The Concept of Risk Society - Coursework Example

Risk society by The of the The of the School The and where it is located The Date Risk Society Introduction If one takes a close look at the social environment, one can not help noticing that it should be regarded as one of the irreplaceable prerequisites for the development of the inner potential of a human being. Indeed, it is only the presence of other people around that allowed numerous characteristic features of our kind to develop properly. However, just like a human being evolves, so that the society one lives in. That is why it would not be a mistake to suggest that the contemporary society is different from the social structure that could have been witnessed centuries ago. The scholars argue that nowadays people live in the so called risk society. The term may be misleading: it does not mean that it is risky for a person to live in the contemporary social environment. It mostly refers to the way the latter reacts to the unavoidable risks that exist or that it creates. This paper will examine this concept, engaging the views of Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens as well as other scholars who explored the topic. The framework of risk society To begin with, it may be logical to provide a brief description of risk society, highlighting the major points that are essential for its understanding. To begin with, it is crucial to recognize the fact that risk society is the term that can be applied to the contemporary society only. In other words, the concept of modernity becomes a crucial one when it comes to developing a proper understanding of it. The earliest use of the term itself goes back to the 1980s when the world witnessed the final stages of the Cold war and was open for new technological possibilities. Nevertheless, it is not until 1990s when it started to be used frequently. One of the catalysts of its popularity is the increased awareness of the environmental issues. The definitions of risk society As it has been noted before, the concept of risk society is closely connected to the works of a pair of scholars. One of them, namely Anthony Giddens, argued that the terms is question should be used to denote "a society increasingly preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk" (Giddens, 1999, p. 3). As one can clearly see, this definition features several key words that should be taken into account. The first one is preoccupied – it means that the social environment has adopted an active position with regard to different issues; future – the focus of attention of the society is placed not on what it has now, but on what it may have in the future; safety/risk – these are two sides of one coin, equally important to the modern people. However, Ulrich Beck, another notable scholar in the field, was able to come up with a definition that is slightly different from the one which was mentioned above. Thus, according to his, risk society is the society that features “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernisation itself” (Beck, 1992, p. 21). It would not be a mistake that this definition also has significant key words, but the accents in it are placed on different notions. For example, the presence of a systemic way points out that risk society is a complex system that should be addressed accordingly and, preferably, from several points of view in order to gain a full understanding of it. Hazards and insecurities construct a better framework that safety and risk since the latter terms are rather broad and abstract while the former ones are clear: a hazard is something that is harmful to a person while insecurity is the absence of proper organization that makes lives stable. Finally, the definition stressed the major driving force that is responsible for its development which is modernisation. With this in mind one should pay a specific attention to the concept of modernisation. While the latter might be seen as a natural phenomenon which exists in the society which has reached a particular point in its development Beck argues that it is a force that transforms the very fabric of the society (Anghel, 2012, p. 11). In other words, it is not people who define the new things; it is the new things that define life of the modern people. For example, the invention of a microchip made it possible to create computers and the latter changes the world greatly, granting people abilities that they could only dream of before. The meaning of modernity and reflexivity It must be noted that the scholars in question is the term modernity in a rather narrow sense. Thus, when those who are interested in art may see modernity is a part of aesthetic development of the mankind that possesses a defined set of peculiarities, Beck and Giddens argue that modernity should be perceived in several dimensions. On the one hand, it is a way to denote the contemporary industrial society with its unique treatment of the natural resources; on the other hand, it should be regarded as a dynamic process that makes people direct their attention to the future rather than to the past (Levin, 2010, p. 1). With all this in mind, it is clear that the modern world is dramatically different from the past. Another important concept that should be recognized is reflexivity. It is so important that the authors insist on the fact that the contemporary modernisation that can be witnessed is in fact reflexive modernisation (Pathak, 2006, p. 12). This means that the society explores not only the limits of its possibilities, but the nature of itself, adjusting the development of it according to the affects that certain changes have on it. In other words, for the first time in history, the social environment does not rush forward, being dragged by some external forces, by it is develops in its own pace, making sure that every change that it makes is being studied carefully and taken into consideration. The risks that exist for the society It has been noted in the very beginning that the modern society is defined by its interaction with the negative phenomena. That is why the concept of risks is something that should be carefully examines. Thus, it was Beck who points out that the environmental risks that the societies of the world are facing today are not coincidental; the majority of