How Do We Respond to Risks - Essay Example

WHAT IS THE ‘RISK SOCIETY’? HOW DO WE RESPOND TO RISKS? By of the of the of the School 30 April 2014 Introduction In the modern world, risk is a pervasive issue that extends over different practices, social activities and experiences. A risk society is an “industrial society which has come up against its own limitations, where those limitations take the form of manufactured risk” (Franklin 1998, p. 31). In this sense however, modernization can be reflexive or simple. Simple modernization is unilinear and old-type, while reflexive modernization on the other hand means accepting and learning to live with the contradictions and limits of the modern order. According to Mythen and Walklate, “in Britain, current debates about welfare, crime, national security, food safety, employment and sexuality are all underscored by risk” (2006, p. 1). Due to the fact that risk is a phenomenon that is dynamic, it represents itself in different ways in everyday life. Safety and distribution of risks are the two aspects that dominate a risk society. In response to risks, people come up with various ways to control them such as insurances and other risk control techniques. This however does not mean that people are able to control all risks; there are those that are impossible to control. For this reason a great sense of insecurity overflows. Steele points out that “the creation, distribution, and prevention of risks, rather than the creation and distribution of wealth, become the main preoccupations of risk society” (2004, p. 48). One of the predominant features of risk in present risk societies is that individuals link bad outcomes with the decisions they make in an ideology known as reflexive modernity. No matter how far away in distance and time something goes wrong, individuals link it to a human cause. From this, it is a fact that an awareness of how the complications of individual actions impact the world is characteristic of the risk society. This paper is a discussion on risk societies and how people respond to risks. Beck’s Claims concerning the Characteristics of Manufactured Hazards or Risks According to Beck, the risk society is a new stage of modernity brought about by reflexivity, globalization and detraditionalization (Pepper, Webster and Revill 2003). In the new stage of modernity, all dimensions of social and personal life are pervaded by risk and uncertainty. These include vulnerabilities in the labour market, family breakdowns, and increased divorce rates among others. For Beck, the various hazards and risks result from advances in science and knowledge of science and modern large-scale industrial technologies. He periodicalizes risks and hazards according to their historical times. In the pre-modern times, risks had an external source in nature and came in the form of famine, floods, and epidemics and so on. These risks whose source was external or in nature were replaced by manufactured risks when simple modernization took place. Simple modernization here is characterised by industrial technology, which brought about a range of industrialization products. Beck holds the view that a new order of manufactured risks which have implications on politics and culture have been brought about by reflexive modernization (Pepper, Webster and Revill 2003). According to Pepper, Webster and Revill (2003), “the semi-autonomous development of science and technology unleashed under simple modernization has through its own dynamic yielded new large-scale technologies in the nuclear, chemical and genetics industries which pose qualitatively new hazards and put modernity itself at risk” (p. 295). A summary of Beck’s claims can be placed under seven primary characteristics. These are: 1. New hazards have no limitation in terms of space and time, especially due to the fact that there is a possibility of global self-annihilation. 2. Everyone is at risk of new hazards since they are not socially limited in scope. 3. Risk is measured in terms of probability making minimization possible and total elimination impossible. In probability, improbable events do occur. 4. Risks are not reversible. 5. The sources of risks are many, so assigning responsibility through traditional methods does not work. According to Beck, this is called “organised non-liability” (Pepper, Webster and Revill 2003, p. 295). 6. Beck also believes that, “they are on such a scale, or may be literally incalculable in ways which exceed the capacities of state or private organizations to provide insurance against them or compensation” (Pepper, Webster and Revill 2003, p. 295). 