1.1. Cultural Theory of Risk

Hello everyone, welcome to the lecture series on disaster recovery and build back better; this lecture we will talk about cultural theory of risk or cultural perspective of risk. I am Subhajyoti Samaddar from DPRI, Kyoto University so, we already discussed in other lectures about the role of culture in risk perceptions. Here, in this lecture, we will focus more what the cultural theory is talking about people's risk perceptions.

This introduction sets the stage for discussing how culture influences how people perceive risk. The speaker notes that previous lectures have touched on this topic, emphasizing that this lecture will delve deeper into the cultural aspects of risk perception. Cultural theory examines how different cultures interpret what risks are significant, based on their values and beliefs.

Imagine two neighboring towns that react differently to the same environmental hazard, like a flood. In one town, people are encouraged to evacuate at the first sight of rising water due to a cultural belief in safety and precaution. In the neighboring town, the culture prizes resilience and self-reliance, leading to delays in evacuation until the flood is life-threatening. This illustrates how cultural perspectives shape responses to risk.

the book purely endangered by Mary Douglas in 1966 considered to be a modern classic of anthropology, talking about the moral risk pollution and danger. She was talking about taxonomic anomalies, dietary restrictions in case of Jews, Israeli people who cannot have pork or snake as a food, okay because they are considered to be unclean.

Mary Douglas's work explores the idea of 'moral risk,' suggesting that certain actions or objects become associated with danger based on cultural definitions. For example, she notes specific dietary laws in Jewish culture regarding foods like pork and snakes, which are deemed 'unclean' due to perceived taxonomic anomalies—meaning they don't fit standard classifications of acceptable animals. This reflects how cultures create rules around food that impact health and safety.

Think of it like a sports team with strict rules about uniforms. Just as a player might be benched for wearing the wrong colors, individuals in some cultures can be seen as 'dirty' or 'unsafe' for consuming certain foods. This moral stance shapes community behavior around dietary choices, similar to how cultural teams establish their own standards.

Similarly, the other examples like in case of Hima tribe in Uganda, they depend on animal husbandry, they depend on livestock okay and that the female; it is considered that female they should not touch these live stocks, the very tribe whose livelihood depends on animal husbandry on depending on livestock rearing, they should not touch, their women should not touch live stocks.

In the Hima tribe of Uganda, cultural beliefs dictate that women must not touch livestock, despite their dependence on these animals for livelihood. This highlights how specific cultural views about gender roles and pollution impact practices that seem contradictory to outsiders. Such cultural norms can influence economic activities and the community's overall risk perception regarding livestock health and agricultural success.

Consider a family pet that is seen as part of the family in some cultures but distanced in others due to beliefs about cleanliness or role. In some cultures, it would be harmful for a child to play with a certain animal based on customs, just as in the Hima tribe, women have restrictions around livestock. This shows how deep-seated beliefs can guide daily actions and economic decisions.

the allocation of responsibility of hazard event is normal strategy for protecting a particular set of values, one culture they define that this is right and this is not good, this is bad this is good, this is acceptable, this is unacceptable, this is pure, this is polluted okay, so each culture have their own values.

Cultural theory suggests that cultures define what is risky based on their own set of values and norms. Cultures create structures that categorize risks as 'good' or 'bad,' shaping social behavior and responses to hazards. This process of assigning responsibility for risks serves to protect and maintain cultural values, impacting how communities respond to danger and risk.

Imagine a school where some behaviors are strictly forbidden, like cheating during exams. The school community defines cheating as 'bad' and sets rules to discourage it. Similarly, cultures define certain risks or entities as dangerous to maintain their social order and values, directing collective behavior towards what is deemed 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable.'

Now, Mary Douglas was saying that we need to have a kind of categories of cultures, there we have many cultures but we can group them, categorize them.

Mary Douglas emphasized the importance of categorizing cultures to better analyze and understand their values and behaviors related to risk. She suggested using the 'grid and group' method to classify different cultures, which allows researchers to draw meaningful comparisons across different cultural contexts. This methodological approach helps overcome the limitations of localized anthropological studies.

Think of sorting different types of fruit in a store. Just as fruits can be grouped by color, size, or type, cultures can also be classified by their interaction patterns and social structures. This enables researchers to compare and contrast various cultural responses to risk in a more systematic way.

She was telling that we can do it through the grid and group pattern, we can categorize the culture in order to analyse them better.

The 'grid and group' model proposed by Mary Douglas consists of two main elements: 'group' represents the level of social integration and how often individuals interact, while 'grid' refers to the patterns of rules and norms that govern that group. By analyzing these dimensions, one can better understand how cultural perceptions of risk are formed and maintained within different societies.

Consider comparing urban residents to those in a close-knit village. In the village (high group, low grid), people know each other well and depend on shared customs. In contrast, urban environments may foster anonymity (low group, high grid), leading to more individualistic risk perceptions. This grid and group analysis identifies how social structures influence cultural risk responses.

--