Environmental

UNIT 7 RISK Sociology: Nature

and Scope
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The Notion of Risk
7.2.1 The Origin of the Notion of Risk
7.2.2 The Evolution of Risk in History
7.3 The ‗Risk Society‘
7.3.1 What is ‗Risk‘?
7.3.2 What is ‗Risk Society‘?

7.3.3 What is ‗World Risk Society‘?

7.3.4 Enlightenment Function of Risk

7.4 Similarities and Differences Among Scholars on the Notion of Risk
7.5.1 Parallels Between Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens

7.5.2 Different Traditions of Risk

7.5 Let Us Sum Up
7.6 References
7.7 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

7.0 OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you should be able to:

 Explain the origin and evolution of risk in history

 Discuss the contribution various scholars to the sociology of risk
 Note the similarities and differences among scholars on the notion of
‗risk‘

7.1 INTRODUCTION
The notion of risk is something we are all aware of in our everyday lives. It
could mean different thing for different people. It is also associated with
‗chance‘, or ‗probability‘, or ‗danger‘. People take ‗chance‘ in the hope of
achieving something bigger and better. It could also mean ‗probability‘, in
the sense of uncertainty, over a certain outcome. Risk could also mean
unforeseen ‗danger‘ – possible loss of life and property – due to unfavourable
circumstances.

If uncertainty is the outer dimension of risk, vulnerability is the inner

dimension of risk. As a social phenomenon, sociologists are interested in how
the notion of risk is embedded in our culture and history and how it continues
83
Envisioning to shape our civilization. In trying to understandrisk associated with techno-
Environmental
Sociology scientific world, sociologists look at risk within the framework of modernity.
In this regard, the contribution of Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens are of
seminal importance.

In this unit, we first tried to understand the notion of risk in human history.
Its origin and how it has evolved over the years. So, in the first section, we
will discuss aboutthe emergence of risk and how risk has become of
sociological interest. In the second section, we look at the contribution of
Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens to the overall understanding of risk within
the framework of modernity and how the notion of risk has made a sharp
departure from the usual everyday understanding of risk. In the final section,
we have highlighted some of the similarities and differences among scholars
on the notion of risk and how they are sociologically significant.

7.2 THE NOTION OF RISK

The emergence of risk has been much of an interest to scholars of sociology
of risk. Sociologists are interested in finding out how risk has become a part
of our history and culture. Scholars like Peter Taylor-Gooby and Jens O. Zinn
in their work Risk in Social Science (2006) traced the origin of risk in history
and how it enteredthe vocabulary of everyday language. By tracingits origin
and evolution in history, the authors gave us a picture of how risk is integral
to our history and culture – right from the beginning of mercantile capitalism
to contemporary global capitalism. It also tells us the pervasive influence of
risk and risk analysis as a tool in different fields of study ranging from the
study of epidemiology to the study of crime. This work also put into sharp
contrast the risk of everyday living and risk born out of modern institutions;
of science, business and politics.

