Risks and danger as part of the social (dis)organization

Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) see the risks and dangers largely as constructed by radicals from 'the borders' of society and the idea of sectarian is of particular importance here. Namely, in accordance with the previous writings of Douglas (1966, 1970), sects should be understood as opposed to the institutions: “Unlike institutions which are characterized by closure, sects are open, vulnerable, lacking collective bodies”; they are typically without hierarchy, and they bond through intense affective charge; furthermore, they are rooted in common practices with ideas of good life, and their means and ends are not separated (see Lash, 2000, p. 59). Another important feature of this social (dis)organization is the tendency of blurring the boundaries between the private and the public as is the case with institutions. However, at stake here are not sects per se, but the emergence of the new forms of risk cultures.

Note: See source document for full reference.

Cultural Factors: Social control, Power relations

Hazards: Natural hazards, Man-made non-intentional hazards or emergency situations, Man-made intentional hazards

Disaster Phases: Prevention

Types of Actors Concerned: National civil protection body, Local authorities, Non-active citizens, Active citizens, Entrepreneurs, Media, Government, Red Cross, NGOs, Military, Law enforcement agencies, Healthcare and emergency services, European Civil Protection Mechanism, UN and other international organisations, All types of actors

Recommendations:

• Develop risk assessments methodologies, which consider cultural factors, the manner in which people cognitively process information and which employ a gender perspective