Mod 06 Lec 05

[Music] [Music] hello everyone welcome to the lecture series on disaster recovery and build back better this lecture we'll talk about cultural theory of risk or cultural perspective of risk I am Xu Baggio Tisa mother from DPR I Kyoto University so we already discussed it in other lectures about the role of culture in responsive scenes here in this lecture we will focus more what the cultural theory is talking about people's risk perceptions and how this is connected with their cultural affiliation okay so that was the book purely endangered by Mary Douglas in 1960s 66 considered to be a modern classic of anthropology talking about the moral risk pollution and danger okay and she was talking about taxonomic anomalous dietary restrictions in case of Jews Israeli people who can cannot have pork or snake as a food okay because they are considered to be unclean like why they are unclean because they are anomalies so taxonomic animal is like snake the leave on land but they don't have legs so it's very rare so that's why you should not eat snake similarly you should not eat pork because they have cloven hooves but they don't chew the cud so unlike horse and cow so these are clean who are anomalous so you should not eat them similarly the other examples like in case of Hema 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 life stocks the very tribe whose livelihood depends on animal husbandry on depending on livestock rearing they should not touch their almond should not touch live stocks they believe that if the woman they touch a livestock the livestock will die so similarly in case of the 14th century Europe there was poor water quality was already an issue for a very long time but it came into kind of more out kind of the people it is considered to be as one of the critical concern and the blame of these was given to the Jews people because they were told that Jews people are actually contaminating the the water so they started to evict Jews people in Europe so according to the cultural theory of risk 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 ok so each culture have their own values and through their through these values through this through this lens let's see what is risky what is not risky what is pure what is unpure ok and they disseminate these informations among their members 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 him she was telling that we can do it through the grid and group pattern we can categorize the culture in order to analyze them there why it is so why we need to have grid group kind of system which will come later but why we need categories of culture based on greed and group she published a book in 1978 and claiming that the traditional anthropologists anthropological studies on culture they are lacking any category of culture therefore if you are studying some culture in Africa you cannot compare that when you are studying a culture in Asia so the anthropologist are trained in such a way that they do not generalize their findings so they are very localized contextualize their findings so in order to reach to some kind of generalizations we should try to make categorizations of culture okay and so she said that we can do it through the model called greed and grouped to categorize the culture to understand people's mind now she is saying that we can do this by taking two elements one is whom one interact and how one interact with so whom one interact is considered to be grouped and how they interact is considered to be grid okay so grid group generally represent a degree of social incorporation of the individual this result how often I am meeting someone how dense is the network between the members of that group if I am I am living in the neighborhood how I am interacting with each of them am i meeting them very frequently or very rarely do I know everyone or do I know some of them so how this people are interacting with each other what extent it depends on a group okay so some groups are very flexible very low they have very less network less density they often they seldom met and some are very high okay so low and we group like open-ended interactions very infrequent limited with specific purpose the reason of people interacting in some neighborhood people interact very rarely with each other right or maybe they're very competitive like the colleagues or coworkers okay they do not working in a hospital or working in a in a scroll or working in a company they are very competitive but they have very less interactions face-to-face interactions on the other hand we have high one which are people are meeting with each other like in the village okay everybody knows everyone very strong interactions and people depend on each other services they have high dependency and they've have share common very strong solidarity okay like you can see in the villages compared to our 180s so this is one side we have a low group and one on the side we have high group two extreme group polarizing also we have the grid okay the grid represents that what kind of rules and regulations I should maintain I should follow when I am a member of a particular group okay that what are the constraints like if I am a particular member of a particular group will they allow me to have a orientation of homosexual or will they allow me to to have equal rights for the for the omen so feminism our kind of homosexuality how one see one group see that is a kind of the rule of the group some group permits some good some group do permit okay so it is a kind of law hierarchy kinship race gender that how it is viewed this is in a group this is called greed okay so we have like low grid where everybody is equal eagle Ettore instead of Fes no one is prevented to participate in any kind of activities or social role depending respective of their race gender age or so forth everybody is considered to be equal in other case where extreme we have high great panel here here we can see that people are restricted their activities are restricted based on caste creed class so access to social activities depends on one or another of these kind of discriminations people are