7.2.1 The Origin of the Notion of Risk

The origin of the notion of risk has been under much debate. One scholar
observes that it is derive from the Arabic ―risq‖ (i.e. ―something from which
you draw profit‖) (Wharton, in Taylor-Gooby and Zinn 2006: 3). Another
scholar pointsout the Latin ―riscum‖ (an expression that describes the
―challenge of barrier reef to sailors‖). In the mid-sixteenth century,the
Germans have used the same term (Luhmann, in Taylor-Gooby and Zinn
2006:3). However, scholars like Anthony Giddens suggested that it might
have come from the Spanish ―risco‖ (which means ―a rock‖) (Taylor-Gooby
and Zinn 2006: 3). Risk, therefore, seems to have emerged in the context of
exploring sea voyage and medieval mercantilism. In fact, it refers to the
uncertainty of the outcome of a sea-faring voyage (Taylor-Gooby and Zinn
2006: 3). It is suchuncertainty that led to the emergence of the concept of
insurance, which gradually entered the world of money lending and finance
(Taylor-Gooby and Zinn 2006: 4). Insurance, in the earlier form, was based
on experience and personal judgment (Taylor-Gooby and Zinn 2006: 4).
84
 Environmental
Sociology: Nature
and Scope
7.2.2 The Evolution of Risk in History
By the eighteenth century, the mathematics of probability was developed and
applied to risk issues (Taylor-Gooby and Zinn 2006: 4). With the application
of probability and economics in risk, it began to affect investment decision
and market behaviour. It was in the eighteenth century that insurance in trade
and finance was also extended to life insurance.Initially, insurance started off
in the form of shared insurance and friendly societies among the upper
working class (Taylor-Gooby and Zinn 2006: 4). This risk-sharing scheme in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth century ultimately developed into
social insurances. Under political pressure, social insurance became the basis
of European welfare state (Taylor-Gooby and Zinn 2006: 5). With the
emergence of census and mortality statistics and establishment of the Institute
of Actuaries in 1848, probability assessment laid the foundation for modern
banking, investment and insurance. Subsequently, in the 20th century with the
coming of globalisation, it has led to the growth of international financial
market (O‘Malley; Baker and Simon, in Taylor-Gooby and Zinn2006: 4).
Probability assessment is now widely used in the study of epidemiology,
environment and crime.

Check Your Progress 1

i) Complete the following sentences

a) Risk seems to have emerged in the context of.……………………

b) Insurance, in the earlier form, was based on....................................

c) Social insurance became the basis of European Welfare state

under………………….

ii) How did probability assessment become established in the world of

modern banking, investment and insurance? Answer in one or two
sentences.

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

7.3 THE ‘RISK SOCIETY’

Unlike all otherknown form of risks, the notion of ‗risk‘ in late modernity as
analysed by Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddensas being different from all
previous risks. ‗Risk‘, in late modernity,is born out of modern institutions – 85
Envisioning like politics, business and science – which are supposed toprevent, control
Environmental
Sociology and manage risk (Beck 2006: 336). These modern institutions, according to
Beck, are the source of new risk. This shift in perception happens because
any possible loss or danger can now be traced back to human decision. Man
is now seen as somehow responsible for even natural event or disaster.
Earlier, the occurrences of natural event like earthquake, flood, famine, etc.,
are attributed to supernatural forces. But today, with increasing
secularisation, God is banished from the picture and is replace with human
rationality. Any impending catastrophe or risk is now explained, justified and
legitimised on the basis of human rationality and decision-making (Beck
2006: 333). Since man has replace God as thecause of a catastrophe, there is
an increasing fear and anxiety about the future.

In the pre-modern, any catastrophe or natural event was attributed to an ‗act

of God‘ and the explanation and justification of an event flow from
this.Therefore, risk would mean the possibility of a potential loss or damage
due to ‗natural event‘ consider to be an ‗act of God‘ (Lupton 1999: 5). This
concept of risk absolves man of any responsibility or fault.So, in that sense,
this pre-modern notion of risk is different from the modern notion of risk.
With the coming of modernity, any disaster is explained and traced back to
human decision-making. As a result, insurance and compensation were given
on the basis of calculable risk and disaster. However, in late modernity, ‗risk‘
is no longer calculable and hence not compensable. There is a breakdown in
the logic of compensation. This, according to Beck, is the condition of
‗reflexive modernisation‘.

Ulrich Beck -1944-2015

Beck wasa well-known German

Sociologist who was particularly sized
with trying to understand modern society
which he summarized was characterised
by uncertainly, ignorance and fear which
he termed Risk Society. He is also
introduced the concept of reflexive
modernisation to understand the self-
criticality in the new phase of modernity.
He studied modernisation, globalization,
individualisation and also new work
forms in the wake of flexible production
and labour in global capital.

(Pic source: Wikipedia)

7.3.1 What then is ‘Risk’?

‗Risk‘ is the condition of radicalised modernisation. In other words, it means
radicalization of rationalisation, which is reflexive in nature. Reflexive
86
modernisation can be seen in the critique of science, which has its origin in Environmental
Sociology: Nature
the Green Movement of the 70s in the west. This reflexivity gained and Scope
momentum among the lay public in opposition to the scientism of science,
which tends to make false claims and expectations in society (Lash and
Wynne, in Beck 1992: 2).

