Problemática del proyecto

The first model of culture is found in intercultural communication literature presented by Ishii in a 1997 issue of the Dokkyo International Review. Ishii’s model, as described by Miike (2009), depicts culture as having three layers: the material, the behavioural and the mental (see Figure 4-1). The outer layer is the material layer and Miike identifies this as the “most overt and visible” layer (p. 37). It is what outsiders to a culture encounter first; and depending on the length of time they spend in that culture, it may be all they observe. Artefacts like food, dress, music and art are representative of this layer. This layer is most easily changed whereas the subsequent layers are increasingly more resistant to change (McDaniel et al., 2009). Miike (2009) continues her description of the model with the behavioural layer, saying it is made up of “verbal and non-verbal behaviours” (e.g. words and gestures) and is “semi-overt” (p. 37). It directs the material layer and is in turn guided by the mental layer. The mental layer sits at the core of the culture and it encapsulates the cultural worldview. It is expressed in the form of values, beliefs and attitudes. This core layer is one of the most, if not the most, important parts of a culture. It is the “invisible” part of a culture which has control of and gives meaning to the outer two layers (p. 37)

Figure 4-1: Ishii's cultural model (Source: Adapted from Miike, 2009, p. 37)

114 The second model is put forward by Hofstede (2001). His “Onion Diagram” shown in Figure 4-2 is similar to Ishii’s model, but he describes the cultural elements in a slightly different manner and categorises the outer three layers as practices. According to him, practices are visible to the outsider but their meaning is invisible and only known to insiders. So the outer three layers are the visible elements of the culture while the ‘values’ core remains invisible.

Figure 4-2: Hofstede’s cultural “Onion Diagram” (Source: Hofstede, 2001, p. 11)

Symbols, equivalent to Ishii’s material and behaviour layers, are “words, gestures, pictures, and objects that carry often complex meanings recognized as such only by those who share the culture” (p. 10). The ‘heroes’ layer represents cultural role models who possess traits desirable in a culture. The heroes can be a “person, alive or dead, real or imaginary” (p. 10). Rituals are “collective activities that are technically unnecessary” to accomplish a goal or task, but are considered to be socially necessary, therefore they are performed “for their own sake” (p. 10). The core of Hofstede’s model is a “system of values” (p. 10).

In the literature examined in relation to flood hazards, these cultural models, or similar ones, were not in evidence. However, there can be great value in looking at the culture in a ‘layered’ manner in disaster research because it forces researchers to contemplate not just the material factors of loss, the way in which people behave or their priorities in response and recovery, but all three layers at the same time. In the case of this research, the flooding of schools was an obvious material concern, but many of the actions performed by participants, that is, their behaviours, stemmed from the cultural value that places high

115 regard on education. Once this culture value was recognised, the behaviours and comments of participants made sense. Hence these types of models facilitate an understanding of the complex nature of culture and expose the influence of the core invisible elements of a culture on the outer visible layers, which are more easily perceived in a disaster situation.

Taken together, these two cultural models demonstrate that at a culture’s core are values, attitudes and beliefs. McDaniel Samovar, and Porter (2009, p. 13) define values as “those things we hold important in life, such as morality, ethics and aesthetics”; attitudes as “learned tendencies to act or respond in a specific way to events, projects, people or orientations”; and beliefs as “individually held subjective ideas about the nature of an object or event”. Together these three components, values, attitudes and beliefs, form and reflect a culture’s worldview. While this worldview is invisible, it is implied through cultural practices, rituals, artefacts and behaviours that are common to a culture. The worldview of a culture “represents one of the most essential qualities of culture impacting all aspects of how a culture perceives and recognizes the environment” (Ishii, Klopf, & Cooke, 2009, p. 28). For that reason, it deserves to be examined in greater detail because cultural perceptions of natural disasters influence the behaviour and practices of people, as demonstrated by these two culture models and by empirical studies (see Jardine-Coom, 2010; Lavigne et al., 2008; Paton et al., 2006; Schlehe, 2008).

4.1.2.1 Worldview

A worldview acts as the lens through which people see the world around them. The philosophical questions concerning life, death, God, the universe, nature, suffering and the purpose of life are answered here (Ishii et al., 2009; McDaniel et al., 2009; Miike, 2009). It defines truth, reality, ethics and morality. Yet a person may not even be aware of their worldview as it is “deeply imbedded in one’s psyche and usually operates on a subconscious level” (McDaniel et al., 2009, p. 14). Out of this set of assumptions about the world, flow the values, attitudes and beliefs of a person, or of a culture when they are shared by a collective. Another feature relevant to this research is the theory that a person’s worldview develops in early childhood along with other cultural learning, and evolves as a person matures, though its fundamentals are unlikely to change past the age of twelve (Hofstede, 2001; Ishii et al., 2009). Given this statement, worldviews held by children age

116 nine to thirteen, the ages of those involved in this research, are mostly formed but events occurring during these years may still influence the shape of their worldviews.