discriminated in this kind of situations okay so group when law it is their networks are radical or in high it is interconnected in case of interactions low groups are rare high groups are frequent boundaries of interactions among individuals in case of low group is open and in case of high group is closed shared groups like few high groups or many in case of greed when the greed is low that means in a particular crew particular community particular society the low and high is like horizontal and vertical one is very hierarchical one is very equal okay specializations in low group it's very little people are all have similar kind of activities they don't have any specializations in high group there is a lot of specializations a lot of division of labor people are divided segregated and allocation of roles is like achievement what you are what you have achieved but in case of high it is like ascribed what your father was what your mother was whatever ancestor was you become like caste system okay and resource eggle allegations in case of low grid it is like egalitarian everybody is equal everybody has the same opportunity but in case your hierarchical the hike it is hierarchical the some elite people have better access there other people those who don't have they have little access a little power to exercise so if we put this low group and it sorry group and greed into a cross tabulations we can get four categories one a b c d so if we move from A to B to C we can say that from A to D is is like individualistic and D is kind of egalitarian and C is like Auto relative some dictators are there and in case of in case of a it is like little classification and distinctions between individuals are there they can nobody it's segregated or discriminated because they are black because they are almond okay and in case of C which is very hierarchical okay every movement of their social cultural personal movements are restricted and ordered so we can have this scenario you can see through this picture that one in individualistic one is egalitarian hierarchical and authoritarian let's look at hierarchical way of looking it's like a clearly defined role if there is a strong hierarchy somebody on the top and somebody are bottom ok they were very rigid clearly defined role you can only do that like caste system for example and feel wealthy you have to say hello I am loyal to you I will follow your order ok do your king so there is a king there is a subject and inequalities are prevailing there so inequalities are fair and deserve inequalities are because people have different capacities so that's why inequalities are justified okay in case of individual it is individualistic society or culture it's very different according to its like free whoever can join whatever choice they have they can pursue whatever like they have enough freedom and people have no mutual support because it's very individualistic society you are what you can do but I am NOT going to help you anyway and interact with anyone you like okay so you are free you can you can do anything you want you can interact with anyone you want you can be a homosexual you can be a feminist you can be a radical that's up to you unless and until you are harming anyone so you were open you were open to achieve anything you want in case of egalitarian it is like everybody is equal without there is no leader there is no variation based on status and prestige no one is okay and there are a lot of solidarity's people help each other between members okay and but there is a problem that they believe they have a very strong we feeling that this is we and this is they so there is a difference between that we and them okay so us versus them mentality is there like we can see in case of hunter-gathering bands or some crimes of communes and other one is the authoritarian or panelist here is that somebody there is a ruler life is constrained by rule imposed by other like defeated soldiers okay they have to follow the order of the king and there is no trust or cooperations this is just dominating one person it's dominating others okay so who are left to fend themselves and like the slab as I said are the prisoners okay so each people of these groups these four groups based on the grid grid and group of these cultural groups or cultural categories they look every aspect of our social life in different manner different values different lenses different perceptions and opinions they have so it is not the individual biological characteristics that define their values but which culture they belong that matter for somebody is eating with chopstick it's okay for somebody it's a cultural shock because it's eating by pork or knife or for someone it is like no alcohol you should not drink alcohol for Muslims example or a foreign white skinned person is seen in a part of Sri Lanka or South any issues people are so surprised to see this one so because is that we have different perspective of human features so Michele Thompson in 1978 and he was trying to say using this cultural pattern that it is not the cultural pattern that exists and also this cultural pattern actually through it defines that how people see the risk okay how people see the risk and so this is the cultural pattern we discussed about one is very hierarchical then we have ego literally and everybody is equal and individualist and authoritarian right now each one see risk from different perspective we will discuss this here okay for the individualist they believe that nature is like no matter how much human disturb it it will they can handle it nature can handle it it is super-powerful so for your own well-being for your own achievement for your own success you can utilize the nature as much as you wish and okay them this meet of nature shows that there is no need for control or cooperations people are free to use the nature so there is no risk exist people can be left free to exploit nature okay because the bolt is a very competitive society okay everybody is free and their status is based on ascribe status in case of egalitarian which is kind of they see that actually the it's very opposite of the