Mary Douglas and the fear of wolves

Wolves are controversial in many places, and definitely so in Norway and Sweden. Recent developments have shifted focus (at the highest political and judicial levels in both countries) from problematic material impact of wolf... [ view full abstract ]

Wolves are controversial in many places, and definitely so in Norway and Sweden. Recent developments have shifted focus (at the highest political and judicial levels in both countries) from problematic material impact of wolf presence to “quality of life” and most notably fear of wolves. Fear of predators may be partly genetic and partly learnt, but the propensity to depict wolves as dangerous (which is done actively in the public debate) must be understood in a social context. We know that conflicts over wolves are embedded in deeper societal tensions. This is where celebrated British social anthropologist Mary Douglas comes in. At least two of Douglas’ theoretical contributions are helpful: The conceptual link between “risk” and “blame”, and the concept of “symbolic order”. Perceptions of risk are not merely about the likelihood of something happening, e.g. a wolf attack. The dangers people tend to be most agitated by are those that also threaten social and moral values. Our studies in Norway have shown that segments of the rural population with roots in traditional land use see current wolf management as an ominous expression of social change threatening rural culture and livelihoods. If actors outside a given social group can be blamed for causing danger, this will reinforce social boundaries and cohesion. Casting blame on government, conservationists and urban “elites” serves exactly this purpose. Moreover, the wolves that are said to invoke fear are those that venture near humans. While this is actually normal behavior, people often see it as unnatural for an animal that in popular belief is the epitome of wild(er)ness. All cultures sort things that belong together into categories. This creates a system of distinctions that maintains symbolic order, e.g. between “wild” and “domestic”. Some things do not fit this classification and are then foreign, impure and potentially dangerous, such as the cheeky wolves. This may be more unnerving than the actual thought of an attack. Treating “fear of wolves” as something that can be addressed by information about wolf behavior, or through “fear-handling” programs, misses these aspects of the role of “fear” in the conflicts over wolves.