This reflexive modernisation is neither post-modern nor modernist; but falls

mid-way between the two. As the term indicates the condition of modernity
itself becomes a subject of reflection and reexamination. The very aspects of
modernity technological advances, rational institutions etc. have also been
found to be the cause of self-destruction leading to environmental
catastrophes and risks, makes one question the project of modernity.

Box 1.Reflexive Modernisation

The German Tradition, starting from Max Weber to Jurgen Habermas, to

various scholars of the Frankfurt School had questioned the Modernity
project of enlightenment and emancipation. Beck's theory represents a
continuation of the German tradition of an ethical questioning of modernity,
including science and technology.―In contrast to postmodern theories that
present late twentieth-century social transformations as going beyond
modernism, Beck argues that modernity is going through an unintended and
unseen phase that is forcing it to confront the premises and limits of its own
model. Modernisation has become, in his words, "reflexive." The concept of
reflexive modernization, which was introduced by Beck and developed in a
subsequent work with Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (Beck, Giddens, and
Lash 1994), propounds a "radicalization" of modernity in which the dynamics
of individualization, globalization, gender revolution, underemployment, and
global risks undermine the foundations of classical industrial modernity and
make old concepts obsolete‖

(https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/risk-
society)

In defining risk, Beck said, ―Risk does not mean catastrophe. Risk means the
anticipation of catastrophe‖ (Beck 2006: 332). Risk remains ‗virtual‘ and
becomes part of a discourse as long as it is anticipated. The moment risk
becomes ‗real‘; it becomes a catastrophe and ceases to be risk (e.g. terrorist
attack). In that sense, risk is not real but more of ‗becoming real‘ (Van Loon,
in Beck 2006: 332). In other words, ‗risk‘ is an event that is consider to be
threatening (Beck 2006: 332).

The new risk, as can be seen in the work of Beck and Giddens, is radically
different from the risk generally known to us. In this regard, we can say that
Mary Douglas and Michel Foucault notion of risk comes from a more
empirical and instrumental understanding of risk. However, for Beck and
Giddens, the new risk cannot be capture by the usual nation-state framework.
For them, it emanates beyond modern science or human experience, as it
87
Envisioning stands outside scientific rationality and human experience. It actually has its
Environmental
Sociology origin in advanced industrialisation and reflexive modernisation, where
modernity has extended itself. In fact, the new risk is a consequence of
‗hyper-rationality‘. As risk emanates outside the nation-state framework, and
beyond scientific rationality and human experience, it creates a sense of
pervasiveness. In order to control and manage such risk, one needs to prepare
for the ‗unknown unknowns‘ (Beck 2006: 335). For what can be known is
‗unknown‘ and hence not knowable, therefore, there is an element of
incalculability. As a consequence, one has to consider all kinds of fear,
fiction, and imagination in tackling ‗risk‘. The option of ignoring risk is not
viable as the damage or loss due to ignorance could be incalculable as it
could lead to a catastrophe.In fact, ‗risk‘is a sign of growing connectivity and
interdependency in an age of globalisation.

7.3.2 What is ‘Risk Society’?

If ‗risk‘ is the anticipation of a catastrophe (in the Beckenian sense), risk
society is the structural conditions of an advanced industrialisation. It is
marked by increased secularisation and potential danger of a disaster. For
instance, the risk of nuclear radiation due to meltdown in nuclear reactor can
no longer be limited in time as future generation can be affected. Its effect
can no longer be limited within national border, as radiation can spread far
and wide across border through wind, rain, and water. The Chernobyl nuclear
accident in 1986 in the erstwhile Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republicof the
Soviet Union has affected western USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist
Republic) and Europe. More recently, the nuclear radiation leaked in 2011
from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima (Japan),in
the aftermath of the tsunami following the Tohoku earthquake, hasreached
the west coast of the United States. Moreover, if anyone or any living being
is affected, no one can be held accountable, as it is a problem unforeseen.
Also, it is impossible to compensate the victims or lives lost due to the
problem of incalculability. No nation or company can pay enough, and the
whole idea of insurancesimply breaks down, due to the exorbitant cost
involved (Lash and Wynne, in Beck 1992: 2).

