4.2. Understanding Risk Through Cultural Lenses

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 typically focuses on specific actions aimed at reducing risks. It operates on a directive approach, meaning it tells people exactly what to do to avoid hazards. This reactive nature means that they respond to risks only when they present themselves, often believing there is only one correct way to tackle these issues.

Think of a school fire drill. The school has clear, specific instructions on how to exit the building when a fire alarm goes off. This is a directive approach; the school tells students what to do to manage the risk of fire safely.

There are some other perspectives 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.

Some theorists argue that our perceptions of risk are shaped more by our cultural background and personal experiences than by the external dangers themselves. This means how we view a risk is influenced by our societal norms, values, and individual traits.

Imagine two people watching a movie about a shark attack. One person might see it as a thrilling spectacle, while the other is terrified based on their previous experiences. Their reactions stem from different cultural perspectives and personal histories, showing how perception of risk varies.

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

From a cultural viewpoint, individuals take an active role in understanding risk. They seek out information rather than simply accepting what is given to them. This means they analyze, interpret, and sometimes alter their perceptions of risk based on the information they gather.

Consider someone preparing for a storm. Instead of waiting to hear news from the media, they actively check weather apps, discuss safety tips with friends, and read government guidelines, shaping their understanding of the risk involved.

The perceiver is not an individual; they are a kind of institutions or kind of organizations they are living with other group of people. So, institutional structure of at which the individual belong is the ultimate cause of risk perception.

Risk perception is influenced not only by personal views but also by the institutions and communities individuals belong to. These structures help in shaping shared meanings and levels of trust regarding risk and safety.

In a community affected by flooding, local organizations may react differently based on their experiences with past floods. For instance, if the local government has effectively managed past floods, the community may feel more secure and trust their guidance. In contrast, communities that have faced inadequate responses may perceive a higher risk and less trust in authorities.

There was an outstanding work by Purity and Danger, 1966 considered to be modern classic of anthropology, so Mary Douglas in her book in 1966, Purity and Danger is talking about the cultural importance of risk.

Mary Douglas's seminal work emphasizes that culture plays a crucial role in shaping how risks are understood and handled. By examining cultural texts like Leviticus, she illustrates the relationship between societal norms and risk management.

Think about dietary restrictions around the world. In Jewish culture, certain foods are deemed unclean or risky to eat, not just due to health reasons but because they are tied to cultural beliefs and traditions, showcasing how culture informs our views of risk.

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

Douglas discusses how certain animals are designated as 'unclean' based on their unique characteristics compared to other animals. Pigs, for example, are seen as anomalies because they have certain features that categorize them differently from other livestock, indicating a risk based on cultural classifications.

This can be compared to how some cultures view insects. In many Western beliefs, eating insects is considered abnormal, but in other cultures, it’s a common and acceptable practice. This shows how cultural classifications influence perceptions of what is risky or safe to eat.

Douglas was arguing that such concerns are not unique to the Israelis but thrive today in support of social structure or many other tribal societies.

Douglas's findings suggest that the cultural constructs of risk are universal across different societies. Many tribes and communities develop their own cultural reasoning and classifications around what is considered risky or pure.

In Hindu culture, cows are sacred and not eaten, showcasing a cultural construct of purity around livestock. Similarly, Muslims follow dietary laws that classify certain foods as 'halal' (permissible) or 'haram' (forbidden), emphasizing how risk is culturally derived.

If it is so important, let us look here that what is the meaning of culture, when it is defining our risk perceptions, not only risk perception, it defines many things but how, what is the meaning of culture and how the impulse control and shape our risk perceptions?

Culture is a complex system of beliefs, practices, norms, and values that impact how we understand our world, including risk. It shapes our responses, telling us what to fear, what to avoid, and how to act in certain situations. This understanding goes beyond mere risk perception to impact overall behaviors and societal cohesion.

In emergency situations, cultural norms dictate how individuals behave. For instance, in a community where collective action is valued, people may work together to evacuate, while in a more individualistic culture, they may prioritize personal safety. This illustrates how culture significantly influences behavior in times of risk.

--