IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v20y2000i1p27-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural Myths of Human and Physical Nature: Integrated or Separated?

Author

Listed:
  • Gunnar Grendstad
  • Per Selle

Abstract

Cultural Theory distinguishes between myths of human and physical nature as two integrated aspects of four cultural biases: hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism, and fatalism. These biases serve as individuals' key orientations toward, for example, risk perception, public policy, and political preference. Myths of human and physical nature draw upon different intellectual histories, and an epistemological merger between the two aspects is not unproblematic. A self‐administered mail survey of organized environmentalists in Norway included the theory's graphical description of myths of physical nature and verbal descriptions of myths of human nature. The respondents understood the logic of the myths of physical nature well and did not have problems in ranking them, thereby disconfirming the theory's claim that any of the myths appear irrational from the perspective of any other. The empirical results show that respondents gave the highest priority to the hierarchical myth of physical nature and that they also endorsed the egalitarian myth of human nature. Although this outcome may appear irrational from a theoretical perspective, the authors argue that (Grid/group) Cultural Theory is best served by treating the myths of physical and human nature as logically independent of one another.

Suggested Citation

  • Gunnar Grendstad & Per Selle, 2000. "Cultural Myths of Human and Physical Nature: Integrated or Separated?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 27-40, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:27-40
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.00003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00003
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.00003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Mason‐Renton & Marco Vazquez & Connor Robinson & Gunilla Oberg, 2019. "Science for Policy: A Case Study of Scientific Polarization, Values, and the Framing of Risk and Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1229-1242, June.
    2. Maarten Wolsink, 2004. "Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(13), pages 2669-2690, December.
    3. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    4. Boschetti, Fabio & Richert, Claire & Walker, Iain & Price, Jennifer & Dutra, Leo, 2012. "Assessing attitudes and cognitive styles of stakeholders in environmental projects involving computer modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 247(C), pages 98-111.
    5. Brendon Swedlow & Joseph T. Ripberger & Li‐Yin Liu & Carol L. Silva & Hank Jenkins‐Smith & Branden B. Johnson, 2020. "Construct Validity of Cultural Theory Survey Measures," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2332-2383, October.
    6. Metodi Sotirov & Georg Winkel, 2016. "Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 125-154, June.
    7. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2024. "Scale reliability of alternative cultural theory survey measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 527-557, February.
    8. Qi Guo & Palizhati Muhetaer & Ping Hu, 2023. "Cultural worldviews and support for governmental management of COVID-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:27-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.