7. Risks can only be recognised and measured scientifically. For this reason, “contested knowledge claims and growing public scepticism about science itself are important aspects of the ‘reflexivity’ of the risk society” (Pepper, Webster and Revill 2003, p. 295). Differences between the Substantive Characteristics of Early Modernity and the Risk Society Due to the fact that the term modern refers to different periods, modernity has to give the context as to which era is being referred to. Early modernity in different parts of the world took place during different times. In Western Europe, the early modern era was characterised by the rise of the region to a region of technological, economic and political dominance. The rise was however gradual. The early modern age in Europe can be divided into the Reformation period and the Enlightenment period. The Reformation period took place from 1500 ca to 1650 ca, while the Enlightenment period took place from 1650 ca to 1800 ca (Essential Humanities, 2013). Early modernity during the Ottoman Empire took place from the fifteenth century to the nineteenth century. In China, early modernity was the era from the eleventh century to the twentieth century. In Korea, it was the era from the fifteenth century to the late nineteenth century, while in Japan it was the era from the seventeenth century to the second half of the nineteenth century. In regard to its definition, early modernity in any region refers to an era before democratization and industrialization when substantial growth and change took place, as well as sophistication, state formation, diversification in terms of economic growth, cultural flourishing and social mobility (Dresner, 2010). It can therefore be argued that early modernity is evidenced by state formation, economic development, social change and cultural change. State formation in early modernity was characterised by centralization of authority where boundaries and laws were well defined, administration was professionalized and bureaucratized, and aristocracies were weakened (Dresner, 2010). Other characteristics were heightened concern for the opinion of the public, expansion of states and a lot of effort and interest in economic development (Dresner, 2010). In economic development, early modernity was characterised by globalization, more sophisticated finance and market networks, increased use of cash in the economy, diversification and proto-industrial production, growing and substantially large urban economies, and improvement in rapid agricultural productivity (Dresner, 2010). In terms of cultural and social change, early modernity was characterised by social and physical mobility where there was advancement through meritocracy and education, proto-nationalism, promotion of the culture of entertainment such as drama, art and literature and promotion of literacy (Dresner, 2010). The risk society on the other hand, refers to the modern era. A risk society is defined as “one that is organized around hazards that people themselves create” (King and McCarthy 2009, 268). It is characterised by transformation of risks that were calculable before to massive threats that are not calculable, emergence of new threats from which societal institutions cannot offer protection such as genetic, chemical and nuclear hazards, and a rise of institutions claiming to transform threats into risks that are more manageable, while others deny that threats exist and others purport to control the uncontrollable (Lindell, Tierney and Perry 2001). Relationship between Science, Scientists, and Risk Perception Science, scientists and risk perception are terms that correlate. Science has its way of handling uncertainty in a concept known as risk perception and management. According to Paul, “risk perception, which is commonly used in reference to natural hazards, refers to the subjective judgement that individuals make about the characteristics and severity of a risk” (2011, n.p.). Scientists on the other hand are trained individuals who are tasked with the responsibility of identifying and giving reports about risks. Scientists differ in terms of their respective field of expertise. The way in which people perceive risks is shaped by science, and in particular, how and what reports scientists give regarding various risks. This makes risk perception and scientific assessments vital components in managing risks. According to Paul, “how a scientific environmental problem is perceived by individuals or groups is essential to prepare an effective plan for risk communication” (2011, n.p.). It can therefore be concluded that scientific progress, which involves science and the work of scientists is responsible for identifying new risks and reporting about them to the public, who perceive them according to the report given; this is the relationship between science, scientists and risk perception. Reflexive Modernization Reflexive modernization is a term that was coined in the 1980s by Ulrich Beck, a sociologist of German origin (Gabardi 2001). His aim for coming up with the term was to “distinguish between the old model of ‘simple modernization,’ which was driven by an economic-scientific paradigm of linear progress, and a new model of modernization based on risk assessment and management in response to those social and environmental problems” (Gabardi 2001, p. 26).The environmental and social problems in the new model of modernization are produced by the constant industrialization in the modern world. In the term, the word reflexive ought to be taken to mean self-confrontation and not simply critical reflection. According to Gabardi, reflexive modernization therefore means “confronting the effects of simple modernization by calling into question the very foundations of Enlightenment modernity” (2001, p. 26). The new period of modernity in this case has been brought about by the rise of a post-traditional society instead of a postmodern society, radicalized social reflexivity