You are on page 1of 8

Ulrich Beck: Is Risk Society theory valid?

The steadfast commitment of social scientists in to understand and define their


contemporary world by producing grand theories, designed to impose on every aspect
of the human meaning making attempt, seemed to have met its end with
postmodernism. Structuralism and its endless cross-referencing of apparent arbitrary
concepts, as suggested by Ferdinand de Saussure1, post-structuralism and its
deconstructive approach to the human condition, as Michel Foucaults quest to
understand knowledge2 proposed and Marxisms disregard and contempt of all the
products of Western thought, as argued by Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer3,
were celebrated and included as nothing more than limited parts of our understanding
under the convoluted note-taking process of postmodernism.
For all its faults and inadequacies, the liberating truism of postmodernist thinking
suggested that there is nothing new, other than what has been forgotten, allowed social
scientists to take a long hard look at their current surroundings and connect the
scattered pieces of the historical experience of modernity to the present. German
Sociologist Ulrich Beck has thus often been accused of presentism -being
preoccupied with current proximate events and assuming a certain ubiquity and
validity that borders to overgeneralization4. In Risk Society: Towards a New
Modernity Ulrich Beck argued for the apparent shift in the organization of what we
1 Saussure, F., Bally, C., Sechehaye, A., Riedlinger, A. and De Mauro, T. (1995). Cours de
linguistique generale. Paris: Payot. pp. 117-122
http://home.wlu.edu/~levys/courses/anth252f2006/saussure.pdf
2 Foucault, M. and Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
http://uwf.edu/dearle/foucault.pdf
3 Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment. [New York]: Herder
and Herder.

know as modernity, from an industrial society to a society that is geared towards


dealing with the risks the absolute success of industrialization and technology has
presented us with, the ultimate of which being environmental risks 5. His book was
ominously published weeks before the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986, and his
thesis immediately gained universal attention, exposing our collective concern of
scientific development and the moral debates that arise with the apparent limitations
of our response and containment.
The concept of risk is the principal focus throughout Becks work, and as suggested
by sociologist Anthony Giddens, holds the same value when applied either to our
tightly wound microcosm of personal relationships or our arbitrarily expanded
macrocosm of society6. Consuming foods high in nutrient contents, the European
sovereign debt crisis and the attacks carried out by international terrorists are all about
risk, and how risk is addressed in the various social, economic and political
discourses7. Beck recognized the salient feature among all this different risk
discourses and identified it as the consequences of a deliberate decision, further
elaborating on how risk management became not only the trend but the defining
feature of late modernity.
The initial focus of Becks thesis on environmental risks as evidence of industrial
societys absolute success and its mastery over nature combines what was previously
4 Dingwall, R. (1999). "Risk Society": The Cult of Theory and the Millennium?. Social
Policy and Administration, 33(4), pp.474-491
5 Beck, U. (1992) Risk society towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
6 Ericson, R. and Doyle, A. (2003). Risk and morality. Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto
Press p.48
7 Ibid.

mutually exclusive, that is society and nature, and disabused social scientists of the
levelling notion of the predominance of society over nature 8. Beck revisited his thesis
in the 1990s, deeming imperative to examine its application to the discourses of
gender, employment and the nation state, the latter proving to be the central core of all
globalization debates.
Ulrich Beck suggested that modernity has experienced a transformation with the
overwhelming interconnectedness of the world. The first modernity, where nation
states are the territorial points of reference of all networks and communities, are
continuously undermined by five interlinked processes. These processes are the
increasing speed and intensity of the transnational interdependence that has been
experienced through globalization, the perceived individualization induced by that the
breakdown of traditional family and social relationships, the deconstruction of the
nuclear family and its reconstruction within the redefinition of terms that have
emerged with the gender revolution, underemployment as the consequence of the
retreat of the state from its traditional welfare role and unmanageable global risks,
such as the crash of global financial markets9.
Beck identified the aforementioned process as unforeseen consequences of the first
modernity based on the nation state. He further argued that the constant undermining
of the foundations of the first modernity has exposed the inadequacy of post
modernism to produce constructive discourses and thus the need for a new frame of
reference emerged. Reflexive modernization, as Beck alongside Giddens and Lash 10
coined the term is the knowledge and understanding of the consequences and
8 Beck, U. (1999) World risk society. Malden: MA Polity Press p.4
9 Ibid. p.2

