2.1. Mary Douglas and Cultural Importance of Risk

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, okay, this is the only way to solve the problem.

Conventional risk management focuses on specific goals and actions aimed at reducing risk. It is directive and often perceived as reactive, meaning it responds to risks only after they occur. The approach considers probability and consequences of disasters without taking into account how culture influences people's perceptions of risk.

Imagine a town that has frequent flooding. The conventional approach might involve building a stronger dam or implementing emergency procedures after a flood occurs. However, if the town understands its cultural practices around land use and community involvement, it might find ways to prevent floods through better community planning and education.

So, target is set and now how to implement that target and that’s it but 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.

The socio-cultural context plays a vital role in shaping risk perceptions. Instead of only focusing on the actual hazards, it's critical to recognize that individuals interpret risks based on their cultural backgrounds, experiences, and social interactions. This means that the same risk can be perceived differently across different cultures or groups.

Consider how different communities view natural disasters. For instance, specific cultures might view hurricanes as a challenge to overcome, adopting communal strategies to recover, while others might see it as a threat to individual safety leading to varied responses to preparation and recovery efforts.

She was studying Leviticus, I think you know Leviticus, it’s a kind of religious book; law book that gives you guidelines about the morals; what to do, what not to do, what do it okay, so this is a third book of the Israeli people, the Jews people and the book of the Leviticus from the Greek word it has came.

Mary Douglas explored the dietary laws outlined in Leviticus, a religious and moral guide for Jewish people. These laws reflect cultural beliefs about purity and danger in food consumption. Douglas' analysis suggests that such cultural rules inform how communities perceive risks, particularly regarding food.

Think of veganism or vegetarianism, which some individuals adopt not just for health reasons but as part of a broader ethical belief system. Similarly, Leviticus guided ancient Jewish culture in dietary choices based not on health alone, but on cultural and spiritual ideals.

Now, what is taxonomic anomalies on dietary restrictions? ... Mary Douglas was trying to understand why this is so and then she came up with the idea, taxonomic anomalies on dietary restrictions.

Douglas introduced the concept of 'taxonomic anomalies' to explain certain restrictions in dietary laws—that is, how specific animals break the typical classifications made by cultural categories of clean and unclean food. For example, pigs have features that qualify them as clean but lack a characteristic (chewing cud) that would make them acceptable within Jewish dietary laws.

This concept can be seen with fruits that are perceived as both delicious and potentially harmful, like cherries. They might be favorites in pies but are also linked to gout due to their high purine content, similar to the way certain animals might be considered acceptable but also potentially dangerous within specific dietary laws.

Similarly, in Muslim culture also, the concept of Halal and Haram actually distinguish what is risky to it and what is not, what is pure, what is dangerous or polluted okay so, risk according to that way, it’s not the external stimulus that determined but risk is basically, culturally constructed, we are culturally biased.

In cultures such as Islam, the concepts of Halal (permissible) and Haram (forbidden) guide dietary practices, framing what is considered pure or dangerous. This highlights the idea that cultural beliefs shape perceptions of risk, suggesting that risk management should consider cultural constructs rather than solely relying on scientific assessments.

Consider how certain practices around food vary globally—while some cultures may see raw fish as a delicacy (like sushi), others might regard it as risky and unclean. This shows how cultural backgrounds can significantly alter perceptions of what is safe or risky.

--