5.1. Definitions of Culture

Here, we are talking from the cultural perspective of risk. For the cultural perspective of risk, individuals are active information seekers; they are not passive recipients of information but they also collect informations to develop their own perception, own perspective.

This chunk discusses how individuals perceive risks based on their cultural backgrounds. Instead of simply receiving information, people actively search for and interpret data based on their experiences and cultural context. This means that how someone perceives a risk is shaped not just by the facts but also by the cultural lens through which they view the world.

Imagine a group of friends discussing a movie. Each person has different opinions based on their cultural experiences. One friend might see a character’s actions as heroic, while another might find them foolish. Similarly, when it comes to perceived risks, like the threat of natural disasters, different cultures may prioritize and interpret the same information in varying ways, leading to diverse responses and preparations.

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.

This chunk introduces Mary Douglas, a key figure in understanding cultural risk. In her book 'Purity and Danger', she emphasizes that culture plays a significant role in how societies manage risk. Douglas argues that failing to understand cultural perspectives limits our ability to communicate and manage risks effectively, particularly in contexts like disaster management.

Consider how different cultures approach food safety. In some cultures, certain foods are considered sacred or taboo, while in others, they are staples. This distinction influences how people react to food safety warnings. For instance, banning a type of food for health reasons may make sense in one culture but be met with resistance in another where it is a traditional dish.

Mary Douglas was curious why Israeli people are restricted not to have pork, why they cannot eat pork, what is the reason, why they seen it is a kind of risky pollution.

This section looks at Douglas's exploration of dietary laws in the book of Leviticus, where certain foods, like pork, are deemed impure or risky. Her inquiry aims to understand the cultural underpinnings of these restrictions rather than just their health implications. It highlights how cultural beliefs shape practices around what is considered acceptable or forbidden food.

Think of a barbecue where certain guests won’t eat pork due to a personal or religious belief. Their avoidance of pork isn’t just about taste; it's linked to cultural teachings about purity, which highlights that food choices can have deep cultural significance beyond mere preferences.

Mary 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.

In this chunk, Douglas discusses the concept of 'taxonomic anomalies' as a reason for dietary restrictions. Pigs, while having cloven hooves like other clean animals, are marked as unclean because they do not chew cud. This distinction illustrates how societies create categories of clean and unclean to maintain health, cleanliness, and cultural norms, reinforcing the anthropological view of how creatures are classified based on societal values.

Imagine a country where specific animals are revered or banned due to their unusual characteristics. For example, if a country has a myth that animals with unusual traits bring bad luck, even if scientifically they are safe to consume, people may still avoid them for cultural reasons, similar to how certain foods are seen in different religions.

Risk according to that way, it’s not the external stimulus that determined but risk is basically, culturally constructed, we are culturally biased.

This chunk emphasizes that the understanding and response to risk is influenced by culture rather than solely by external factors. This means what is deemed risky can vary dramatically between cultures, emphasizing that cultural bias shapes our interpretation of risks and how people prepare for or react to them.

Consider how different cultures respond to climate change. In some areas, climate change might be seen predominantly as an environmental risk, while in others, it's viewed through a socio-political lens. The reactions and actions taken toward climate issues will vary based on cultural values and priorities, showcasing the culturally constructed nature of risk.

--