Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society
Ulrick Beck introduced the ‘risk society’ thesis, studying the effects of risk on contemporary life. ‘Risk’ here is defined as the systematic process of coping with the hazards and insecurities that are found in the ‘second modernity’. This modern society suffers under a new kind of risk. Pre-modern society was a society of uncertainty, the result of natural disasters, caused by non-human actions (external risks). However, the modern world is exposed to human-engineered risks (manufactured risks). Examples may include pollution, mobile phones, the Cherylnobyl disaster and terrorist attacks, and it is these kinds of risk that the risk society is preoccupied with. Yet, though these risks are produced within society, they are often beyond the means of societal control or management. In response, there is great uncertainty, as the populace lose trust in public institutions and authorities, and tend towards individualism as a response to collective failings.
Beck argues that natural risk is quantifiable and manageable. These un-natural risks are not limited to one space – they are global, not local, and so require a global response. The effects of these risks are contested between scientists and the general public, and are often beyond immediate perception, such as GM foods. In industrial society, the idea of want was often class-dependent. The poor went hungry; the rich had plenty. Now, however, risk has the chance to affect all equally, and is inter-related with globalisation. Risk may be distributed unevenly through society, but it also brings a new dimension into play. The rich may end up creating risk, which they then suffer from. While they have greater resources to avoid or mitigate this risk, risk is fundamentally dependent on knowledge, not wealth. With knowledge of the risk and access to information about its hazards, wealth can then be used to counter it – but without this knowledge, precautionary measures will not be taken. Thus risk changes the lines society is ordered upon.
Risk is correlated to globalisation, a flexible economy, increasing individualisation and advancements in technology. It may be said that a risk society is therefore a global risk society. Disasters such as nuclear fallout or global warming are necessarily non-localised and universal, not confined to nation-state borders, but acting upon the whole of the world. The global community may rise to counter-act these risks in a form of ‘reflexive modernisation’, such as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. This reflexive modernisation aims to prevent such hazards from increasing or spreading, focusing on preventative measures to decrease risk levels. However, the old way of thinking often prevails, where nations try to act individually to counter global threats. Often, nations act in a protectionist way, looking after their own interests, at the expense of the safety of all. An example may be the US refusing to ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
Society defines itself not by class, but by exposure to risk and the ideas of safety. The first modernity was concerned with goods and social goods. The ideas of want-need, production and consumption, have now been superseded by concern, anxiety and insecurity, in the second modernity. An ‘unequal’ society is replaced by an ‘unsafe society’, and rather than aspirational goals of wealth acquirement and social change, the goals change to avoiding the negative, of preventing the worst happening and fixating around ‘social bads’. Beck believes political institutions have been ill-placed to cope with this, resulting in an ‘organisational irresponsibility’, and that a risk society is latently political, as any resulting controversies undermine political authority and their ability to guarantee the electorate’s safety. The result is often sub-political activities, with activist groups and petitions that emerge in the gaps of democracy.
However, Beck’s re-alignment of society is contested. Beck often employs iconic moments as evidence for widespread shifts in public perception, rather than using empirical data. Furthermore, the impact of unknowable catastrophic events is collated with that of minor and more easily calibrated risks. Public concerns about social bads do exist, but the extent to which they have changed individual consciousness from that of social goods is questionable. Risks, such as that of unemployment, are also correlated with the scarcity and wants of a class based society. Beck claims “’poverty is hierarchic, whilst smog is democratic” but the rich are still able to buy their way out, and so the class society still exists within a risk society. Risk is also a luxury issue – the rich may fear terrorism, but the poor will be more concerned with their next meal. While the rise in extreme political parties suggests governments are losing authority, this may be due to other factors as much as the undermining of their credibility by unquantifiable risks. Governments may also use risk to excuse their tightening of control, by tracking the public on a database, or pushing through anti-terrorist measures. After 9/11, the US government had a wave of public support for its invasion into Afghanistan. This may also result in the division of the world into ‘good’ and ‘evil’ states. The ‘risk society’ theory is lacking in evidence and often glosses over divisions in class, wealth, country and gender and should not be the only way through which to view the changes in contemporary society.
