Beck's Theory of Risk Society - Essay Example

? THE OF THE DEGREE THE MODULE AND CO THE WORK This paper analyses first identifies the integral concepts of Ulrich Beck’s theory of Risk Societies and then gives a critical comparative analysis between his theory and other sociological works of the same domain. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF BECK’S THEORY OF RISK SOCIETY TO OTHER CONTEMPORARY THEORETICAL APPROACHES BACKGROUND: Sociologists have long been engrossed in research on societal distinctions and this has led them to crave for neologism as an integral part of their activities. Time and again, sociologists have studied societal behaviours and have coined different names for different societies. With the advent of the era of advanced modernity, societal thinkers went into further depths and coined even more comprehensive titles such as Affluent societies, Civic Societies, Open societies etc. One of the most prominent societal thinkers of this new modern era is Ulrich Beck. INTRODUCTION TO BECK AND RISK SOCIETY The German sociologist coined the name of Risk Society in his book ‘’ Toward a New Modernity’’ to explain that this era of advanced modernity is overwhelmed by the underlying risks that form an integral part of the future of these societies. Beck uses the term to identify societies that are risk averse and try to find out systematic methodologies to deal with risks induced by the modernisation itself. The term risk society is also analysed through the paradigms of a theoretical framework. This frame comprises of three interrelated ingredients: Individualization, Risk and reflexive modernity. The underlying basis of Beck to his argument is that modern society is exposed to a plenthora of risks and uncertainties. These uncertainties can include nuclear radiations, global warming, highly endemic diseases, invasive species and many other virulent phenomena (Adam, 2000). CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF BECKS THEORY: The historical theoretical work on societies centered around the distribution of world resources. Particularly those of the beginning of the modern era but with the new concept of risk aversiveness, Beck has given new paradigms to the societal risk theories. He argues that today, the focus of societies is not on the distribution of resources but on the distribution of risks and machinations of modernization, the risks prevalent in the contemporary scenario. He furthers his stance by saying that many potential risks are extricated from the concepts of boundaries and so these risks cannot be equitably distributed. Everyone therefore is equally at risk. Hence the concept of social classifications identified by the historical sociologists are no longer relevant according to Beck because risks cannot be equitably distributed and so all social classes are dissolved leading to individualization of the social actors. INDIVIDUALIZATION: According to Beck since all countries are equally exposed to the risks identified earlier, all entities, organizations, institutions and governments stand at the same level and so they are individualized at their own domains. Thus they have to take charge of the responsibilities and work on solutions to mitigating these risks. These individualized social actors identify the risks generated from technological innovation and new discoveries and they undertake action such as social movements and awareness campaigns to pressurize the innovators in being safety complaint. On the basis of this idea of individualization, Beck illustrates the vision of ‘New Modernity’. He portrays a society where personal experimentation and cultural innovation are cherished at the back of high potential uncertainties. Beck considers both regressive and progressive elements to individualization REFLEXIVE MODERNIZATION Beck criticises modernity by attacking the presuppositions of the theory of modernity related socialization. He is of the opinion that many sociologists confuse modernity with industrialism. He finds progress in the overrated social theories which align linear rationalization with modernity. Beck says that although the earlier sociologists have created a strong correlation between industrialization and the environmental risks and other potential threats but they are unable to comprehend the extent to which these risks are affecting the population of the entire world including the institutions, organizations and subsystems. He further says that in today’s world, the risks can cause irreparable global damage and without any limitation. In times of accidents, all control measures might collapse and no limits can be introduced on the affected areas. According to beck, risk societies keep a close check on the activities that lead to potential risks to their existence and they try to inculcate awareness campaigns to communicate the initiatives on the mass scale. A good check and balance system is maintained in these societies and appropriate laws and regulations are put into context. The continual process leads to a relatively better society. ANALYTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN BECK AND OTHER SOCIAL SCIENTISTS As already discussed, way before Beck introduced his theory, sociologists had already been working on these concepts but what was different in Becks theory was theory was the intensity to which he analysed the consequences of these risks and the depth to which he evaluated the behaviours of the risk