"To what extent do we live in a risk society?"

Ulrich Beck (1992) authored the term 'risk society' and suggests that 'risk' may be defined as;

 “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself”.

In his view, the societal project of modernisation as we have come to understand it (over the past one hundred and fifty years or so), is no longer viable. His argument is that the logic of classical industrial society was that wealth production outweighs the logic of risk production, but in risk society there is a reversal of this relationship. He accredits such processes to modernists and the scientific community whom have characteristically, and historically, exhibited a faith in social progress (e.g. industry, technology, communication systems etc) and whom claim that such technological advances have transformation the world for the better, and will continue to do so. Such developments may serve, and continue to hold out, the promise of releasing  western societies from material scarcity, but Beck argues that they have been made legitimate by cost/benefit analysis that has so far determined social-theoretical thinking which has been overshadowed by the notion of risks as having little, none, or only latent side effects. He writes:

“The 'dictatorship of scarcity' rules the thought and action of people. Under these

conditions of 'scarcity society', the modernisation process takes place with the claims of opening up the gates to hidden sources of wealth with the keys of techno-scientific development”.

From Beck's perspective, science as the rational foundation of knowledge with its 'metanarratives' (big stories) no longer seem to have the power, at least in western societies to define who and what we are. That is to say, 'the dictatorship of scarcity' no longer creates certainty in our lives or our position in the great scheme of things. He argues, that today there emerges a new climate of moral politics: an information age in which scientists cannot seem to agree on anything: ethical dilemmas blur cost/benefit analysis: we do not know the consequences for our actions, or who will be held accountable when things go wronge: no one can be sure of the future: risks are now incalculable;

“or to express it by reference to a single example: the injured of Chernobyl are today, years after the catastrophe, not even all born yet”. Beck cited in Lash et al (1996:p3l).

Thus, late modernity is now marked by doubt, uncertainty, and continuous change. In his view, it has become `reflexive' meaning it erodes from within, becoming its own theme – an issue and a problem for itself. In short, the unintended negative effects of modernisation have come to occupy centre stage and the production of `goods' can no longer compensate for the inherent production of `bads' – modem society has/will mutate into risk society – a second modernity. He argues:

“In the age of risk society becomes a laboratory with nobody responsible for the outcomes of experiments...society has become a laboratory where there is absolutely nobody in charge”.

It is in this light that Beck argues via the process of individualisation we have entered into a risk management nation, or what Giddens (1991) has termed `risk culture' i.e. risk has become essential to the way we organise the social world, both on the part of technical specialists and lay actors. We are in a sense breaking free from old customs and traditions because risks today are universal, unspecific, manufactured and hence different to those of previous ages (e.g. atomic fallout, BSE, genetic engineering). Thus, the self, according to Giddens, becomes a 'reflective project' i.e. we have to constantly think about, and reflect upon, the circumstances in which we find ourselves living in. Therefore, he argues, the trust and confidents we have in individuals, institutions and technology are being dissolved simply because we now have to place our trust in `abstract systems' (e.g. people, institutions and things whom we do not know and cannot see, that are invisible to us but we are told are out there). In this sense, `all trust is in a certain sense is blind trust!' but all the same asserts a level of 'risk consciousness' within the psyche of the popular imagination. Giddens (1990 & 1991)

Subsequently, both theorists agree that society has fundamentally changed, shifting from one primarily characterised by inequalities of wealth and income, to a risk society made problematic by environmental hazards that cut across traditional inequalities. From such a perspective, this transitional period of late modernity marks the end of tradition and the end of nature. This is not to say that such inequalities do not remain, or nature no longer matters; one can still be wealthy or poor, however, Beck (1992) asserts that;

“One can only be afflicted by risks; they are, so to speak, ascribed by civilization”  