Beck in his 1986 publication described ‗risk society‘ as a structural condition

of an advanced industrialisation (Beck 2006: 333). Such society is defined by
risk, rather than class, as the principle of inequality in modern society. Risk
being a social construct, some people has a better way of defining risk and
benefitting from it. The way of defining ‗risk‘between people and countries
reveals the kind of power relations that exist in society and between
countries. In other words, defining risk is a power game. Beck argues that
even the most restrained and moderate discourse on risk has its own hidden
implications,with its own politics, ethics and morality (Beck 2006: 333).

88
7.3.3 What is ‘World Risk Society’? Environmental
Sociology: Nature
and Scope
If ‗risk society‘ is a condition of advanced industrialisation marked by
increased secularisation and anticipation of risk, ‗world risk society‘ is
shaped by new kinds of risks where there is increased worldwide anticipation
of a global catastrophe (Beck 2006: 333). Global risk perception, according
to Beck, are characterised by de-localisation (i.e. cases and consequences of
risk are not limited to geographical location or space), incalculableness (i.e.
the consequences of risks are incalculable due to not knowing in risk
calculations) and non-compensability (i.e. the logic of compensation breaks
down and is replaced by the principle of precaution through prevention)
(Beck 2006: 333-4). This has led to not only prevention taking precedence
over compensation; but also attempt to anticipate and prevent risk whose
existence has not been proven (Ewald, in Beck 2006: 334). Some of the
possible examples of world risk society are if the climate changed
irreversibly, if terrorists have nuclear weapons in their hands, or if progresses
in human genetics have made irreversible intervention in human existence.

Box 2. Skepticism on Science and Experts

Science, as an intellectual activity and as a modern institution, has failed in

dealing with the problem of new risk. This is because ‗rationality‘ that
emerged from the Enlightenment in Europe is the basis of science, and in
order to critique science we still need scientific rationality. This is an irony
and a paradox. ‗Risk‘ itself is the product of modern institutions and
organisations, which are supposed to manage and control risk. The problem
of risk further got accentuated due to the ‗faith‘ in scientific institutions and
communities, who are invisible, inaccessible and whose languages are
esoteric to most lay public (Beck 1992: 4). On top of that experts in scientific
institution tend to have the final say, and they decide the agenda and premises
a priori in any risk discourse. In most cases, people feel alienated from the
expert system; while, at the same time, unable to escape the power of
definition of the expert system (Beck 2006: 336).The other problem is that
scientific research and institutions are often supported and funded by
industrial and commercial enterprise, which could have undue influence in
any risk conflict. These raised the issue of ‗trust‘ and ‗credibility‘ of
scientific institutions and experts. However, scholars like Anthony Giddens
argued that institutions and experts can ‗repair‘ their credibility through
adaptation of procedure or better presentation of their knowledge. This has
led to the emergence of the sub-field of risk communication (Beck 1992: 4)

7.4 ENLIGHTENMENT FUNCTION OF RISK

Apart from its negative aspect, ‗risk‘ could also serve an enlightenment
functionin world risk society (Beck 2006: 330). In order to understand the
enlightenment function of world risk society, we need to understand what
Beck meant by the ―cosmopolitan moment‖(Beck 2006: 331). The
89
Envisioning cosmopolitan momentbegins as a response to the experience of risk. It is
Environmental
Sociology made possible by the self-destructiveness of modernity, which is not only
physical but also ethical as well (Beck 2006: 330). This, according to Beck,
led man to outgrow both the nation-state and the international order. It also
means the abrupt and full confrontation of the excluded other, where national
boundaries are no longer relevant and the ‗distant other‘ become the
‗inclusive other‘, through risk and not through mobility (Beck 2006: 331). As
a result, everyday life becomes cosmopolitan and the meaning of life is found
in the exchange with others and not in the encounter with those who are alike
(Beck 2006: 331). This cosmopolitan momentthat opens up creates the
possibility of a new beginning.

