Becks World Risk Theory: An Aid to Understanding Environmental Problems - Literature review Example

Beck’s World Risk Theory: An Aid to Understanding Environmental Problems Introduction Global industrial development-driven environmental threats continue to rock the world defying levels of development. For example, seven biggest environmental threats, such as climate change, deforestation, pollution, loss of biodiversity, melting polar ice-caps and rising sea levels, oceanic dead zones, and explosive population growth (Zimmer’s 2012) are all perceived to be caused by the global scale of modern industrialisation, and these similarly threaten all countries whether they are developed or not, putting at equal risk both the rich and the poor. Modern industrial and agricultural productions adversely affect the environment in two ways: through withdrawal and addition. Withdrawals of natural resources to feed the increasing needs of the global modern industries have caused resource depletion both by overusing non-renewable resources and using renewable resources faster than their natural capacity to replenish. (Meadows et al. 1992, cited in Picuo and Marshall (2002, p.294; Long 2011) Additions to the environments meant to make life more convenient (e.g., cars, air conditions, soaps) or to address the limitations of natural production (e.g., genetically modified crops; industries for mass production; fertilizers and pesticides for bigger harvest) in order to provide the needs of a fast growing population brought about by rapid urbanisation have caused various types of pollution. Together, they have put the survival of ecosystems under threat (Blowers 1997). Hence, modernisation has created ‘goods’ (e.g. wealth), but with it emerges the ‘bads’ (e.g. risks) (Possamai and Possamai-Inesedy 2007) that are too harmful to the environment. Consequently, the globalisation of modernisation has also resulted to the globalisation of various threats to the environment. The increasing severe impact of modernisation on the environment as experienced in various uncontrollable natural disasters and calamities causing havoc worldwide has compellingly led to the increasing interest in understanding environmental risk. A review of the sociological literature on risk shows Beck’s idea of risk society the most studied and most well-known approach (Zinn 2004). Such observation is similarly shared by Matten (2004) in environmental management. Perhaps, what made Beck’s risk theory this popular were his “powerful analyses of the ways in which the rise of the risk society is transforming social reproduction, nature and ecology, intimate relationships, politics and democracy” (Elliot 2002, p.294). It is therefore worth endeavour to critically evaluate Beck’s World Risk Theory as an aid to understanding environmental problems. To do so, the discussion shall be opened with the brief understanding of the said theory. Beck’s World Risk Theory in Brief Beck’s risk theory is only one of the three theorems that make up his theory of reflexive modernisation – a “theoretical attempt to make sense of some of the broad currents of social change affecting Western societies” (Aiken 2000, p.3). Simply explained, the theory of reflexive modernisation, which Beck (1994, p.4) describes as the ‘radicalisation of modernity’, postulates that the world is in a new epochal shift. Traditional social ordering systems are being systematically transformed and detraditionalised. Contrary to Marxism, this qualitative shift which is unintentional and unpolitical is not post-modern but rather a new epoch of modernity, because it is being driven not by the crises but rather by the radicalised scientific and technological advances of world capitalism. Paradoxically however, these technologies can also be globally destructive which impacts are unforeseen, unintended, and unknowable, making ta traditional forms of security and control futile, hence the term, world risk society. (Beck 2006; 2008) In his article ‘Living in the world risk society’, Beck (2006, p.329) has argued that we are all living in a world of uncontainable risk, which narrative according to him “is a narrative of irony… [that] deals with the involuntary satire, the optimistic futility, with which the highly developed institutions of modern society – science, state, business and military -- attempt to anticipate what cannot be anticipated.” Thus, risk, he furthers, is omnipresent. To which, only three reactions are possible, namely denial, apathy or transformation. Beck’s risk theory essentially revolves around three basic questions: What is risk? What causes risk? What is the effect of risk? Risk to Beck’s theory does not refer to catastrophe but rather to potential danger. Hence, risk and danger are two different but directly interrelated concepts. Danger is caused by nature, thus not a product of decision-making (e.g. typhoon). On the contrary, risk is caused by humans, thus a product of decision-making (e.g. pollution). The relationship of these two concepts can be historically described in their two ways of movements: first, during the period of simple modernity – Beck’s reference to the development of industrial society – when danger spells risk; and second during the period of reflexive modernity – the emergence of risk society – when risk spells danger. What is the difference? The difference lies on the enormity and severity of the impact of radicalised technologies on the environment that each period has reached. For Beck, industrial development has always its side effects. But, the side effects of reflexive modernity have qualitatively inverted the relationship between danger and risk: from danger to risk into risk to danger. Meaning, during the first modernity the issue at hand is how to make science and technology cope up with risks that natural calamities have been causing, but during the second modernity, the issue at hand is how to mitigate the risk that scientific and technological advancements have been creating against nature. In short, “the ‘environment’ is in fact no longer external to human social life but thoroughly penetrated and reordered by it… ‘nature’ becomes transformed into areas of action where human beings have to make practical and ethical decisions” (Beck 1994, p.3). For example, the severe pollution or the massive greenhouse gases that various human activities, most especially industrial activities, released into the atmosphere have been significantly depleting the ozone layer (this cannot be noticed immediately, neither can be measured without scientific means) that in turn has resulted to sudden climate change which projections and impacts remain uncertain (Maslin 2007), despite radicalised technological progress that reflexive modernity is so proud of. In short, Beck (2008, p.5) argues that “new risks are manufactured uncertainties and dangers: modernity is faced with its own destructive potential of social and technological development without having adopted adequate answers. Again, it is not post-modernity but more modernity radicalized, which produces world risk society.” The new risks – “those arising from nuclear, chemical, ecological, and genetic engineering” (Blowers 1997, p.855) – that characterise the world risk society, Beck furthers, have three features, namely delocalisation, uncalculability, and non-compensability. Delocalisation is the universality of risk which occurs on three levels: spatial – risks are borderless (e.g. climate change); temporal – risks have long latency period (e.g. nuclear waste); and social – risks cannot be determined with sufficient precision (e.g. financial crises). As Beck (1995, p.8) states “The world has become a testing ground for risky technologies, and thus also a potential refutation of the safety guarantees of state, economic and technical authority.” Uncalculability is the unknowable consequences of risks which even science could only provide hypothetical calculations. Yet the only means to measure risks is through science, thus the dependence on experts. Ironically however, while scientific expertise is being shown to control technologies that in the end are actually uncontrollable (Blowers 1997). Non-compensability pertains to the enormous magnitude, dimension, and severity of new risks which no amount or form of compensation is possible. Thus, the principle of new risks is precaution through prevention. Hence for Beck, the world risk society is a truly unique period in the history of society, because its radicalised technological progress can also be its own technological annihilation (Jarvis 2007). It this nature of new risks – a question of humanity’s survival – that makes environmental issues in this world risk society supra-class and supra-national. Citing nuclear war as an example, Beck (1992, p.38) argues that the Earth has turned into an ejector seat that defies race, colour, economic status and obliterates the distinction between the perpetrator and the victim. But the “the effect only exists when it occurs, and when it occurs, it no longer exists, because nothing exists anymore.” To Becks (2008, p.4) belief, this apocalyptic threat would later bring about a new historical reality – “a cosmopolitan outlook in which people view themselves simultaneously as part of a threatened world and as part of their local situations and histories.” This will compel people to unite in order to survive the new risks. An Evaluation of Beck’s World Risk Theory Although it is true that risk is not a new thing, but has been with society since time immemorial, Beck’s world risk theory has become widely popular perhaps because of its initial impact. For one, Beck’s choice of terms to illustrate his theory, such as ‘reflexive modernity’, ‘cosmopolitanism’, ‘radicalised modernity’, ‘detraditionalisation’, ‘manufactured uncertainty’, ‘risk society’, and more to enumerate are too captivating not to caught one’s interest. Likewise, the manner he presents his arguments is also very intriguing and creates an exciting expectation. However, as Zinn (2004) similarly notes, this initial impact would later develop into critiques, because as one read Beck’s risk thesis, a sense of discontentment as to how he attacked societal development follows, creating more questions. On the contrary however, this makes it its strength, in the sense that it furthers debates and thus compels further theoretical and empirical studies, which is a good thing to better understand society and environment. As an aid to understanding environmental problems, Beck’s world risk theory is undeniably useful in terms of understanding the dimension, magnitude, and severity of risk that the present world is confronting. Although it may not be a new idea as other authors suggest, still Beck’s theory compels one’s study of globalisation to analyse it not only along its economic, political and cultural significance, but also along its environmental significance – that inherent to globalisation is the globalisation of environmental risk. Elliot (2002) correctly notes that it is this aspect of Beck’s world risk theory that makes it increasingly interesting to sociologists whose area of concern is the understanding of the complex figurations of global invisible risks. But Turner (1994) notes that Beck’s arguments regarding the changing nature of risks is nothing new, because even earlier centuries had similarly experienced environmental risks of similar dimension, magnitude, and severity. Among the examples Turner gives are the epidemics of syphilis and bubonic plague; the environmental, medical and political catastrophes that wiped out the entire populations of the aboriginal peoples of North America and Australia. However following Beck’s theory, the difference of Turner’s cited risks with today’s new risks lies on what Beck defines to be the pervasive role of technology on the society. Earlier epidemics were not caused by the radicalisation of technological progress but rather the lack of appropriate technology to prevent the epidemic. On the other hand, it could be argued that the emergence of other health epidemics