Therefore, rather than risks objectively existing as such, they are constructed by a prevailing risk management culture in contemporary political systems – `poverty is hierarchic' he insists, `smog is democratic'.  In other words, cultural dispositions determine which risks are recognised and considered important, and which risk are neglected and ignored. The argument here, is that on the one hand there are risks today which can affect everyone equally; regardless of social standing; their location in the world and may not, or only partially, be related to wealth and income (e.g. nuclear and chemical pollution). On the other, it is important to note that whilst some risks do not discriminate others most certainly do. For instance, a lack of resources means fewer opportunities for particular individuals, groups and even countries to avoid risks. Examples of such can be seen in the way affluent countries have used the so-called Third World as dumping grounds for their toxic waste production. How famines and floods have increased with global warming: produced by advanced societies in the west but afflicted upon and experienced by the worlds poorer countries; that starve whilst our surplus of production (foods stock piles) mount up and are left to rot. In this sense,

“poverty attracts an unfortunate abundance of risks. By contrast, the wealthy (income, power or education) can purchase safety and freedom from risk” .

On this note, the notion that nature has ended is not intended to suggest that we have inevitably lost control of our own planet or our future, rather it is meant to imply that the transitional period of modernity, in which we find ourselves today, has shifted beyond concerns that revolve around what nature can do for us (as in the trajectory of Enlightenment to harness its elements) towards what have we done, and continue to do, to nature. In this sense, both theorists call for an analysis of science, not only an assessment of how it has sought to control risks, but to address the extent to which science has contributed to risks. For risks are no longer localised : globalization  has drawn us out of our self-contained communities. It is the non-localised nature of risks that makes them all the more difficult to manage i.e. they cannot be calculated with any satisfactory degree of certainty.

The whole of nature has been transformed by human activity in the name of progress, leaving very few parts of the global human environment unaffected. Western societies may have acquired wealth, power and a so-called high degree of edified knowledge, but the reality of all this, according to Beck, is that risks display a `social boomerang effect' that catch up with, sooner or later, those who produce and profit from them. In his view, this happens in a multitude of ways and there in abundance are countless examples to support such claims. For instance, over production of food stock’s mean the risk from starvation in the west (to an extent) has now been replaced by the risks of obesity. Technological advances means that 'jobs for life' are now seen as redundant, in terms of acquiring a career or even being able to get a job; those that once existed are now replaced by machines or moved to countries that provide cheaper labour. Computer technology has advanced beyond what we could ever of imagined; metamorphosing from room-sized dinosaurs into compact entertainments systems and desktop devises; but this has also been the foundations for our modem surveillance techniques (e.g. CCTVs) and weapon systems (e.g. ICBMs) which have obvious rewards but also potential costs. Thus, as Berman (1983) rightly points out;

“To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world — and, at the same time, that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are...to be modern is to be part of a universe in which, as Marx said, `all that is solid melts into air”. 

In light of the devastating terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, 2001, both the words of Berman and Marx are undoubtedly correct. Such atrocities, and the recent risks of the use of chemical warfare by terrorists, are now, more than ever, reminders that we live in a ‘risk society’ characterised by unpredictable consequences of increasingly complex techno-scientific innovations and production. Thus, we are not only witnessing the world around us changing at a rapid pace, but also an increasing tempo in which such changes occur. This in turn emphases that with technological advances come benefits but also dangers and potential catastrophes. In this sense, risk assessment or management in contemporary western society embodies a combination of two elements: consequence and probability i.e. in principle they and their consequences are real, but have yet to materialise in practice. That is to say, they are social constructs and are therefore often contested. Strydom (2002) recognises that risk is a two-sided affair between the conflicting perspectives of those who are interested in taking risks for the sake of some possible benefit, and those who are often compelled to have to face the dangerous consequences within society as a result of such risk taking. Risks in this sense are mediated by values, be thee economic, political, scientific or popular. Our anxieties do not exist independently from our perceptions of risks. What we consider here in the West to be a risk is moulded through values and norms in which vulnerability has become our defining condition. The ‘What If’ question dominates our perceptions, discourses, debates and theoretical thinking and captures the essence of our current concept of risk. Thus, in risk society there are differences in a risk in itself and public perception of it. That is to say,

“it is not clear whether it is the risks that have intensified, or our view of them” 

For example, the recent war on Iraq was sparked by so-called intelligence agencies that claimed western societies were at risk from Iraq's alleged "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; which subsequently could be deployed in under an hour. The bloodshed that ensued in our attempts to avoid such a risk have so far been shown to be for unfounded risks; the supposed risk is yet to materialise (no such weapons have been found). In other words the risk society, broadly speaking, is one that is organised in a significant way around the concept of risk. New panics such as; 'the war against terrorism' serves only to intensify the situation and once believed, regardless of whether they materialise  or not, rule the thoughts and actions of people.