With the advancement in industrialisation, universalisation of modern

technological institutions and the coming of neo-liberal policies, ‗risk‘ has
transcended border, time and space. ‗Risk‘ is no longer a problem of the
Global North alone.It is a problem of the Global South too due to increasing
integration and interdependency on a global scale. The problem of new risk
cannot be solved by the usual national politics and international co-operation.
For example, the outbreak of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy),
commonly known as mad cow disease, in UK in 1986 and the subsequent
banned on the import of beef and its product in EU and other countries. What
started as a public health event affects the business and economy of many
countries. Another example isthat of the outbreak of avian influenzain 1997,
where the first known transmission of H5N1 to human took place in Hong
Kong. There is a fear that, with increased connectivity in a globalised world,
local outbreak could easily become pandemic risk using the same network of
connectivity and efficiency.

Another global risk that needs to be considered is that of globalised capital,

which has a tendency to destabilised market and in the process activate
opposing global civil society. While global risks exposed the order of power
of the neo-liberal (capital-state coalition) regime, global civil society tries to
connect civil society with the state to create a ―cosmopolitan form of
statehood‖ (Beck 2006: 343). This cosmopolitan form of statehood is marked
by ethnic and cultural diversity. Beck believes this as a ―post-national order‖
(Beck 2006: 343). Although the goal of capital is to instrumentalised the state
so as to optimised and legitimised its interest worldwide, but in the process, it
also weakens capital by creating its opposing protagonist – the global civil
society, who questions the legitimacy and order of the global capital. One of
the agenda of the global capital is to create its own space, autonomous and
free from outside interference. This has its legitimacy. However, the agenda
of the civil society is concern with human rights, global justice and
democratisation (Beck 2006: 343).

With the coming of global crisis and risk, according to Beck, nation-based
realpolitik is replace by ―Cosmopolitan realpolitik‖ (Beck 2006: 343). Beck
suggests that individual freedom and national autonomy could best be
90
preserved through transnational alliances and networking. However, the dark Environmental
Sociology: Nature
side of this ―Cosmopolitan vision‖ is invasion and war waged in the name of and Scope
justice and human rights. Beck believed this to be the unwanted ‗side-effects‘
of the cosmopolitan vision because the rhetoric of cosmopolitanism – peace,
human rights and justice – becomes the basis for national hegemony and
imperial ambition (Beck 2006: 344). He gave the example of the Second Iraq
War, where the idea of cosmopolitanism can be abused and instrumentalised
by the state and global capital for its own ends.

Further, world risk society also opens new lines of conflict. If the first
modernity was marked by socio-economic conflicts between labour and
capital, the second modernity (i.e. world risk society) is marked by cultural
ones between different ‗risk culture‘ or ‗risk religion‘ (Beck 2006: 337). For
instance, the dominant risk belief and risk tendencies of Europe and US are
different because they have a different ‗risk culture‘ and ‗risk religion‘. For
Europeans, the risk of climate change is more than the risk of terrorism. But
for American, terrorism is a bigger threat than climate change. Just as there is
‗class conflict‘ in first modernity, there is ‗clash of risk cultures‘ in second
modernity (Beck 2006: 337). And this clash is not a matter of life and death
for individuals or nations but for everyone. For the physical and moral
survival of mankind depends on the decision made based on ‗not-knowing‘.

It is a well-known fact that the experimental logic of trial and error failed in
the face of new form of risks (Beck 2006: 337). Due to cultural difference in
risk perception in the west, two contradictory risk philosophies have
emerged. The philosophy of laissez-faire, that it is safe, as long as it has not
been proven to be dangerous. And the philosophy of precaution, that nothing
is safe, as long as it has not been proven harmless (Beck 2006: 337). These
two philosophies continue to guide risk prevention and management today.

