Cultural Theory of Risk

In her early work, Mary Douglas suggested that in people's minds, threats to society (such as hunger or epidemics) are associated with behavior that violates generally accepted norms. Thus, those who do not respect the values ​​of society will cause disapproval of society. ^[1] Douglas also developed a two-dimensional model for organizing a social structure, consisting of a “grouping” and a “hierarchy”. An “overly grouped” way of life is a high degree of social control, a “weakly grouped” one is characterized by self-sufficiency and a certain degree of individual freedom. A “highly hierarchical” style presupposes strict social stratification and a clear distribution of roles, while a “low hierarchical” style is associated with the relative equality of members of society.

After some time, Mary Douglas, together with Aron Wildavsky, develops a cultural theory of risk, in which several key points can be highlighted. Firstly, the concept of risk has become a “central cultural construct”, which is located between “subjective opinion and social material science”. ^[2] Previously, risk was calculated using probability theory methods, but now, according to Douglas and Vildavsky, special cultural factors must be taken into account in calculating the risk. Secondly, the nature of risks should be studied based on the history of mankind, since the culture of any historical period is closely interconnected with modern culture. Douglas argues that while technology can be innovative, humanity has often attracted disasters when it comes to uncertain future. ^[3] Thirdly, we live in an era when the negative aspects of industrialization are many times greater than the positive, therefore, if earlier it was possible to calculate the probability of accidental accidents at enterprises, now these “accidents” have acquired a different scale and may be considered hidden threats. Fourth, Douglas and Vildavsky believe that throughout history, mankind has identified the most dangerous types of threats that should be avoided in order to maintain a familiar lifestyle, therefore it is impossible to study the nature of risks without a systematic study of cultural prejudices, that is, certain ideas, values ​​and beliefs, standing guard over various patterns of social relations. Social relations, in turn, are determined by a small number of models of interpersonal relations (hierarchical, egalitarian and individualistic), the prevalence of any of them depends on who will be blamed for the attempt on an entrenched lifestyle (researchers also call this political culture) and what will be perceived as a possible risk. ^[4] Thus, representatives of the hierarchical type will perceive social deviations as the most dangerous for the established system of social relations, while egalitarianists will have an aversion to any kind of separation of social roles . For individualists, social deviations will be most dangerous when they encroach on the freedom of self-government and destroy market relations.

Risk and Culture argues that collective perceptions of risk play a critical role in maintaining the solidarity of community groups. If a large number of people believe in the onset of an environmental disaster, it is by no means because they are aware of the impending danger, but because they are afraid of the current government. There is a crisis of solidarity due to the globalization of capitalism , as a result of which some social groups have become unprotected. Accordingly, the risk of an environmental catastrophe may serve as a basis for accusing the groups in power of violating their usual lifestyle. According to Douglas and Vildavsky, while the ecological apocalypse is a real development of events, it is impossible to say with certainty that possible risks will not serve as its catalyst. Thus, discussions regarding risks acquire a socio-political nature and come down to disagreements regarding trust or distrust of social institutions and the dangers associated with them, that is, a cultural conflict. In this context, risk becomes a factor determining the attitude of society towards power, as well as how much it recognizes the existence of the state as a whole and interprets the cultural processes taking place in it.

Many scientists have been engaged in research designed to prove the credibility of the cultural theory of risk. For example, Kenneth Crake, David Bass, and Karl Dyck of the University of California Institute for Identity and Evaluation , interviewed more than three hundred citizens in various cities in the San Francisco region about their attitude to technology, social and political institutions, and how much they trust them. and also asked to describe personal characteristics and social attitudes. As a result, they concluded that cultural prejudice, along with political orientation, best defines indicators of risk perception and preferences in choosing risk types. egalitarianists found technological and environmental risks a very serious problem (as predicted by Douglas and Wildavsky), individualists and hierarchists, on the contrary, spoke positively about technological risks, since the advantages of technology are great and the risks are negligible. ^[5]

French researchers Jean Brenot, Sylvian Bonafus and Claire Maris conducted a similar survey in France and concluded that cultural prejudices have a rather weak influence on risk perception (only 6% of respondents were guided by them in determining risks). ^[6]

Many provisions of the cultural theory of risk theory (in particular the two-dimensional “group-hierarchy” model) have been adapted and are successfully used by scientists in such fields of scientific knowledge as political science , public administration , jurisprudence (especially they are popular among lawyers dealing with environmental issues), sociology and clinical psychology .

The culturological theory of risk has been criticized several times because of the complex and non-obvious interpretation of the “group-hierarchy” model and has been repeatedly called opaque and confused by many researchers. So, the Swedish researcher Osa Boholm argues that the theory does not have sufficient empirical evidence. Moreover, in her opinion, the theory contains the conceptualization of two opposing and incompatible descriptions of the “way of life”. The first is connected with the classical sociological theory of Max Weber , where people live in a society that is built in accordance with their values ​​and beliefs, which, in turn, affect the construction of social relationships. The second says that social relations define values ​​and beliefs in such a way that some of them cannot manifest themselves in certain types of social relations, which is more reminiscent of Marxist economic theory. Boholm accuses the theory of functionalism, evidence (provisions on individualists, egalitarianists and individualists), isolation from the context and repetitive, closed logic. She also believes that the theory describes cultural prejudice as inalienable and stable characteristics of social groups and prescribes to individuals behavior that is correlated with them, not taking into account that the main driving force of society is the personal interests of a person. ^[7]

Both Boholm and French scholars Breno, Bonafus and Maris argue that Dake’s research used unreliable measurement methods (Boholm writes that there is a huge difference between words and actual human behavior), a limited set of questions that are too narrow (mainly about economic risks) , and there was also a dependence on the context (if the perception of risks depends on a lifestyle that is associated with a particular context, and not with people's opinions, then the answers will depend on the social situation).

Yale University professor of law Donald Elliot also believes that the cultural theory of risk can be considered unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, the theory reduces culture to a single factor - the organizational structure of social groups. Secondly, there are many different sources (family, education, press) involved in shaping risk perceptions. Finally, the amount of information about any type of risk that individuals face in a complex and multi-level technological society is much greater than what a person is able to absorb, so perception will be greatly complicated. ^[8]

• Boholm, Å. (1996). Risk perception and social anthropology: critique of Cultural Theory. Ethnos , 61 (2), 64-82
• Brenot, J., Bonnefous, S., Marris, C. (1998). Testing the Cultural theory of risk in France. Risk Analysis , 18 (6), 729-739
• Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 22 (1), 61.
• Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo . New York ,: Praeger.
• Douglas, M. (1970). Natural Symbols: explorations in cosmology . New York: Pantheon Books.
• Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory . London: New York: Routledge.
• Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, AB (1982). Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Elliot, E. Donald. (1983). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship , 92 (888), 892-899
• Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural Theory . Boulder Colo .: Westview Press: Westport, Conn .: Praeger.
• Wildavsky, A., Dake, K. (1994). Theories of risk perception: Who fears, What and Why, translation A. D. Koroleva. Thesis, 5, 270-275

• Interview with M. Douglas on Youtube (2006)