2.2. Cultural Anthropology Perspective

There is also sustainable livelihoods framework which talks about the asset framework where it is a different model in 1997, which they have developed how the individuals or a groups access the resources which are basically an assets to organize their livelihoods and how the capacities make them able to act engage and change the world.

This chunk introduces the sustainable livelihoods framework developed in 1997 by highlighting its importance in understanding how individuals or groups can access resources or 'assets'. These resources help people stabilize and develop their livelihoods. The model emphasizes that capacities—such as skills, knowledge, and social connections—play a key role in empowering individuals to engage with their environment positively and effect change in their lives.

Think of a farmer who uses various resources like seeds, water, and skills learned from family traditions to grow crops. In this case, the farmer's assets are the land, tools, and knowledge they possess, which enable them to improve their farming practices and adapt to new challenges.

But here, the thing is it is not just for the economic necessity where households or groups act upon. But it is with the cultural factors which people manage the results and make their livelihood choices to act upon.

This chunk emphasizes that people's livelihood decisions are influenced not only by economic needs but also by cultural factors. These cultural aspects can include traditions, family values, social norms, and community interactions that shape how people view their lives and opportunities. Understanding these cultural contexts is essential for dictating successful interventions in development and humanitarian efforts.

For instance, in some cultures, certain agricultural practices may be preferred because they are seen as traditional and honorable. Therefore, even if a new, more efficient farming technique is available, farmers might resist using it because it doesn't align with their cultural beliefs.

There is also work, literature from Frederick Cuny onwards like you consider disasters and the development but I try to look all these components that relation with culture vulnerability and development.

In this chunk, the speaker refers to literature on the intersection of disasters, development, and cultural factors as discussed by scholars like Frederick Cuny. The aim is to investigate how vulnerability is shaped by culture in the context of development practices and disaster recovery. This approach highlights the complexity of these relationships and the necessity of understanding cultural factors to address issues effectively.

Imagine a community recovering from a natural disaster that rebuilds using the same materials and methods as before. While this might be economically feasible, understanding their cultural attachment to those methods can explain why they resist modern techniques. This situation echoes in both disaster recovery and wider developmental strategies.

So, this is where I started reviewing a variety of literature starting from Bourdieu’s cultural capital. Kim Dovey’s work on framing places, Neil Leach work and Regina Lim’s work.

This chunk introduces the concept of cultural capital as defined by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, which refers to non-financial social assets that promote social mobility. It indicates how understanding cultural capital can help recognize the value of individuals' experiences, practices, and knowledge in shaping their responses to development challenges. The mention of other authors implies a broader research context linking various perspectives on culture and place.

Think of cultural capital as a person's education and social skills, which can open doors in life, just like financial capital can. For example, someone raised in a family that values education may have higher aspirations and achievements than someone from a less supportive background, illustrating how cultural determinants influence life choices.

Here, the culture is defined as the sum of total human experiences and accumulated indigenous knowledge within the space because, I am looking from the built environment perspective that communities rely on giving meanings to their lives and places delivered through which people habitually develop an approach to survive their everyday life.

In this chunk, culture is described as a composite of human experiences and indigenous knowledge. This definition emphasizes how communities create meaning around their environments and how those meanings shape their approaches to daily living. The built environment serves as a canvas where cultural practices and identities are expressed, leading to a richer understanding of how people engage with their surroundings.

Consider a community that has built houses using local materials and in styles passed down through generations. The architecture reflects their cultural identity and communicates their history to outsiders, illustrating how the built environment embodies their collective memory and experience.

So, mainly my argument lies on how the cultural dimensions of the local communities are not effectively and sufficiently addressed in the current post-disaster for humanitarian and development process.

This chunk highlights a key argument: that cultural dimensions in local communities are often overlooked in post-disaster recovery efforts. The speaker suggests that not addressing these cultural factors can hinder not only community resilience but also the effectiveness of humanitarian efforts. Recognizing and integrating cultural aspects into recovery plans is critical for ensuring the needs and identities of communities are respected and served.

An example could be a community in recovery after an earthquake where external agencies bring in building designs that do not fit the local architectural style or cultural practices. If these cultural nuances are ignored, the community may feel alienated from the rebuilding process, undermining its effectiveness.

So, my methods have started understanding from two subject domains, one is talking about the change which is about this morphology which how the spatial character has changed before disaster and after disaster.

This chunk discusses the methodology adopted to study the changes in morphological aspects of communities impacted by disasters. Morphology refers to the structure and form of spaces and buildings, and remembering their changes over time illuminates the broader effects of disaster on communities. The interaction between cultural factors and physical changes is explored as a key aspect of recovery and adaptation.

If we think of a village before and after a flood, the morphology would look at not just the physical buildings but also how the village layout may change due to the water damage. Understanding this helps in planning future developments that are resilient and culturally appropriate.

--