Box3. Irony of risk

Urich Beck captures the anxiety and dilemma of the age, when he said, ―The
narrative of risk is a narrative of irony‖ (Beck 2006: 329). This is because, as
he puts it, ―We do not know what it is we don‘t know – but from this dangers
arise, which threaten mankind!‖ (Beck 2006: 329). This danger is best
exemplified by the discovery in 1974 that CFCs (Chloroflurocarbons) used in
the last 45 years destroysthe Ozone layer. The Ozone layer in the stratosphere
prevents ultraviolet radiation from reaching the earth. The consequence of
Ozone hole could be in the form of increased incidence of skin cancer and
climate change, which threatened human survival. The CFCs coolant used in
refrigeratorsand other appliances deplete the Ozone layer. For this reason,
CFCsepitomised the kind of unforeseen danger that modern technological
society has to deal with. Therefore, ‗not knowing‘ or ‗ignorance‘ is not an
option because it increase the danger of a catastrophe, which is often
irreversible (Beck 2006: 330). This is the irony that mankind has to deal with
in world risk society.
91
Envisioning The irony also lies in the fact that danger does not arise from human
Environmental
Sociology experience or rationality but from what we do not know and cannot calculate
(Beck 2006: 330). Sometime the bitter irony is that, in order to prevent the
impending disaster, the state ended up limiting civil right and liberties,
thereby putting in danger the survival of an open and liberal society without
really circumventing it (Beck 2006: 330). The threat of terrorism is one good
example. The irony does not end here because sometime risk induce doubts
in the benevolence of the state and the criticism of the inefficient state
authorities could lead to the establishment of an authoritarian regime (Beck
2006: 330).

Check Your Progress 2

Answer the following questions in two sentences each.

i) Why is there an increasing fear and anxiety about the future in

contemporary modern society?

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

ii) What is ‗risk‘ in the Beckenian sense?

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

iii) How did risk society emerge?

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………
92
iv) How is the ‗cosmopolitan moment‘ different from cosmopolitanism? Environmental
Sociology: Nature
and Scope
….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

….…………………………………………………………………………

7.4 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

AMONG SCHOLARS ON THE NOTION OF
RISK
The notion of risk has been of much debate among the sociologists. A
comparative study of different perspective on risk reveals two distinctive
approaches – one within the ‗nation-state‘ framework and the other beyond
(i.e. within ‗modernity‘ framework). The distinctive approaches on risk
undertaken by the sociologists are also shape by their intellectual background
that defines the trajectory of their risk discourses. In the previous section of
the block, we have seen how Beck and Giddens work within the same
framework of modernity, but their risk discourses diverged due to different
object of sociological enquiry and intellectual background.

In the next section, we examined the different perspectives on risk and how
they relate to each other.

7.4.1 Parallels between Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens

Looking at the work of scholars like Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens on
risk and modernity, Scott Lash and Brian Wynne points out the parallels of
their ideas.They observed that the divergent backgroundsof Beck and
Giddens shape the trajectory of their discourse on risk and modernity. Beck‘s
Risk Society (1992), originally published as Risikogelsellschaft in 1986, made
him popular in the Anglophone world. Subsequently, he also later published
World Risk Society in 1999. Giddensparallel work on risk and risk society
were published asConsequences of Modernity (1990) and Modernity and Self
Identity (1991). For Beck, the study of risk and identity led to the theory of
‗reflexive modernization‘ – an extension of modernity rather than a break
with modernity (as advocated by the postmodernist). However, for Giddens,
the notion of ‗reflexive modernity‘ is a social construct born out of the
reflexive shaping of one‘s own biographical narrative (Lash and Wynne, in
Beck 1992: 7). Much of Beck‘s idea on reflexive modernisation is born out of
his long period of study on institutions (Lash and Wynne, in Beck 1992:
8),whereas Giddens‘ idea on reflexive modernity developed from his study
on agency in social theory and his rejection of structural functionalism(Lash
and Wynne, in Beck 1992: 8).
93
Envisioning 7.4.2 Different traditions of risk: Mary Douglas, Michel
Environmental
Sociology Foucault and Ulrich Beck
Beck‘s notion of ‗risk‘ is different from the earlier two traditions on risk by
Mary Douglas and Michel Foucault. Douglas and Foucault‘s idea of risk
reproduce the social order of power. They see risk as an ally, rather than
unreliable ally or potential antagonist, as opposed to Beck (Beck 2006: 344).
This difference emerged out of their difference in theoretical approach.
Douglas and Foucault‘s approach to risk has to be understood within the
nation-state framework (also known as ―methodological nationalism‖) (Beck
2006: 344), while Beck approach to ‗risk‘ is within the framework of
modernity that isglobal in nature. Douglas and Foucault approach to risk help
to redefine the state and scientific power (Beck 2006: 344). However, it
cannot deal with the change and conflicts, ambivalences and ironies inherent
in ‗world risk society‘ (Beck 2006: 344). For Beck, risk is a potential force
hostile to both nation-state power and global capital. In other words, the
nation-state framework approach cannot adequately conceptualise risk as it is
caught in the society and institutions of the first modernity (i.e. simple
modernity) (Beck 2006: 345). However, global risk that emerges in the wake
of second modernity (i.e. reflexive modernity) calls for a different
understanding of risk.This risk is outside the nation-state framework and
cosmopolitan in its logic and irony.

