The Oregon coast is facing the dual perils of climate change and the catastrophic Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and tsunami, yet many communities remain unprepared. Using qualitative interviews with residents of Coos Bay, Oregon, this study traces how communities facing these perils socially construct their visions of change by “remembering the future” and how this future memory influences unsettlement that, in turn, can trigger revision of strategies of action to deal with environmental risk. Participants understood these risks through three interrelated themes: analogy to familiar circumstances such as regular winter flooding, narratives of isolation and self-reliance based in collective history, and visions of symbolic preparedness. Each of these themes drew the conversation away from the material reality of environmental catastrophe, reducing relative unsettlement. Since the way that communities collectively understand environmental risk may influence preparatory action, these observations can help to explain the disjunction between knowledge of risks and response.

At first glance, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a tale that reinforces binaries. One of these is the self/other binary that is central to David Hume's and Adam Smith's theories of sympathy that conceive of a self imaginatively identifying and experiencing fellow-feeling for an other. However, this notion is complicated because Jekyll and Hyde are the same person. Further, many critics argue that Stevenson actually challenges binary thinking. While Hume and Smith do not challenge the self/other binary in connection with sympathy, trauma theory critics do challenge a self/other binary that lies at the heart of sympathy: the victim/perpetrator binary. Noted trauma theorist Dominick LaCapra develops a method of empathizing called empathic unsettlement where a secondary witness listens with empathy to a victim's traumatic witness while recognizing the difference of his or her position as a witness. He argues that perpetrators may also warrant understanding, but this understanding does not come through empathy. However, one of the hallmarks of empathic unsettlement is that it does not neatly resolve or replace traumatic narratives. Therefore, I argue that empathic unsettlement could also be a useful method for allowing a perpetrator to witness. While practicing empathic unsettlement for a perpetrator may not be worth the risk in real life, performing a thought experiment in literature can test how using empathy might provide a better way to theorize perpetration. Using two witnesses who attempt to practice empathic unsettlement for Jekyll and Hyde, Dr. Hastie Lanyon (who fails), and Mr. Gabriel John Utterson (who succeeds), I will show how empathic unsettlement could be used for both a victim and perpetrator to tease out the complexities of assessing a traumatic situation.