself. Even for professionals, it is considered important that patients participate in treatment by establishing shared objectives and creating an environment that encourages patient involvement. “Professional care” emphasizes cooperation with the patient to improve quality of life. Conversely, “foundational support” relates to everyday life both before and after professional assistance, supporting the patient. For example, to go to a hospital, a patient must understand their condition, determine which hospital is appropriate, and have a way to get there. Some patients might also feel anxious about life after treatment. It is easy to imagine that a patient needing professional care may struggle with everyday life post-treatment if they lack a strong foundation in daily living. “Foundational support” aims to assist with life before and after professional intervention.

Life can be improved by strengthening everyday human relationships through “foundational support” without relying on professionals. For example, a worker who supports an isolated person is a common case ⁴⁵. A link worker builds connections with society and helps the individual live a good life by fostering community links without focusing on the illness itself. During disaster relief, life improves not only by solving disaster-related problems but also by fostering diverse connections and reshaping perceptions of the local area through interactions with external supporters. For instance, a student who is not a professional but an outsider supporter, visits a disaster-affected area, and victims learn to see their local area differently ⁴⁶. These cases illustrate that “foundational support,” as a mode of caring, fosters agency and belonging rather than dependency.

As mentioned above, “foundational support” can also play a crucial role during disasters. However, in urgent situations where care is suddenly needed, it is challenging to implement “foundational support,” which assumes ongoing involvement. “General incorporated association Omoyai” (hereafter, “Omoyai”) affected by the heavy rain disasters in Saga in 2019 and 2021. Omoyai practices “foundational support” by creating a “participatory space” that includes diverse individuals ⁴⁷. To understand what this care looks like in practice, consider the following case. Omoyai does not intentionally make detailed plans, but is managed based on what the people involved can or want to do. For example, a woman’s house was partially destroyed, but she could not repair it because of her financial situation. Omoyai supported tidying up her house. During the activities, a member noticed that she was good at teaching children and proposed that she participate in the volunteer work, which she accepted. Taking this as an opportunity, she began working as a teacher in the “terakoya” (a traditional Japanese small private school) program. This case illustrates two key dimensions of caring. First, the woman is treated not merely as a recipient of aid but as a subject with her own capacities—care is realized by drawing out and supporting what she can contribute. Second, this approach enacts the logic of "foundational support": caring is embedded in everyday relationships and reciprocal participation, enabling diverse activities to emerge organically. In this way, Omoyai demonstrates that "foundational support" as caring can be realized even in disaster contexts by constructing a "participatory space" in which victims become active subjects rather than passive recipients.

Regarding the concept of “participatory space,” Mitsui states, “People in the space think that something certainly ‘exists’ there [...]. There is no way to express it other than as a ‘participatory space,’ but it is certainly as if there were a relationship woven by various things and multiple subjects” ¹³. By designing “participatory spaces” with attention not only to acts of caring but also to the reciprocity among people, objects, and the environment—rather than reducing the space to the concern or intervention of any single individual—diverse forms of involvement and interaction to care for others become possible. The “participatory space” of “Omoyai” also shares the common point that the persons concerned feel it exists, and that diverse relationships are fostered by the “participatory space.” At the time of disaster, “foundational support” in terms of care can be realized by constructing the “participatory space” where everyone, including the victims, participates, as in the case of “Omoyai,” and becomes a subject.

Next, the authors examine the caring aspect of the 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake. Since the earthquake encouraged restraint among volunteers, disaster volunteers’ activities were delayed in getting underway ⁴⁸. According to Ishikawa Prefecture, professional volunteers are distinguished from general volunteers, and the latter are advised to exercise restraint ⁴⁹. Professional volunteers are organizations capable of providing self-contained professional support and are recognized as specialized professionals. Their roles include supporting shelters, repairing damaged houses, and assisting disaster victims in their homes, thus making them caretakers for disaster victims. In contrast, general volunteers are registered with the disaster volunteer center, participate in activities, and are typically assigned light tasks such as cleaning debris. In summary, professional volunteers are regarded as caregivers for disaster victims during emergencies, whereas general volunteers are not recognized as caregivers.

However, many general volunteers are involved in caring for disaster victims. At the site where the author participated in activities related to the Noto Peninsula Earthquake, non-professional volunteers held a tea ceremony with disaster victims and a foot-bath volunteer. In the foot bath activity, volunteers sat face-to-face with disaster survivors, placing their feet in a warm tub to gently massage and improve blood circulation, while also listening closely to their stories and gathering information about their needs and living conditions. On May 17, 2024, the disaster victims who visited the supply distribution center said, “When I come here, there is another place to go. Here is my emotional support.” “Since I came here, the depression has decreased largely.” Because they not only receive goods but also talk to the volunteers, care is realized through the emotional support provided to disaster victims. Furthermore, volunteers come not only to drink tea but also to help distribute goods or bring some treats. In this way, a “participatory space” is spontaneously created. This confirms that caring is not the exclusive domain of professionals: general volunteers, through their everyday interactions with those affected, can enact meaningful care and become subjects within a participatory space.

