Mary douglas risk and blame. Risk and Blame: Mary Douglas (November 2002 edition) 2022-12-27
Mary douglas risk and blame
Rating:
8,6/10
1330
reviews
Mary Douglas was a British anthropologist and sociologist who made significant contributions to the study of risk and blame. In her work, Douglas argued that risk and blame are central to how societies function, and that they are closely related to ideas of purity and pollution.
According to Douglas, risk is a social construct that is shaped by cultural values and practices. It is not an objective measure of danger or probability, but rather a subjective assessment of the likelihood of harm or loss. This means that different societies may have different perceptions of what is risky, and these perceptions may change over time as social norms and values shift.
Douglas argued that risk is often used as a way of allocating blame within a society. When something goes wrong, society tends to look for someone or something to blame. This might be an individual, a group, or even an abstract concept such as "human nature" or "the system." By blaming someone or something, society can assign responsibility for the problem and seek to prevent similar events from occurring in the future.
Douglas also argued that risk and blame are closely related to ideas of purity and pollution. In many societies, certain things or behaviors are considered pure and desirable, while others are seen as polluted and undesirable. These perceptions of purity and pollution often shape how society views risk and assigns blame. For example, a society that values purity and cleanliness might view pollution as a particularly risky and blameworthy behavior, while a society that values freedom and individuality might view attempts to control or regulate risk as a greater threat.
Overall, Mary Douglas's work on risk and blame highlights the complex and culturally-specific nature of these concepts. It suggests that our perceptions of risk and our responses to it are shaped by our values and beliefs, and that these perceptions can change over time as society evolves. Understanding these dynamics can help us better navigate and manage risk in our own lives and in the world around us.
Risk and Blame Summary
Questions of autonomy, credibility and gullibility, the social origins of wants, and the recognition of distinctive thought styles are at present only beginning to be treated systematically in a framework of cultural analysis. Later works in Cultural Theory systematized this argument. A subject is chosen, preferably one that has not traditionally been seen as being in the purview of cultural anthropology, such as ecology, epistemology, or economics. The next five essays range over questions in cultural theory. Cognitive psychology treats decision-making as a private personal act.
Next
Risk and Blame: Mary Douglas (November 2002 edition)
Some small things remain puzzling, however, such as the fact that in spite of the advance billing they receive in the titles, the ideas of risk and blame do not appear with much frequency in the book except in the first section. The first half of the book Douglas argues that the study of risk needs a systematic framework of political and cultural comparison. For the most part, cultural arguments offer insights about offending,. What is more, radical skepticism the alternative presented cannot even articulate a position. Risk perception and social anthropology: critique of Cultural Theory. In the latter half she examines questions in cultural theory. I was witness to this very scenario at a Community Engagement and Fire Awareness Conference hosted by the New South Wales Rural Fire Service NSW RFS for four hundred odd staff and volunteers in 2011.
Next
Mary Douglas and a cultural theory of risk
For the sake of a mistaken idea of objectivity, research on risk perception tries to avoid politics, but the idea of nature is inherently politicized. These people are considered to typify the apathy of the masses visible within many corners of society Douglas 2006: 13. The citation above will include either 2 or 3 dates. Central Community: These are hierarchicalists, whose various and varied attempts to form a more structured society than that of the individualists give them a great deal of social cohesion but rob them of personal freedom. .
Next
Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory by Mary Douglas
Douglas points out that anthropology does not think the objects of its study represent the Other by nature, and thus should apply ethnographic analysis to all people equally, including the anthropologists themselves. This tendency, she argued, plays an indispensable role in promoting certain social structures, both by imbuing a society's members with aversions to subversive behavior and by focusing resentment and blame on those who defy such institutions. Why was I so surprised by their uncritical agreement? Although developed in Douglas's earlier work, these two strands of her thought were first consciously woven together to form the fabric of a theory of risk perception in her and Wildavsky's 1982 book, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. The forensic use of risk to keep people in line culturally , however, is what Douglas considers important about it for anthropology. In chapter 11, Douglas looks back at the idea of individualism dealt with in the first few chapters of the second section of her book, which this chapter closes, and looks forward as well to the more philosophical last section. Now that risk is moving centre-stage as the dominant idiom of policy analysis, many other key topics, such as the notion of the self, will need to be radically revised. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 4 2 , 267—285.
Next
Toeing the Line or Breaking the Glass Ceiling
Environmental risk concern and preferences for energy-saving measures. The fatalists of B, on the other hand ball rests on straight line , are not sure where the ball will roll, so can make no commitment about the environment whatsoever. It doubts its own existence, much less the existence of others with whom it can communicate. What is so often seen as sin or taboo when the individual is considered as an agent is considered as a risk when the individual is seen as a recipient. . While B and D can exist, they usually do so in some sort of subordinate relationship to an A or a C culture. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Next
Cultural theory of risk
The risk analyses that are increasingly being utilised by politicians, aid programmes and business ignore the insights to be gained from social anthropology which can be applied to modern industrial society. Blame, for Douglas 1992 , is very much central to the socio-cultural function of risk. IX, December 18, 1986, p. The risk analyses that are increasingly being utilised by politicians, aid programmes and business ignore the insights to be gained from social anthropology which can be applied to modern industrial society. Its first six essays argue that any analysis of risk perception that ignores cultural and political bias is worthless. In Risk and Blame, Mary Douglas argues that the prominence of risk discourse will force upon the social sciences a programme of rethinking and consolidation which will include the anthropological approaches studied in these pages. These can be characterized roughly as the laying out of the argument, its practical application, and its theoretical implications, though there is some overlap as well.
Next
Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory
Risk Analysis, 20 5 , 691—704. . Furthermore, Douglas points out that the forensic model of the self so prevalent in the enterprise system must be alleviated by the therapeutic model-taking away some of the blame and putting it not on witchcraft but on prenatal experiences or parents. Furthermore, the structure of the argument is much the same in each case. Douglas tries at once to be ruthlessly honest which favors skepticism and yet again wants to claim the higher anthropological ground. Thus for example, for those in the A corner, the ball rests at the bottom of a deep curve and can be pushed quite far, since then believe it will roll right back to a point of equilibrium.
Next
Risk and Blame by Professor Mary Douglas, Mary Douglas
Ousey With few exceptions e. . Where is the tangible, empirical interface between culture and security. In this collection of recent essays, Mary Douglas develops a programme for studying risk and blame that follows from ideas originally proposed in Purity and Danger. Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. .
Next