Introduction
It is universally agreed that people react differently when dealing with disasters, and not just disasters alone but emergencies too. Pennebaker (1990, p. 11) states that people differ in what they believe and understand about life and death, what they feel, what elicits those feelings, the perceived implications of those feelings, the way they express those feelings, and the techniques for dealing with those feelings that cannot be directly expressed. This diversity in response can also be attributed to other factors like age, financial resources, educational level, religious background, and physical wellbeing to mention a few. This implies religion and culture are vital points of consideration in disaster relief for concerned parties like health officers, counselors, and social work officers.
What is culture
Culture refers to all the knowledge and values shared by a society or the behavior and beliefs unique to a particular social, ethnic, or age group (Takado, 2007, par. 4). Before discussing why people in different cultures respond differently to events, it is important first to acknowledge the reasons that make culture dominant in a disaster or emergency. First, we need to know that people respond and recover from a disaster within the context of their culture. For instance, some cultures are more emotional than others. Some people have been known to mourn a death for days while others will exhume a body within 24 hours, meaning in case of a natural calamity, evacuating the ‘long time mourners’ would be harder than the converse, making culture a necessary food for thought. Secondly, culture offers security; it gives a sense of belonging and some people tend to be cohesively held to each other and their beliefs than others. Cohesive cultures equate to greater social and emotional support in disasters, unlike their counterparts who are culturally far apart (Harkey, n.d, p. 2-6).
“Cultures of disaster”
The way a culture interprets the source of a disaster is of utmost importance. By source, some may attribute it to their religious beliefs, traditions, and governance, like in the case of Hurricane Katrina. Belief in supernatural existence gives answers to questions which even science does not. Thus communities used to calamities have evolved ways of attributing these calamities to their daily life activities (Pan American Health Organization, 2004, par. 5). Other communities and religions do not accept medical support kindly; this will often affect the response to aid offered to such disaster-stricken people as we will see later. Societies deeply attached to their beliefs and prone to disasters, like that in the Philippines will view them as normal occurrences while more sophisticated societies will interpret them as anomalies. This concept of disasters being normal brings in the idea of ‘cultures of disaster’ and hence ways of coping with them-a culture of coping with future disasters that are deemed evident.
In attributing the disaster to a supernatural cause, normal occurrence to them, these societies’ techniques of coping will encompass physical, behavioral, and conceptual mechanisms. Conceptual manifestation will involve prayers, rituals, purification ceremonies, mysticism among others. Physical manifestation will involve migration and resettlement as a way of reducing the impact of the disaster. Behavioral comes with cohesion and solidarity as a community and ways of reducing excessive emotional attachment to a disaster. The conceptual and behavioral mechanisms better explain the case of tsunami and Aceh people who have resigned to obstacles hence view the 2004 tsunami as the ‘latest’ obstacle. It shows preparedness for disasters and subsequently a certain level of preparedness in dealing with them. Similarly, Columbia Christian for Life belief in God’s wrath explains their coping mechanism which is a resignation to their inability to fight back but rather change their social inclinations- abortion clinics in this case.
Disaster as a failure in the government system
Others will view disaster as a failure in the government system. These are societies whose lives are based on what they deem realistic and most governments run their lives. The way a disaster is handled, whether good or bad is blamed on the administration. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986 in Ukraine for instance has attracted enormous criticism on administration. The journalists portrayed mistrust to a people who knew little about radioactivity and radiation in general consequently encouraging the public to mistrust the then administration. The Hiroshima atomic bomb can only be traced back to politics, again a case of mistrust for leadership (Rotkiewicz, 2001, p.1)
Going down to smaller grounds, how people in a small corporate setting respond to a disaster like fire, death of colleagues greatly depends on the organizational culture. How are the leaders? How are employees treated by the management?
Companies with cheerful family-type cultures where employees are warmly treated and can air their views freely record better emergency handling, having perceived their occurrence and setting modalities to deal with them. Cultures that mainly rely on rules that have been, what those in authority dictate and give little room for innovation will often handle disaster based on the situation. Other organizational cultures are too cautious with their undertakings and do not take failure into account, implying they neither envisage disasters nor ways of counteracting them, they deal with them as they arise (Takado, 2007, p16)
Processes of rebuilding and intervention
All this diversity in cultures profoundly affects processes of rebuilding and intervention. First, differences in culture will bar communication between the affected and social workers. It will hinder effective counseling, and based on the fact that both parties have different ways of expressing feelings and emotions, they may end up depressed and can easily result in compassion fatigue for the worker. People show empathy differently, some will touch, cry with the affected, or simply share in their mourning period. Again the cultural diversity will often bring confusion as to what is the right mode of action for a given party in distress.
Third, some people work round the clock while to others time can be altered depending on the needs. Crisis workers might want to set idealistic timeframes for affected persons which might be of no value to the latter, again a frustrating gesture for both parties. On timelines, a disaster-stricken community may want to mourn their loved ones, a vital part of their recuperation. The mourning period, which varies from one culture to another, is a way of acceptance of the loss which provides leeway to healing. In massive disasters, those that involve multiple deaths, rescuers will not give survivors enough mourning period, something that has later psychological impact on survivors. Funerals are not only good for personal, social, or religious purposes but also enhance political wellbeing. Society’s confidence in a legal institution may be restored where proper funereal rituals are performed. Unresolved grief comes with devastating effects, characterized by recurrent deaths and the community may opt for alternative ways to express their sorrow, often with worse outcomes (Pan American Health Organization 22-26).
A social worker must study and understand all there is to know about the affected people, which include beliefs, values, and economics among others, presenting an extra burden to the worker. This will go a long way in precisely assessing how the affected react to disaster. On beliefs the aforementioned people who believe in disasters being ‘normal’ and out of their scope might be reluctant when assistance is accorded to them, perhaps they believe the source of the catastrophe will see its end without their intervention. Similarly, those who have lost faith in governments might not take kindly assistance given to them by the same government.
Conclusion
The impact of culture and its diversity in dealing with disasters cannot be overlooked as it is fundamental for the successful resolution of a disaster. Cultures can however be traversed in times of disaster. Some techniques for this include setting a profile for an area prone to disaster, which ought to be updated often. The profile will have the area’s history, possible vulnerabilities, and ways of counteracting anticipated emergencies.
It is helpful for social workers to be bilingual and bicultural if not more as this will help cross-cultural barriers. Deep knowledge of the needs of society and their tendencies when in need of help is important. Some affected persons like refugees and victims of political upheaval may be unwilling to seek help from the government due to mistrust. It is necessary to build rapport with such and their leaders to help them when the need arises. Communities ought to be fed with adequate information on emergencies, and it should be in languages that they understand, be it on media or at a personal level. This will enhance survival in times of disaster (Ehrenreich, 2004, p. 43).
Reference
Ehrenreich, J. (2001) Coping with disasters. Web.
Harkey, J. (n.d) Cultural impact on disaster relief. 2010. Web.
Pan American Health Organization. (2004). Management of dead bodies in disaster situations. Web.
Pennebaker, J(1990).Opening Up: The healing Powers of Confiding in others. New York: William Morrow.
Rotkiewicz, M. (2001) Chernobyl the biggest bluff of the 20th century part 2, Web.
Takado, Yokota(2007). Organizational cultures and emergency response actions: How Japanese companies behave? Web.