them is, in fact, produced by them (Coenen, 1998, p. 3). This marks the transition from the passive role of an observer of the world which the mankind has played for a considerable period of time to an active role of a subject that accepts the responsibility. In spite of the fact that the fundamental work by Beck was written prior to the Chernobyl disaster, he noted quite explicitly that the series of natural disasters that the global community has to deal with is caused by the systemic failure. It is quite obvious that there is also a chance of a natural disaster. For example, the floods, the earthquakes and the tsunamis happened long before the society became industrialized. Beck calls this kind of risks an external one. However, there is another kind of risk that is conditioned by the human activity: the contamination of water and air, the global warming, and the nuclear disasters (Yearley, 2005, p. 139). All this would never have happened if it had not been for the people pursuing their goals. They all belong to the kind of manufactured risks. Indeed, those who lived several thousand years ago were not concerned about the holes in the ozone layers since there were no factories that produced greenhouse gases. People thought that it is normal to drink from a river since they were not contaminated with industrial wastes. This must be recognized as an inevitable part of industrialization. Furthermore, Beck insists on the fact that modernisation should not be seen as a process that started some time ago and carries on without any changed up to the present day. He notes that is has been changed several times along the way. A good example is the impact that the Chernobyl disaster had on the world. Prior to it the super powers were obsessed with the nuclear energy: it helped to win the World War II, it served as the only platform where the USA and the USSR could compete in order to prove their true supremacy. However, then the nuclear reactor collapsed, people saw that this power is still not tamed properly. They expressed the lack of faith that the future will be closely connected to the power that splitting of an atom gives. Thus, a single accident changed the entire course of modernisation. However, one might recognize that it is the ability of this process that takes into consideration the past mistake that makes it truly novel. Risks and the social structure Finally, it may be particularly important to examine the connection between the risks that the society is exposed to and the structure that it relies on. Some scholars were able to find a peculiar connection between risks and wealth. Indeed, these two are though to define the contemporary society and they possess a significantly important feature: their distribution is uneven. Thus, in spite of the fact that income inequality can be easily accepted and understood, it is important to keep in mind that the risks are also not distributed in an equal manner. In other words, some parts of the population are more vulnerable to them, which urges a scholar to redefine one’s understanding of the society. There were two major approaches. Beck argues that the old idea of social class or strata should be eliminated as it does not reflect the true reality. He argued that nowadays the social risk positions define the place of a person in the society. While in the majority of cases they might coincide with the distribution of wealth, it is crucial to acknowledge that the modern society is structured in a new way. For example, long before the amount of accumulated capital defined the position that a person possessed in the society; so, it took a person luck or hard work to gain more wealth and adjust one’s position to the desired one. Contrary to that occupation of a social risk position is inseparably connected to one’s personal qualities. On the other hand, Giddens argues that while the modern society might operate with new matters, the fundamentals of it, namely the division into classes or stratas is not touched by its interaction with the risks. In other words, the class still largely defines the change of empowerment and self-actualization – the two important aspects that should be taken into account while considering the position of a person in the society. In addition to that, Giddens thought that the concept of risk society does not have to be a concept that is perceived negatively; quite the opposite: it offers new opportunities to the people and enhances the dynamic of life. With this in mind, it is essential to understand that risk society is not the final stage of development of the society environment. Conclusion Having examined all the points which were brought up in the paragraphs above, one might come to the following logical conclusion: the idea of risk society is extremely important is it is able to explain properly the peculiarities of the contemporary world. Indeed, it takes into the account the process of modernisation and the impact that it has on nature. In addition to that, it points out the peculiar ability of the modern society to reflect on its own nature and introduce the necessary changes, something that happened after the Chernobyl disaster. It also dwells on the distinction between the external and the manufactured risks each of which show the negative side of the contemporary society. Finally, it defines the significance of the previously accepted approaches to its structure, namely the meaning of a class in the contemporary society. References Anghel, G 2012 Doomed to internationalization and modernization of corporate culture the Russian experience of German firms, Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden. Beck, U 1992, Risk society towards a new modernity, Sage Publications, London. Coenen, F 1998, Participation and the quality of environmental decision making, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. Giddens, A 1999, The third way: The renewal of social democracy, Polity Press, Malden, MA. Levin, M 2010, Urban modernity cultural innovation in the Second Industrial Revolution, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Pathak, A 2006, Modernity, globalization and identity: Towards a reflexive quest, Aakar Books, Delhi. Yearley, S 2005, Making sense of science understanding the social study of science, SAGE, London. Read More