and increased globalization. The new dynamic of time-space compression and global-local that is a result of new telecommunication technologies is what is referred to as increased globalization. In the modern society, people and institutions are also able to access vast amounts of information on different issues regarding life in a concept known as radicalized social reflexivity. Additionally, “the idea of a post-traditional society or ‘de-traditionalization’ refers to the eclipse of received traditions due to heightened reflexivity” (Gabardi 2001, p. 26). In the current era of reflexive modernization, the relationship between social agents and social structures is changing. This means that the current institutions do not constrain people as much as the prior institutions did. Rather than following already established behaviour patterns, people now have the capability of shaping the process of modernization. In the same situation, people’s notion of what is political is substantially different from the earlier or traditional notions of what is political. This is a scenario that can be clearly seen in mainstream political parties and activities of parliament. Irwin points out that “the environmental movement represents an excellent example of this new kind of ‘social agency’” (1995, p. 45). Joffe’s Critique of the Risk Society Thesis and how well her own Account (of ‘Risk and the other’) works in relation to Contemporary Risks Joffe, Helene has an account of how people respond to risks, which include hurricanes, wars, industrial accidents, nuclear threats and epidemic illnesses. In fact it can be said that risks in the risk society are risks that threaten to strike massive numbers of people suddenly. While Beck’s argument is that there is a difference between how people in the early modern societies responded to risks compared to those in the risk society, Joffe holds the view that the response of people today or in the risk society are influenced by a number of factors such as the presence of mass media, which increases people’s awareness of risks compared to those in early modern societies. According to Joffe, “by having ever increasing levels of expert knowledge about risks relayed to them by the mass media , lay people are constantly surrounded by images and words which bring danger to their awareness” (1999, p. 2). Consequently, people’s awareness of risks is increased. It is a fact that the media only manages to thrive by attracting numerous audiences and constantly makes effort to hold the attention of the people. It is for this reason that the media magnifies levels of alarm regarding a danger. Additionally, in the absence of other events to cover risks are used so that more news can be generated from them. It is also a fact that the media favours new events over old ones and this raises people’s awareness of new disasters and catastrophes. From this, it can be deduced that without the mass media, people would not get to know about various risks and disasters. Joffe adds that “the perception of being surrounded by myriad threats also relates to the nature of numerous contemporary dangers” (1999, p. 3). This makes people see every situation as a situation holding a risk, especially given that senses cannot be relied upon to detect risks. In the risk society, only experts have the capability to detect and identify risks. Although there is expert judgement regarding various issues, it is surrounded by doubt due to the fact that the same experts who come up with solutions sometimes generate risks that surpass their knowledge. Through this, the trust placed on experts is undermined and their authority has no assurance. Therefore, “the combination of a high level of awareness of risk, and a lack of trust in the experts who might be relied upon for protection, creates an era of uncertainty and unease” (1999, p. 3). Joffe’s account of the risk society therefore works well in relation to contemporary risks. Reference List Dresner, J., 2010. Early Modernity. [online] Available at: < http://www.slideshare.net/jdresner/early-modernity-and-asia> [Accessed 3 May 2014]. Essential Humanities, 2013. History of Early Modern Europe. [online] Available at: < http://www.essential-humanities.net/western-history/early-modern-europe/> [Accessed 3 May 2014]. Franklin, J., 1998. The Politics of Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gabardi, W., 2001. Negotiating Postmodernism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Irwin, A., 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. Oxon: Routledge. King, L. and McCarthy, D., 2009. Environmental Sociology: From Analysis to Action. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lindell, Michael K., Tierney, Kathleen J. and Perry, Ronald W., 2001. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press. Mythen, G. and Walklate, S., 2006. Beyond The Risk Society: Critical Reflections on Risk and Human Security. Berkshire: Open University Press. Paul, Bimal K., 2011. Environmental Hazards and Disasters: Contexts, Perspectives and Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Pepper, D., Webster, F. and Revill, G., 2003. Environmentalism: Critical Concepts, Volume 4. London: Routledge. Steele, J., 2004. Risks and Legal Theory. Oregon: Hart Publishing.     Read More