Cultural theory of risk by M. Douglas

Every person faces different risks and dangers every day, but the risks are perceived differently by different people. Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) defined risk as “a joint product of knowledge about the future and consent about the most desired prospects” (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1983:5).

Choice depends upon the alternatives, values, and beliefs that are considered are therefore there is no value-free choosing between risky alternatives (ibid). In order to understand why different people make different decisions, why someone will continue staying abroad and others will return back home, and what make them feel that it was the best decision at that moment, the study will consider the cultural theory of Mary Douglas on perception of risk.

According to Mary Douglas (1978) risk perception is socially constructed phenomenon and risks are usually not taken in isolation, but after consultation with friends and relatives, taking into consideration values, relationships and moral obligations and therefore group membership and social context are shaping what is regarded as risk.

Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) argued that the choice of risks and the choice of how to live are taken together and every form of social life has its own typical risks. According to the cultural theory of risk (Douglas, 1978), thoughts and beliefs about other people and nature are connected with worldview and perception of reality and way of life. Douglas (1982, 1992) defined four distinctive adherences that after Jordan and O'Riordan’s (1997) work are well known as individualists, fatalists, hierarchists and egalitarians. The study will use this labeling.

These types differ in a way they perceive and understand risks. The individualist sees threats to individual freedom as a risk and would not “flourish” in a state with a socialist government as soon as this will be regarded as a threat for freedom. Individualists support market liberalism and would like to keep their economical gains for themselves (Oltedal et al., 2004). The egalitarian is concerned with issues and development that could lead to greater inequality amongst people.

Egalitarians choose left politically, support all the actions and activities in aiming to support social equality and are very concerned with ecological issues.

27

The hierarchical type fears what could jeopardize order in society and emphasize the “natural order” of the society. They fear social commotion, protests, demonstrations, and criminal activities. The typical representative of the group is a bureaucrat with faith in expert knowledge (Oltedal et al., 2004). Lastly, the fatalistic worldview is either unaware of risks or assumes them to be inevitable. The fatalists don’t participate actively in social life: they are indifferent about risk, because it’s perceived to be unavoidable to them anyway. In general, “fatalists try not to know or worry about things they think they can’t do anything about (ibid).

Douglas (1978) developed a grid and group analytic framework, which you can see interpreted by Hood (2000) at the figure 3.

Figure 3: Douglas’ grid and group framework

Source: Christopher Hood: The Art of The State (2000)

According to Douglas (1978), in this schema, “group” expresses the degree of group cohesiveness and

“grid” refers to the extent to which individuals accept structural constraints such as hierarchy and procedural regulation (Renn, 1998).

Applying this theory to this study, we can suppose that Norway with its egalitarian values will attract like minded people. Douglas’ ‘egalitarian or enclave’ type is characterized by strong social cohesion and a high degree of freedom to take risks. In the reference to the study on Russian students attending MCWCP program, we can assume, that those who consider egalitarian ideas to be close to their values, will tend to have intention to stay after their studies, because Norwegian society and police has been based on egalitarian values as equality, solidarity and environmental protection (OECD, 2003). At the same time, individuals could also be attracted to Norway, if they, for instance, could perceive the county providing more freedom. Students-hierarchists will tend to move back home, because of their strong social cohesion and patriotism feeling. But they could also be attracted to Norway if they perceive criminality and unstable political situation as a main risk for staying in Russia. With regard to a fatalist worldview, we can assume that people with this worldview are not inclined to move to another country to take education: in a fatalist worldview there is no need for active decisions, because everything has been already planned by others.

28

Trying to verify the theory, different researches got different results. Thus, Wildavsky and Dake (1990) measured individual adherence to the hierarchical, egalitarian and individualistic way of life by different questions (see Annex-7). For instance, the index for hierarchy is based on patriotism, law and order; the individualism index supports economical growth as the key to quality of life, and private profits as the main rationale for hard work; the index for egalitarianism measures attitudes towards social equality of conditions. Dake (1991) declared that his study gave strong support to the cultural theory of risk perception. This research got a lot of criticism, because many researched failed to claim the same and confirm his findings (Oltedal et al, 2004). Thus, Marris et al. (1998) used Dake’s measures for cultural adherence and only 32 per cent adhered clearly to only one of the worldviews while 81 respondents showed mixed adherences. Similar findings were presented by Sjöberg (1995) in Sweden.

The present study will use some of the questions developed by Wildavsky and Dake (1990) as clarifying question in the process of in-depth interviews in order to identify the main the worldview of informants and the main risk they fear. However, this framework should not be seen and used as a definitive explanation, but more as an analytic device. Some researches warn that these idealized groups are “too schematic to grasp the complexity of social life” (Zinn &

Taylor‐Gooby, 2006: 39). It makes the theory simplifying the complexities of risk and culture.

According to Tulloch and Lupton (2003), individuals with similar levels of risk tolerance may act differently depending on the risk tolerance of the groups that they identify with. If we relate the statement to international students, the decision to move to another country and maybe stay there for longer time can also be influenced by identification with group members.

29