individualistic any they think that that nature is very vulnerable any little little mystic nature will come crashing down okay like a ball balanced on a hill if we just touch it it will fall so we need a lot of control a lot of control okay and cooperation is necessary to protect yourself from that kind of threat okay so so we have to help each other to protect as ourself from the from the threat of hazard so from the trait of risk and then we have hierarchical okay they believe that nature can be exploited freely but there is certain rules particular way they define there is a limit of it okay because this limit is put because they have a very strict Authority so the authorities or the higher people those who have or the Kings are the top people they know how to do it so they depends much so expert can tell you what is right and what is wrong the king can tell you okay that what is right and what is wrong and you have to follow that extent so it is okay that you can exploit them but you cannot cross certain point cross island boundaries okay if you cross that one you are putting the nature at risk and on the other hand we have feral East there is no way to foresee how nature will react to any stimulus so they don't know what is them what is the risk okay it is protected or not so there is no point in fighting over how to manage it instead you should just try to roll with the punches so you should go on so they are the most vulnerable so here we look at the attitude of to risk one is individualistic the fear risk that would limit the market and constraints their ability to trade freely egalitarian use the threat of catastrophic risk to generate solidarity for example global warming warming higher higher higher kissed fear risk that would upset the ranking of people okay for example crime or social Debian's catalyst don't see the point of fearing any risk it's not like they can do anything about them so we are talking about this that how how one see different way of looking at at the risk from their cultural perspective so it is not that risk is objective and his hazard dependent but it is more that how people are culturally when oriented how their perception values are met as we see in each cases individuals egalitarian hierarchy stand paralyzed this idea was then little further developed by Steve Rena he was talking about politic concept of risk and that in generally we considered risk is the probability of an adversity and the magnitude of his consequence right something will happen an adverse event will happen and it has some consequences but he is arguing that risk is risk ease is more than that risk actually kind of a kind of perceptions it varies from one person to another there is no one meaning in in risk is more politic so he got this philosophical idea okay from with Jen's ten and four with the region's ten he's asking that too for you what is the meaning of a game okay for if you look at the game you will not see something that is common to all game for example we have the game here three four games one is and the cricket and in the soccer and the chase and solitaire okay so in the first part they all consider to be a game but they have very less similarities with each other for example the cricketer soccers both are 11 players play for each team so they have some similarities but from the point of rules aims and strategies they are quite different on the other hand they are completely different from Chase or solitaire in other sense that Chase and solitaire are quite similar because they both are played on board and the both are not competitive as such okay so there is a series of links that which connect soccer cricket chess and solitaire but there is no single feature or that is enough or sufficient condition to call it as a game right in all this system of concept of formation items one end of the chain that constitute a category need not to have any conditions in common with those at the other end that means that they all are in a sense and that they have some common commonalities but and like they all are goal-oriented okay but that is not only defining the characteristics of the game game needs to be more characteristics so one so they have some similarities but they have also some differences so one single feature of anything is maybe sometimes necessary but not sufficient condition to define or to call it as game okay but similarly the public does not care much about the probabilities in choosing between two course of action he is arguing when the difference in probability are as small as they are in most of the risk management decisions so people don't care when the probability is is let's say high probability and high magnitude there is no confusion people say okay I accept the risk but in case of low probability okay like radiation exposure labels in medicine or permissible level a possible carcinogen is genes in cancer this kind of low probability event of risk is very unclear to the people so what people will do the life how they will consider it as an accepted are not accepted so he is offering that for that we can have a kind of model which is called TLC just liability and consent okay so Polytechnic definition of risk is that probability and magnitude that is the traditional way of looking at risk but that is not enough we should add the TLC okay this is the principle of trust liability and consent are themselves also the subject when we define that what is a like in case of nuclear power plant that if we want to tell people what should be done we should consider this this TLC concept okay so that's how the the problem of the need for the plant why it is necessary to have a nuclear power plant so that should be defined and agreed among the parties and who pays for the plant we will take the liability of it if something happened who will be benefited out of it and who will take the benefit of it so deeds should be considered when we are defining the risk and the management of the technology so Trust is a very critical important point when we are talking about this kind of risk management so there are some informations are giving and thank you very much [Music]