societies. His formulation of linkages of cause and effect is more sophisticated and detailed and the concepts introduced by him are more pragmatic in nature than other sociologists who have worked on the same context. Unlike his contemporaries like Giddens, Lihmann, Castell and Adam, Beck has been prominent as sociologists who have given in depth analysis of the affects of invisible dangers like Petrochemical Pollution, Global Warming and Nuclear reactions. The entire critical evaluation and comparison of beck can be done through the following categories (Mythen, 2004): RISK SOCIETIES: Before Ulrich Beck there were many sociologists who were trying to coin terms on the risk oriented societies and among those was Patrick Lagadec who coined the term risk civilization. Although Patrick and others such as Aaron Wildavsky were able to identify the need for risk aversiveness in societies, they were unable to provide concrete practical evidences. Beck on the other hand has been successful in conceptualising as well as delineating the practical scenario as well and that is why he was able to focus on implications of science and their impact on Public oriented scenarios. Beck was able to create clearer distinctions between ethical and non ethical issues and that is why his work was more appreciated than any other contemporaries (Beck, 2002). RISK AND REFLEXIVITY As compared to other sociologists who have worked on risk issues, Beck was able to give more substantial arguments regarding the distribution of potential threats and risks. He was also able to identify the correlation between science and these potential risks. Some of the sociologists like Kai Erikson were able to put on a strong contradicting issue which was of the centralized effects of these potential risks. According to Kai, there are some of the risks that can affect one area more than all other areas and in that case the threats of these risks can be equitable distributed to quite an extent. The major distinction between these differing views is the fact that some sociologists focus on the short term effects of scientific innovation while some take the long term orientation. Sociologists who take the short term orientation see the benefits of scientific discovery such as the improvement in lifestyle, higher standards of living and many other benefits. On the other hand sociologists who focus on the long term effects of technology are disturbed by issues like Global warming, Ethic violence and other unethical endemic activates (Beck, 1992). The arguments and ideology of Beck led people to understand identify further potential but subtle risks. One such risk was identified by Fruedenburg as ‘’recreancy’’, also known as institutional failure. With the increase in specialization, the people see a failure of institutions to satisfy those dependent on these institutions. Instead of depending on one all encompassing entity, people will have to rely on a large number of specialists. This would lead to further dissatisfaction on part of the general masses as their control would lessen up and create more problems for them (Mythen, 2004). Becks questioning of the ethical scenarios apparent due to modernity is a continuation of the European tradition of Ethical consciousness. He extends on the argument so of Max Weber and jurgen Habermas. While other contemporary sociologists considered 20th century social transformations as unethical, Beck went a step further and calls modernization as reflexive. Thus he declared modernization to be propounding the dynamics of individualization, globalization and underemployment etc which weakens the classical modernity. He says that present circumstances lead to a mechanism of self destruction on part of the industrial modernity. On the very basics, beck found that technology and destruction co exit and this reflexive modernity poses a huge challenge to the society of today. More than that Beck also identified the need of having a mechanism through which the potential risks of these technologies are distributed according to the efforts of the different entities in this regard. POWER AND DOMINATION Beck has given new dimensions to the theory of power in risk societies. Under becks opinion, reflexive modernization leads to a minimization of the social classifications and it leads to better relationships between the entities. In the past, political tensions and conflicts were created on the basis of ethnicities and racial differences; however according to Beck, these conflicts are trivialized due to the globalized risks such as global warming, famine, and other social crimes as well that are prevalent in almost every country. According to his option the status and preference of an individual or a race does not affect of political tensions and risks. So reflexive modernization lead to friendly relations between the entities affected by the global risks. This concept is totally in extension and this would lead to a combined effort to the solving the shared risks of the countries. It can also be inferred from Beck’s visions that since the effects of such risks are incalculable, so constant checks and balances need to be employed in order to deal with the aftermaths of such risks. Another important distinction between Beck and is contemporaries like Scott Lash is that these sociologists have focussed on specific sectors and they have evaluated the impact of such sectors on the specific societies. They have analysed the functioning