3.3. Multi-Voice and Multi-Angle Reality

This section discusses the importance of introducing the perspective of multi-voice and multi-angle reality from an anthropological point of view. As a well-known critique of cultural anthropology, Writing Culture by Clifford and Marcus ⁵⁰ argued that ethnography cannot be regarded as an objective description of the actions and behaviors of the people being studied. Rather, ethnography is inevitably constructed from the single voice and single angle of a researcher. Building on this critique, various methods have been proposed in cultural anthropology to ensure that researchers do not unilaterally dominate the description; those who participate in the research, or those being observed, should also be expected to participate in the process of interpretation and representation.

When caregiving practices are examined from this perspective, does a similar structure emerge? In other words, care providers or researchers listen to and observe care receivers’ situations and subsequently plan and deliver care for them. The relationship between care provider and receiver closely parallels that between anthropologists and the people they study: a single voice and single angle viewpoint held by the care provider or researcher may determine how the reality of the care receiver is understood and represented.

Then, what do truly multi-voice and multi-angle practices of caring indicate? The “Rashomon effect,” derived from Akira Kurosawa’s film Rashomon, which is an adaptation of Ryunosuke Akutagawa’s novel In a Grove, provides an important reference point to understand this question. Although the detailed story of this movie is omitted, it centers on the testimonies of four individuals regarding the death of a samurai. Each testimony differs substantially and is inconsistent with the others; however, each testimony reflects the perspective of the individual involved. Thus, the reality for each individual regarding the single event is quite diverse, and no singular objective account can be established.

Then, how can care proceed when it is grounded in such multi-angle and multi-voice reality? To explore this question, a trial of space of care was organized in the Noto Peninsula following the earthquake disasters. Specifically, the 2020 Noto Peninsula Earthquake began with an earthquake swarm in December 2020, and 2,629 felt earthquakes occurred through 2024, including an M6.5 earthquake on May 5, 2023. During this series of seismic activity, attention is drawn to scientific knowledge about the tendency of earthquake swarms and their mechanisms, particularly the role of fluids. Sharing this knowledge among the academic community and citizens could lead to feelings of safety or increased anxiety, build confidence or generate distrust in scientific understanding, motivate recovery and settlement efforts, or trigger loss ⁵¹. In other words, realities and perspectives regarding natural phenomena and post-disaster recovery are inherently diverse. Such realities cannot be monopolized by a single stakeholder, whether local decision-makers, community leaders, or scientists.

Therefore, a symposium to present the multi-voice, multi-angle reality of the Noto Peninsula Earthquake was held in Suzu City on July 27, 2025. About 100 citizens, mainly from Suzu City, attended the symposium. Since the main practical objective of the symposium was to share the results of the earthquake monitoring activities, seismologists and administrative officials gave presentations on current and potential future earthquake activity. As one-way communication about scientific knowledge could cause negative feelings among citizens, a panel discussion was organized after the symposium to facilitate dialogue between citizens and scientists.

This symposium served as an organized space of care in which panelists shared diverse perspectives on earthquake activities and recovery. The panelists consisted of two community leaders of Suzu City, two high school students, one junior high school teacher, one seismologist, and one social scientist. Throughout the discussion, some participants expressed their attachment to local life and the importance of community continuity despite ongoing seismic risk, while others emphasized the difficulty of living on the Noto Peninsula amid depopulation and uncertainty about the future.

Such communication is an aspect that cannot be overlooked. In caring practices grounded in multi-voiced and multi-perspectival realities, diverse realities intermingle, and practices are generated through overlapping processes, thereby making a more responsive world of caring possible. Caring practices may therefore be understood not as the provision of correct support from one side to another, but as the continuous creation and maintenance of spaces in which diverse realities can be safely expressed and shared.

3.4. Selfcare

This section discusses the importance of self-care in disaster contexts from the perspective of nursing science. In everyday life, people not only receive care from others but also maintain their health and daily functioning through self-care practices. However, disasters may disrupt individuals’ ability to continue self-care, which can negatively affect their health. The impact of a disaster extends beyond damage to buildings and infrastructure. It threatens the very foundation of residents’ lives and causes serious physical and mental health issues. Particularly in environments where evacuation periods are extended, lifelines are disrupted, and medical resources are limited, a variety of health problems tend to emerge. These include worsening chronic diseases, outbreaks of infectious diseases, mental stress, and social isolation. In such situations, disasters disrupt not only physical health but also individuals’ ability to maintain everyday self-care and health management.

Under those circumstances, a nursing professional not only acts as a medical supporter and provider but also remains attuned to residents’ anxiety and suffering, supporting their everyday lives and mental health. In disaster contexts, nursing also plays an important role in helping individuals sustain and reconstruct self-care practices under disrupted living conditions. The nursing profession is not limited to treatment actions but includes efforts to protect human dignity, facilitate recovery, and support people in managing their own health and daily life. The essence of nursing lies precisely in the relationship of caring.

