Disaster survivors are often criticised for being dependent on humanitarian (and development) assistance. This dependency is perceived pejoratively by civil servants and other elites, including non-governmental organisation staff. Officials offered up such narratives in relation to the disaster response and recovery programmes following the Nepal earthquake of 2015. Using a Bourdieusian framework, and undertaking qualitative inquiry in four earthquake-affected districts of Nepal, this paper contrasts the official narratives of dependency syndrome with people's perspectives and lived experiences. The findings problematise official discourse. Aid was frequently insufficient, poorly targeted, or non-existent. Moreover, the Bourdieusian framing highlights the agency of survivors, as their habitus predisposed them to help others. It broadens the notion of assistance and dependence, suggesting that social and cultural (as well as economic) capital are vital resources for recovery. Lastly, it shows that dependencies are not necessarily bad. Greater attention to these non-economic capitals and ‘good dependencies’ could expedite recovery from future disasters.

中文翻译：

---

Paranirvar mānis（受抚养人）？重新思考人道主义依赖综合症：布迪厄斯的观点

灾难幸存者经常因依赖人道主义（和发展）援助而受到批评。这种依赖被公务员和其他精英，包括非政府组织工作人员贬低地看待。官方在 2015 年尼泊尔地震后提供了有关灾难响应和恢复计划的此类叙述。使用布迪厄斯框架，并在尼泊尔四个地震受灾地区进行定性调查，本文将依赖综合症的官方叙述与人们的依赖综合症进行对比观点和生活经验。这些发现对官方话语提出了质疑。援助往往不足、目标不明确或根本不存在。此外，Bourdieusian 框架突出了幸存者的能动性，因为他们的习性使他们倾向于帮助他人。它拓宽了援助和依赖的概念，表明社会和文化（以及经济）资本是恢复的重要资源。最后，它表明依赖关系不一定是坏的。更加关注这些非经济资本和“良好的依存关系”可以加快从未来灾难中恢复的速度。