today, like SARS, HIV, and others is also attributable to the lack of appropriate medical solution to arrest these health problems. But the point of Beck’s risk theses is that these diseases are caused by the radicalization of technological developments. For example, “SARS is a dramatic example of how quickly world travel can spread a disease” (Hadjiliadis 2013, par.2). In a way, Turner’s criticism of Beck’ s risk theses proves Beck’s assertion that reactions to new risks can only be denial – which seems to be the case here, apathy or transformation. Similarly, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and simultaneously an expert on climate and energy, John Holdren, states in reaction to the uncertain future awaiting the global population due to global warming: “We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering… The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.” (Kanter and Revkin 2007, A13) Another usefulness of Beck’s theory to understanding environmental problems is its clear presentation on the paradoxical interdependence of modernisation and environment. As Beck (1992) notes: in the reflexive modernity the social production of wealth unintentionally creates the social production of environmental risks. Hence, the issue is more than the distribution of wealth but the distribution of risk; it now centres on the mitigation of new risks (Grigsby 2013). Actually this is what Beck’s reflexive modernity is all about – that technological advancements unintentionally create new risks which impact is ironically far more costly than the benefits the advancements intend to provide society. A classic example of this is the nuclear energy. Though nuclear energy may provide a stable source of energy, a simple nuclear accident can annihilate a community within a given radius. As such, this aspect of Beck’s theory validates the call for sustainable development. It emphasises that it is only through promoting sustainable development that new risks can be mitigated. Furthermore, the precautionary principle that results from this thesis democratises the process of mitigating new risks, allowing broader participation from local communities, government agencies, non-government organisations, and individuals (Miller 2000). This, Weston (2004, p.318-19) suggests, compels that policy response to new environmental risks “should be the development of a communicative approach to risk assessment, greater participatory decision-making and the democratisation of technological development.” This however should not be misconstrued as something that will lead to what Beck optimistically hopes to result to self-modification devoid of class consciousness (Elliot 2002). In addition, Beck’s world risk theory compels the society to acknowledge the environmental limitations within which society operates. Though, Beck suggests that new risks are unintended and unplanned, therefore not a choice, Beck’s risk thesis is different from the rational choice theory, wherein the unintended harmful collective consequences is the individual’s purposive action (Liebe and Preisendörfer 2010). However in acknowledging the limitations of environment, the rational choice theory may come into play in terms of responding to the challenges brought about by new risks. Essentially, this part of Beck’s thesis reiterates Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism – that each and every part of the material world are interrelated, that the action of one part will have its corresponding effect to other parts and vice-versa. Hence, this reminds us to confront environmental problems in a holistic manner. The central weakness that is observable in Beck’s world risk theory is its very framework regarding societal development. Contrary to Marxism, Beck defines societal development on the basis of the development of modern technology. It is the radicalised development of modern technology which drives the current epochal shift which he calls world risk society. Even if he uses the term radical to describe the technological development that put forth reflexive modernity, Beck’s description cannot be radical because in the first place, the driving force of modernity – since he is referring modernity to capitalism – is no other than the capital. Technological developments are pursued primarily to ensure greater profit. Therefore, technological developments cannot be devoid of economic and political power struggle, hence they are politically biased. If problems of environment are analysed from this point of view, then it could be easily understood that what causes the imbalanced distribution of development which in effect has negatively disturbed ecological equilibrium is no other than the avarice of the capitalist system for more profit and for the monopoly of the natural resources. Given this capitalist class interest, the direction of the development of technology is not intended for the emancipation of the human race from natural limitations but rather for the interest of the market. The result of which is Beck’s new risks. But if technological development is devoid of class interest, it could have been directed to what would genuinely promote human development. As such, technological development s could have not negatively disturbed ecological balance, because within this framework one would see that humanity is dependent on its habitat. Hence, humanity and environment will not be regarded as competing forces, because each one needs the other. This will be the natural tendency because here the greed and avarice that is systemic in capitalism is non-existent. This framework of environmental analysis will also prevent fatalism, which is observable in Beck’s world risk theory. It is Beck’s de-politicisation of his analysis of societal development that makes his propositions to be seemingly hanging on the balance, because he avoided building his thesis from politics – power relations. In effect, he failed to provide a solution to the problems posed by his world risks society. Aside from this, even