“To put it in the well-known sociological sentence, writes Beck, 'if people experience risks as real, they are real as a consequence”.

Risk, then, can be said to appear only relevant to the extent to which it is linked to a social impact or a perceived societal reality of such likelihood's occurring. Risks in modern society therefore have the ability of appearing and disappearing, because they are subject to interpretation - they often change with changed ways of thinking; risks remain negotiable and are therefore open-ended. That is to say, knowledge in this sense, according to authors such as Beck and Giddens, is formed as a hypothesis, which is always subjected to doubts and thus open to revision; and in turn sets implications for how knowledge and understanding about risks are developed and comprehended. This is the very dynamism of modernity because all knowledge about risk is bound up within the socio-cultural contexts i.e. discourses and debates, in which such knowledge is generated and produced. Even scientific knowledge in never completely value-free, although techno-scientific literature and research may portray itself as unbiased, the truth of the matter is that it is simply just another view-point or perspective of seeing and interpreting the world. This of course leads to questions about who should make decisions about them: scientists, economists, civil servants, other experts or lay people. Moreover, it raises the issue of who gets to define what gets to be interpreted as a risk in the first place. This is a matter right at the heart of Beck's thesis and one that tries to tease out the ways in which knowledge about risk acquires authority and of course how some supersede or supplant others.

Therefore the theory of Risk society is not one that replaces the warnings from religious fanatics that " The end of the world is nigh". Nor is it a theory of how some perspectives of risks are more or less accurate and less biased than others. What it can be described as is a tool for interpreting the way in which forms of risk and competing perspectives on the concept together lead to social change and hence the extent to which we live in a risk society. For if risk is to be considered to be founded upon cultural meanings, and understood to be a product of perception and thus cultural interpretations, then risk is a force for change in our individual, political and therefore global lives. How we live with risk, interpret, negotiate, construct and live with risk will structure our culture and society in general. Therefore, in order to understand risk society we need to start thinking of the world in a new way. This entails applying new methods and asking fresh questions about what exactly is happening to us. For this reason traditional forms of environmental governance are increasingly being seen as redundant as they continue to ask risk phenomena that same old question – "are they true", when what really needs to be addressed is the context of "which truth" and "whose truth" the concept occupies.

Word Count: 3,128

Bibliography

Eds Baldwin, E. Longhurst, B. and McCracken, S. (2004) Introducing Cultural Studies: A Revised First Edition. Edinburgh: Pearsons Prentice Hall.

Bauman, Z. (1990) Thinking Sociologically. Oxford: Blackwell Press Bilton.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. (Ed) London, Sage.

Cuff, E. Sharrock, Francis D.W. (2003) Perspectives in Sociology (4 Ed). New York: Routledge.

Franklin, J. (1998) The Politics of Risk Society.USA: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequence of Modernity:  Cambridge, Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A (2001) Sociology (4Ed). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Haralambos M., Holborn M., Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (4th ed) London: Collins Educational.

Hughes J., Sharrock W., Martin P., (2003) Understanding Classical Sociology (2nd ed) London: Sage.

Eds Lash, S. Bronislaw, S. and Wynne, B. (1996) Risk, Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. (ed) London: Sage.

Lupton, D. (1999)        Risk: Key Ideas London: Routledge.

Strydom, P. (2002) Risk, environment and Society Open University Press.

Smelser N.J., (1994) Sociology: Cambridge MA, London: UNESCO

Wallace R.A., Wolf  A., (1999) Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition (5th ed) New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Online Resources:

  as on 9/11/04

 as on 18/11/04

---

---

---