Check Your Progress 3

i) Complete the following sentences by filling in the blank spaces

a) Reflexive modernization is an ……………… rather than a break with

modernity.

b) Beck‘s idea on reflexive modernization is born out of his long period

of study on………………

c) Giddens‘ idea on reflexive modernity developed from his study on

………………. in social theory and his rejection of structural
functionalism

d) Mary Douglas and Michel Foucault‘s idea of risk ……………… the

social order of power

e) Mary Douglas and Michel Foucault‘s idea of risk has to be

understood within the ………………………..

Activity 1

Collect information of on recent catastrophe. Write a note of about two pages

covering (a) how it happens, (b) when and where, and (c) its impact on
environment and human population.

94
 Environmental
7.5 LET US SUM UP Sociology: Nature
and Scope
In this unit, we tried to understand the emergence of the notion of risk by
tracing briefly its origin and evolution over a period of time in human history
and culture.

Next we look into the contributions of Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens to
the understanding of new risk, which has its origin in modern institutions of
science, business and politics. We saw how this ‗risk‘ is different from all
previous known form of risks due to its potential for catastrophe. Their work
shows how risk is a product of reflexive modernisation and how it is
pervasive and global in nature.Finally, we examined the similarities and
differences between Beck and Giddens. And comparison is also made
between the different scholarly traditions of risks.

7.6 REFERENCES
Beck, Ulrich 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Trans by Mark
Ritter. Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi.

Beck, Ulrich 2006. ‗Living in the World Risk Society‘. In Economy and
Society, 35:3, 329-345.

Taylor-Gooby, Peter and Zinn, Jens O. 2006. Risk in Social Science. Oxford
University Press: New York

Lupton, Deborah 1999. Risk. Routledge: London and New York

7.7 SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1

i) a) exploring sea voyage and medieval mercantilism

b) experience and personal judgment
c) political pressure

ii) With the coming of census, mortality statistics and the establishment of
the Institute of Actuaries in 1848, probability assessment become
established in the world of modern banking, investment and insurance.

Check Your Progress 2

i) The moment Man replaces God as the cause of any catastrophe;it creates
anxiety about the future. This happens because of increasing
secularisation in modern society.

ii) ‗Risk‘, in the Beckenian sense, means the anticipation of catastrophe.

The moment risk becomes ‗real‘; it ceases to be risk.
95
Envisioning iii) Risk society emerges with increased secularisation and anticipation of
Environmental
Sociology risk due to advanced industrialisation. This is the consequence of
radicalised modernisation.

iv) The ‗cosmopolitan moment‘ is a response to the experience of risk,

where man outgrows both the nation-state and the international order. In
this, the meaning of life is found in the exchange with the ‗distant other‘,
who becomes the ‗inclusive other‘, rather than one who are alike.

Check Your Progress 3

i) a) extension of modernity
b) institutions
c) agency
d) reproduce
e) nation-state framework

96