3.2. Classificatory Anomalies in Culture

They generally have 2 way of conventional risk management; disaster risk management, they are very directive, they are saying that okay in order to reduce the risk, you should do that you have some specific goals and you have some specific actions to perform and while doing it, they are also very reactive, they think that this is the only way to solve the problem.

Conventional risk management methods focus primarily on predicting the likelihood of disasters and establishing specific measures that must be taken to mitigate these risks. The conventional approach is rigid and primarily reactive; it dictates set actions that must be followed in response to identified risks, without considering broader perspectives or nuances related to the situation.

Imagine a school preparing for fire drills. They decide that the only effective way to handle fire risk is to conduct drills once a month and install smoke detectors. While these actions are necessary, they may fail to educate students about fire safety in everyday life or consider unique situations for each student.

There are some other perspective of risk, they are saying that it is not that external stimulus that determines people's risk perceptions but it is the socio-cultural context or individual characteristics that define the way people perceive risk.

Risk perception is deeply influenced by cultural backgrounds and personal experiences. Rather than merely reacting to physical indicators of risk (like a flood or earthquake), individuals interpret hazards through the lens of their unique social and cultural contexts, which shape their understanding and responses to risks.

Consider how two people from different cultures react to the same natural disaster. One may view it as a sign of nature's wrath and take drastic precautions, while another may interpret it as a normal occurrence based on their previous experiences, and thus respond differently.

For the cultural perspective of risk, individuals are active information seeker, they are not the passive recipient of information but they also collect informations to develop their own perception, own perspective.

Individuals actively seek out information and rely on their cultural backgrounds and social influences to interpret risks. This means that rather than simply accepting information from authorities, like governments or experts, people gather various viewpoints to form their own understanding.

Think of someone considering whether to vaccinate their child. They may gather information from healthcare professionals, fellow parents, community groups, and online platforms, each shaping their final opinion based on a mix of scientific facts and cultural beliefs.

Mary Douglas in her book in 1966, Purity and Danger is talking about the cultural importance of risk, the cultural perspective of risk that we would look into why, what is culture and why it is so important, what why she is arguing that culture is so important when we are talking about disaster risk management or risk management.

In her book 'Purity and Danger,' Mary Douglas emphasizes how culture influences our understanding of risk. She asserts that without considering cultural factors, strategies for disaster management can fall short because they fail to engage effectively with people's beliefs and behaviors.

Imagine a disaster preparedness program that does not consider local customs or traditions. If people do not believe in the program’s relevance due to cultural misunderstandings, they might not participate, leading to ineffective communal responses in times of crisis.

Douglas found that according to the Leviticus, according to the Jews Israeli, people cannot eat pigs because pig is; pigs are anomalies, like pigs have cloven hooves like cow or horse but they do not chew the cud like other cloven hooves as land animals generally do.

Douglas explores the concept of 'taxonomic anomalies,' which refers to categories of animals (like pigs) that have characteristics diverging from typical classifications. In Jewish dietary laws, pigs are considered unclean due to not fully conforming to the norms of 'clean' animals, thus reflecting a cultural understanding of risk and purity.

Similar to how someone might avoid foods that don’t align with their dietary preferences or restrictions, like a vegetarian who refrains from eating meat due to ethical concerns rather than health risks, people shape their food choices based on cultural classifications.

Even within the Hindu practices, [...] many foods are considered to be polluted, dangerous and many people are vegetarian.

Cultural practices, like vegetarianism in Hinduism, illustrate broader concepts of what is considered clean and unclean or pure and impure. This dietary choice is framed by beliefs that regard certain animals as sacred, demonstrating how cultural norms significantly impact risk perception and food choices.

For instance, a Hindu family may completely avoid eating beef in respect for cows, which are viewed as sacred. This decision arises not from physical risks but from cultural beliefs about purity and respect.

--