of the specific industrial units and they have also evaluated the impacts on the small society segment. On the contrary, Beck has evaluated the aftermaths of the risks on the global scale and that is why he has used a more comprehensive technique in concretising the impacts of these risks ( Beck 1999a). Pragmatism is the most important distinction between Beck and other sociologists. Beck with the comprehensive research has given the researchers practical guidelines to evaluate the intensity of risks present in the global scale. Then he also identified proper rules and guidelines for the people to mitigate the intensity of these risks. He gave the options of alternative resources to the researchers so that the reliance of the society on potentially harmful innovations can be reduced and they come up with some environmental and human friendly innovation techniques. In his identification of potential risks, Beck went out miles in depth as well. He kept his primary focus on the areas and sectors that are most susceptible to these potential risks. One such area was Environment. Beck identified this sector as the most susceptible to globalized risks. His major contention was that, environment is the only sector that can affect the entire life on the earth and since it is a shared resource, there is no provision of equitable distribution of risks in this regard. That is why he proposed that all countries should work towards the mitigation of these risks as he considered the world to be moving towards a risk society. Similarly the context of domination can be judged in this regard. According to Beck, since the resources as well as the risks are shared by all and equitable distribution is not possible, the problem of domination arises and the entities will have to work together to ensure the safety of each other. IMPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS: Beck, through his research and development, laid the bottom line for the safety of sustainable developments and he provided the guidelines for the societies to be risk averse societies. Unlike all other contemporary sociologists, Beck created a unique relationship between Science, technology and politics. Through his theory he segregated the potential risks into two categories, one of quantifiable risks and the other of non quantifiable risks. Becks argument was that the societies should try to quantify the risks to as much extent as possible. The major reason behind this was that, when the risk and its repercussions will be quantifiable, the effects will also be quantifiable and so all the effected societies can work on individual level in mitigating the effects of these risks. As an extension to the concept of world risk society he identified that before the initiation of any innovative venture, it should be made compulsory that proper environmental feasibility be done of the venture so that the potential risks of the venture can be quantified. As for those technologies, whose risks cannot be controlled it is better to disregard those technologies so that the future generations can be saved from the potential risks. As compared to scott and Patrick, Beck as more successful in identifying the true functioning of the concerned authorities. He explained that although with the awareness of the societies, new protective laws and regulations are put into context but at the same time the responsibility of one single entity is taken away and that is why this leads further undermining of the circumstances. According to Beck all concerned entities should have a single controlling and regulating authority that should have the authority and responsibility of taking charge of these risk mitigation strategies and provide constant supervision of the circumstances of operations (Beck, 1992). CONCLUSION: The concept of risk societies and risk civilizations has been present since time immemorial. As discussed throughout the paper, the sociologists like Scott, Giddens, Lihmann, Castell provided valuable contributions to these concepts but the theory of Beck is more comprehensive and undaunted. He not only specifies the extent which the intensity of the risks prevalent in the societies can be felt but also provides a practical application of the mitigation strategies for these risks. He analyzed the situation of the entire world and gives a holistic theory that not only provided the bottom-line to further research in theoretical approaches to societal risks but also served as a common ground among all the proponents of the similar concepts. This is the major reason why his efforts and vision stand cherished, prominent of all contemporary works in this domain. REFERENCES: BECK, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London, Sage Publications. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Beck, U. (1999a) What is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Coleman, C.L. (1995) ‘Science, Technology and Risk Coverage of a Community Con?ict’, Media, Culture and Society 17(1): 65–79. Beck, U. (2002). "The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited." Theory, Culture & Society 19(4): 39–55. Beck, Ulrich. (1999). World Risk Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ADAM, B., BECK, U., & LOON, J. V. (2000). The risk society and beyond: critical issues for social theory. London, SAGE. Top of Form MYTHEN, G. (2004). Ulrich Beck: a critical introduction to the risk society. London, Pluto Press. Bottom of Form Read More