Heat waves are a distinctive type of environmental disaster. Unlike blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, they are more or less invisible save for the many visible ways humans respond to them. And while heat waves in urban environments are frequently deadly, their victims are similarly invisible—typically poor, elderly, and socially isolated people of color who live alone on the margins of society. In Heat Wave, Eric Klinenberg analyzes one especially deadly heat wave in the summer of 1995 in Chicago. Estimates vary, but credible accounts put the death toll at more than seven hundred people, which made the 1995 Chicago heat wave the deadliest heat disaster in the United States at that time. On any estimate, many more people died in the 1995 heat wave than in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, an event which, unlike the heat wave, is forever inscribed in the collective memory of the city. By contrast, Chicagoans have all but forgotten the 1995 heat wave and those invisible people whom it killed.
In Heat Wave, Klinenberg performs what he calls a “social autopsy” of the 1995 Chicago heat wave. Just as a medical autopsy opens the human body to determine the proximate causes of mortality, a social autopsy examines the social “body” of the city to identify the conditions that contributed, in this case, to heat-related deaths. By way of the social autopsy, Klinenberg aims to dispel the erroneous notion that the heat wave was, as it were, an “act of God”—an unforeseeable weather event with unfortunate consequences that could not have been avoided. More precisely, he strives to show how social conditions that “we have collectively created” are what “made it possible for so many Chicago residents to die in the summer of 1995” and, moreover, that these same conditions “make these deaths so easy to overlook and forget” (11). Yet the social autopsy also serves a different, albeit related function: on the Maussian and Durkheimian principle that extreme events allow us “to better perceive the facts than in those places where . . . they still remain small-scale and involuted,” Klinenberg’s analysis of the heat way discloses otherwise difficult-to-perceive social conditions that nevertheless structure life in the city each and every day (23). These conditions, like the heat wave, are in some sense invisible; the social autopsy unveils them and subjects them to close analysis and critical inquiry.
Klinenberg takes a kind of double-barrelled approach to his social autopsy. On the one hand, he focuses on systems, structures, and institutions to account for a wide variety of social, cultural, economic, and urban environmental factors that compounded the effects of the heat wave. On the other hand, he conducts hundreds of interviews with victims’ friends and families, elderly citizens who survived the heat wave, journalists, city officials, and other observers to understand the heat wave at the “face-to-face” level. Both aspects of this approach inform and complement one another: Klinenberg interviews elderly North Lawndale residents, for example, to understand their lived experience of under-resourced, abandoned communities victimized by historical injustices and violent crime. Their testimony, in turn, informs his analysis of social isolation—particularly in terms of how a “culture of fear” keeps elderly residents indoors, even to the point of death amidst a heat wave. The double-barrelled approach also means that Heat Wave never strays too far from the deeply visceral and “felt” consequences of the 1995 heat wave, even if Klinenberg rejects the “personal responsibility” thesis for why some residents died while others survived. He offers readers several windows onto the lives of both victims and survivors: early in the first chapter, we read of a conference room in the Office of the Cook County Public Administrator filled with boxes of victims’ property, never to be claimed by their friends or relatives. In the same chapter, we meet Pauline Jankowitz, an older woman who covered herself with cold washcloths to survive the heat wave.
Klinenberg complements his analysis of the social conditions that compounded the effects of the heat wave with an equally incisive analysis of “the symbolic construction of the heat wave as a public event and experience” (23). He claims that journalistic, scientific, and political institutions wielded their symbolic power to impose a normative set of interpretive standards to frame the heat wave as, for example, a “natural disaster,” and that this framework mediated citizens’ experience and interpretation of the event. This analysis is a testament to what one could call the “symbolic construction of reality,” to adopt a phrase from the philosopher Ernst Cassirer. Politicians and journalists’ symbolic construction of the heat wave offered various partial interpretations of the event that obfuscated the systemic factors that exacerbated its consequences. The Daley administration used its symbolic power to defend its response to the crisis, deny moral responsibility for its harmful effects, and blame the heat wave’s victims for their own deaths. Journalists, for their part, reported on the heat wave in conformance with institutional and professional norms that sensationalized the crisis and reinforced city officials’ distorted narrative. Then, once consumers’ appetite for the disaster abated, the “major story” of the heat wave fell out of the collective consciousness. In time, it was almost entirely forgotten.
Twenty-three years after its initial publication, Heat Wave is more relevant than ever. In our current era of climate crisis, heat waves are less rare and more potent than in 2000. Nevertheless, the social, cultural, economic, and urban environmental factors to which Klinenberg calls attention in Heat Wave persist and threaten to kill many more people in cities across the world, especially those that have not yet adapted to our current climate reality. Heat waves are, and will most likely continue to be, the United States’ “most lethal form of extreme weather. They remain silent and invisible killers of silent and invisible people” (xxi). To dismiss, trivialize, or sensationalize heat waves is a moral failure and an injustice to the poor, elderly, and socially isolated people of color most likely to suffer and die from their effects—and whose lives we can, in many instances, collectively protect.