Orem’s “Theory of Self-Care” provides an important framework for understanding disaster care because it focuses on individuals’ ability to sustain everyday health management and on the role of nursing in supporting insufficient self-care ⁵². In Orem’s theory, nursing is defined as helping behavior that supports an individual’s ability for self-care and complements insufficient self-care. During a disaster, it is often difficult to maintain daily health routines and life patterns due to environmental changes. For example, people with chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension may forget to take their medication or be unable to continue their dietary management. In such circumstances, nursing plays an important role in preventing deterioration of health conditions by assessing individual needs and supporting the reconstruction of self-care practices appropriate to disrupted living conditions. These nursing practices can be understood as caring because they support individuals in sustaining and reconstructing everyday self-care under disrupted conditions.

In recent years in Japan, attention has increasingly focused not only on direct disaster-related fatalities but also on “disaster-related deaths” occurring after disasters, due to the physical and psychological burden of prolonged evacuation and disrupted living conditions. These deaths are closely associated with interruption of medical and care services, as well as difficulties in sustaining everyday health management and self-care. The following studies illustrate the relationship between disaster-related deaths and disruption of self-care practices. Kida and Ishikawa analyze 169 cases of disaster-related death in the Noto Peninsula Earthquake and report that approximately 80% of these deaths involve individuals aged 70 and over ⁵³. Many of these deaths are due to cardiovascular diseases such as heart failure and arrhythmia, as well as respiratory diseases like pneumonia. Disruptions in living environments—such as power and water outages, the burden of movement and evacuation, lack of food and water, and limited access to heaters—are said to cause physical and mental exhaustion, leading to the deterioration of chronic conditions and decreased physical strength. These findings indicate that disaster-related deaths are strongly associated with disruption of everyday self-care practices and the loss of conditions necessary for sustaining health. In other words, what is disrupted during disasters is not only medical treatment itself but also the everyday practices through which individuals maintain life and health.

Similarly, Inagaki analyzes 472 cases of disaster-related deaths in Japan and clarifies that the worsening of living conditions, such as disruption of treatment and medication intake, cessation of home medical equipment, extended transfer times, cold exposure, and malnutrition, was closely related to the causes of death ⁵⁴. In particular, cases have been reported in which power outages affecting oxygen therapy devices and aspirators cause sudden deterioration among patients receiving home care. Medication shortages and transportation disruptions also made it difficult for some individuals to continue managing their medications and maintaining everyday self-care practices. These cases demonstrate that environmental disruption during disasters deprives individuals of their ability to continue self-care and everyday health management. From the perspective of Orem’s theory, disaster care should therefore involve not only emergency medical intervention but also support for rebuilding the conditions necessary for sustaining self-care.

Building on this perspective, Fujii et al. express the need for “Seamless and Individual Care” in disaster settings ⁵⁵. Referring to the Kumamoto Earthquake, they noted that many disaster-related deaths happened outside shelters and among home evacuees. They emphasize the importance of continuous self-care support from the acute stage through medium- and long-term recovery. They demonstrate that nursing support aimed at helping individuals adjust medication management, nutrition, sleep, and activity levels—in response to changes in their living environment—is directly linked to preventing the deterioration of chronic illnesses and health damage. These practices can be interpreted as caring because they support individuals in reconstructing their everyday lives and maintaining self-care, rather than merely receiving unilateral assistance. This demonstrates the practical significance of Orem’s self-care theory in disaster settings and underscores the importance of supporting individual empowerment and life reconstruction. Recent studies by Nishigawa and Nojima further illustrate practical approaches to supporting self-care during disasters ⁵⁶. They developed a “disaster notebook” to support self-care for diabetic patients, presenting a support framework used consistently during both normal and emergency periods. The notebook visualizes physical conditions, medication management, and dietary practices, encouraging individuals to continue essential health-related actions during disasters. From this paper’s perspective, the disaster notebook can be understood as a caring practice because it supports collaborative self-management and enables individuals to understand and manage their own health conditions.

In disaster contexts, caring can be understood as a relational practice that supports individuals in sustaining and reconstructing self-care, dignity, and everyday life under disrupted conditions. This section has examined disaster self-care from the perspective of nursing science, focusing on Orem’s self-care theory and how disasters disrupt individuals’ ability to maintain everyday health management. The discussion of disaster-related deaths further demonstrates that disasters deprive individuals not only of physical safety and medical resources but also of the conditions necessary to sustain self-care and ordinary life practices. In this context, caring is not merely unilateral professional assistance but a collaborative practice that supports individuals in rebuilding self-care in line with their lived realities and changing environments. Furthermore, disaster care should be understood not only within institutional medical support but also through the everyday relationships and mutual support that emerge among affected people and communities. Such perspectives underscore the importance of developing flexible, continuous caring practices that support the reconstruction of everyday life during and after disasters.