There is consensus that the greatest influence on a person’s worldview is in fact religion (Huntington, 1996; Ishii et al., 2009; Samovar et al., 2009b). Ishii, Klopf and Cooke (2009) argue that even those who are not ‘religious’ are still influenced by the culture’s dominant religion: “[r]eligion … is [a] deep and pervasive determinant of worldview. Even the most secular of people feel religion’s influences. Those who reject religious faith still follow much of the religious heritage that influences their culture” (p. 31). This is evident in many Western societies which have Judeo-Christian heritage. Many people who do not hold to either of these religious faiths are influenced by particular ideas about good and evil (as established through the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament Bible or Torah). Likewise, Islam shapes the Indonesian worldview even for those who do not fervently adhere to the religion.

Religion, however, is not the only influence on the formation of a worldview. Sub-cultural influences, such as belonging to an agrarian or urban community, alter perceptions (Kanning, 2008) and cultural heritage also plays a role. There is a very strong cultural heritage in Java, and for many it has a greater influence on their worldview than the dominant religions (B. Anderson, 1965). The Javanese worldview is based on the idea that “individual[s], society, nature and the cosmos are inseparably connected and are ideally in a state of harmonious balance” (Schlehe, 2008, p. 277). The ensuing idea of social harmony is one the strongest element of Javanese culture (Megawangi et al., 1995). In the same way, the hierarchical social order that exists in Java is derived from the Javanese worldview of an “ordered” cosmos according to mythology (B. Anderson, 1965, p. 7).

The example of Mbah Marijan, the spiritual guardian of Mt. Merapi, illustrates the implications of a Javanese worldview of natural hazards. Merapi holds a high place in Javanese cosmology as part of a “tripartite”, along with Yogyakarta and the ocean to the south of Central Java, which are believed to be “home to [spiritual] kingdoms” (Prasetya, 2001, para. 16-17). Mbah Marijan lived in the village of Kinahrejo, located approximately 5 km from the peak of Mt Merapi (Schlehe, 2008) and within the mandatory evacuation zone during volcanic eruptions (Shields, 2006). He was appointed by the sultan of Yogyakarta to lead the annual Labuhan ceremony to appease the spirits of Mount Merapi (Lang, 2010). He became a well-known for his refusal to evacuate during eruptions (1994,

117 1997, 2006) and for speaking out against the government’s resettlement policy of those residing on the slopes of Merapi (Prasetya, 2001; Schlehe, 2008). Many villagers looked to him when there was unrest at Merapi and believed he would be warned in a vision of an eruption (Shields, 2006). He claimed to not be in opposition of the government’s efforts to evacuate residents during the eruptions (Prasetya, 2001), but that the residents of Merapi’s slopes and those in Yogyakarta “would be in danger if he did not maintain the relationship with the world of the spirits” (Schlehe, 2008, p. 116). Speaking of the other residents in his village who remained with him he said,

It has penetrated their hearts that as people who were born here, who obtain their food from the land of Merapi, to die for Merapi is only natural. Kinahrejo citizens feel it is their destiny that they were born in order to guard, and to become the fortress for the safety of Keraton Ngayogyokarto as well as the kawula (nation) of Mataram. (Prasetya, 2001, para. 26)

During the recent eruptions of Merapi in October 2010, Mbah Maridjan and at least twenty- five were killed by hot ash clouds while keeping vigil at the village mosque ("Mbah Marijan ...," 2010). His death has sparked debate over Javanese spiritual beliefs, some praising “the strength of his convictions” and others criticising “the superstitions centered on the mountain” (Sagita, Sembiring, & Malik, 2010, para. 3). This debate also points to the growing tensions in Javanese and Indonesian culture between traditional and modern worldviews.

While it is possible that this tension between modern and traditional worldviews exists in the perception of flood hazards, there was no literature found in this review of the influence of the Javanese worldview on perceptions of flood hazards. The influence of the Javanese worldview on the perception of volcanic hazards is discussed in several papers (Donovan, 2010; Dove, 2008; Lavigne et al., 2008; Schlehe, 2008), and the oral traditions were mentioned when discussing tsunami hazards (McAdoo, Dengler, Prasetya, & Titovd, 2006), but research of Indonesian cultural influences on flooding or other natural hazards was very limited. Moreover, the influence of culture on flooding hazards, in general, is minimal.