within Beck’s faulty framework, his risk theses failed to capture other important elements and aspects necessary to build a strong proposition in the explaining risk, such as the cultural factors, individual factors and community factors. He also missed the urban dimension, which has great environmental impact. In sum, though Beck’s World risk theory may appear critical, it cannot be considered a critical theory for three basic reasons. First, it failed to analyse the root cause of the problem, which was the very thing that Beck tried to avoid – politics or power relations in the formulation of his theory. Second, Beck analysed environmental problems as supra-class, defying social realities and essentially perpetuating the very system causing new risks. Third, it failed to forward a solution to the problem. This however is unsurprising because the very weakness of the theory lies on its failure to identify the root cause of the problem. On appositive note though, the theory was able to describe what is distinct in the environmental situation and condition of the world today. Furthermore, the theory was able to differentiate the environmental risks we have today – Although even this is actually being challenged by other sociologists. Conclusion Among the existing environmental theories, many sociologists find Beck’s world risk theory interesting, perhaps because Beck presented his theses in an intriguing way, using interesting terms that one is lured to sit and read it. However, a deeper look into the theory has resulted to criticisms on its various weaknesses, which as described in this essay lie on the very framework of the theory. Nevertheless, the theory remain to be a useful aid to understanding environmental problems, because it has provided a clear description of the new risks and the fatal effects they pose, enough to call the attention of policy makers, scholars and experts. References Aiken, M. 2000. Reflexive modernisation and the social economy. Centre for Social and Political Thought [online], (2) March, pp.3-21. Available from: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/documents/issue2-1.pdf [Accessed November 11 2013]. Beck, U. 1992.Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications. Beck, U. 1994. The reinvention of politics. In Beck, U. Giddends, A., and Lash, S. eds. Reflexive modernization: politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.2-13. Beck, U. 1995. Ecological politics in an age of risk. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. 2006. Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society, 35 (3) August, pp.329-45. Beck, U.2008. World at risk: the new task of critical theory. Development and Society, 37 (1), June, pp. 1-21. Blowers, A. 1997. Environmental policy: ecological modernisation or the risk society? Urban Studies, 34 (5-6), pp.845-71. Elliot, A. 2002. Beck’s sociology of risk: a critical assessment. Sociology, 36 (2) May, pp.293-315. Grigsby, B. 2013. Risk society? What’s that? Environment and Society [online], Fall. Available from: http://www.eou.edu/socenv/readings/week-9/risk/ [Accessed: November 10 2013]. Hadjiliadis, D. ed. 2013. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia [online]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0004460/ [Accessed: November 12 2013]. Jarvis, D. S. L. 2007. Risk, globalisation and the state: a critical appraisal of Ulrich Beck and the world risk society thesis. Global Society, 21 (1) January, pp.23-46. DOI: 10.1080=13600820601116468. Kanter, J. and Revkin, A.C. 2007, January 30. An article on recent ecological changes: World scientists near consensus on warming. The New York Times, p.A13. Liebe, U. and Preisendörfer, P. 2010. Rational choice theory and the environment: varuants, applications, and new trends. In Environmental sociuology: European perspectives and interdisciplinary challenges. The Netherlands: Springer, pp.141-57. Long, R. 2011. Threats to the environment. In Social problems [online]. Available from: http://dmc122011.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/problems/chap-04.htm [Accessed: November 11 2013]. Maslin, M. 2007. Global warming: causes, effects, and the future. MN: MBI Publishing. Matten, D. 2004. The impact of the risk society thesis on environmental politics and management in a globalizing economy – principles, proficiency, perspectives. Journal of Risk Research, 7 (4) June, pp.377-98. Miller, D. S. 2000. A note on the representation of environmental risks in the news. The Qualitative Report [online], 4 (1/2) January. Available from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-1/miller.html [Accessed: November 07 2013]. Picou, S. and Marshall, B. K. 2002. Contemporary conceptions of environmental risk: implications for resource management and policy. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology, 4 (4) December, pp. 293-313. Possamai, A. and Possamai-Inesedy, A. 2007. Risk society, sustainable development and religion. In Pimentel, R. B. and Saroglou, V. eds. Religion, Culture and Sustainable Development in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, Developed under the auspices of the UNESCO [online]. Oxford, UK: Eolss Publishers. Available from: http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c04/e6-92-06.pdf [Accessed: November 07 2013]. Turner, B. S. 1994. Orientation, postmodernism and globalism. London and New York: Routledge. Weston, J. 2004. EIA in a risk society. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47 (2) March, pp.313-25. Zimmer, L. 2012. Seven biggest threats to the environment – Why we still need earth day. Inhabitat [online]. Available from: http://inhabitat.com/7-biggest-threats-to-the-environment-why-we-still-need-earth-day/ [Accessed: November 11 2013]. Zinn, J. O. 2004. Literature review: sociology and risk. Social Contexts and Responses to Risk Network Working Paper No.1 [online]. Available from: http://www.kent.ac.uk/scarr/papers/Sociology%20Literature%20Review%20WP1.04%20Zinn.pdf [Accessed: November 07 2013]. Read More