problems of the modernization process. Ulrich Beck moved a step beyond the concept
of reflection, collective or institutional, and included the notion of the reflex, as in the
approach to deal with unforeseen and unintended future consequences that are
heightened by our unawareness11.
Reflexive modernization signifies the shift from a traditional industrial society to a
world risk society, preoccupied with establishing a global regime equipped with an
administrative and technical decision making process to deal with risk 12. What is
particular about this world risk society is that risk does not remain restricted to one
country only. In the age of globalization, these risks affect all states and all social
classes. They consequences are applied globally, no longer confined to the personal
level.
Beck attempts to account the human effort to handle risk by pointing out the single
most important distinction between a states default on sovereign debt and an
earthquake that indicates above seven in the Richter magnitude scale. A risk is made;
it presupposes decision, whereas a hazard occurs. Risk is identified as the
consequence of deliberative calculations made through of science and technology to
produce wealth, using fixed norms if calculability that are no longer relevant 13. In the
present era of industrialization, the nature of risk has undergone tremendous change.
Earlier, there was no absence of risk. But these risks were natural dangers or hazards.
10 Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press.
11 Ibid p. 110
12 Ibid pp. 55-56
13 Ibid p. 4

Hazard is a natural occurring event, such as an earthquake, a flood or and endemic


illness, the impact of which the human society has throughout history strived to
minimize and control. For Beck, industrial progress and the rise of the concept of risk
and closely connected.
In an effort to identify the unexpected social and political forces, as well as the new
lines of conflict, Ulrich Beck explores the historical role of the welfare state and the
security it has provided individuals, allowing them greater choice and freedoms and
simultaneously divulging them from personal risk. The context of his thesis is of
course the political and social changes that occurred in Germany in the 1980s and
1990s, when the consequences resulting from the German reunification and economic
restructuring posed a challenge for the market integration and infrastructure of the
newly reunified Germany. Becks observations on the paradoxical encouragement of
individualization of personal choice accompanied with the retreat of the state from its
traditional role of securing full employment and a measure of security through welfare
entitlements, essentially stripping the individual of all responsibility of pursuing
economic security, were often deemed premature. However, the global financial crisis
of 2008 exposed the exact threat enhanced by our increasingly individualization while
relying on the state; our ability to deal with a risk on our own is limited.
Most criticism on risk theory is originated on Becks observation on the role of the
nation state in the globalization discourse, claiming that states have functioned as
catalysts of the globalizing process rather than passively accepting it but do not
discount Becks suggestion that certain individuals have been exposed to increasing
personal risk14. The question of risk in different historical periods has often featured
14 Carruthers, B. and Weiss, L. (2000). The Myth of the Powerless State. Contemporary
Sociology, 29(1), p.265.

among the criticism Becks thesis has received, comparing the epidemics of syphilis
and plague to modern environmental illnesses15. However, this argument inherently
rejects Becks definition of risk, as the spread of syphilis has not been a result of a
deliberate decision- making process and cannot be understood as such as in any other
manner other than the simple choice of one person to conceal the fact of ones illness.
One of the most self-contradicting concepts that could be somewhat attributed to
Becks attempt to distinguish a made risk from a natural occurring hazard is the
twisted concept of moral hazard16. In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation
where the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk. Knowing
that the potential costs and/or burdens of taking such risk will be borne, in whole or in
part, by others creates a moral hazard and invites high risk behavior. The devastating
and irreversible effects of a deliberative decision are to be felt as force of nature to be
reckoned with, upon which the party that suffers is withheld all responsibilities and
actions to prevent such an outcome. The crash of the global financial markets that
resulted from the downfall of real estate prices in the United States spread to the
financial sector and soon enough required measures to bail out financial institutions
that had accumulated house loans they had issued to individuals who were encouraged
to seek out loans based solely on the assumption that house prices would continue to
rise.
Ultimate security will always be denied to us human beings, and human civilization is
the ultimate proof of our attempt to control the unintended consequences of
15 Elliott, A. (2002). Beck's Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment. Sociology, 36(2),
pp.299.
16 Source: Financial Times http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=moral-hazard

materialized threats, either to the individual or the society. The discussion on risk
begins when we begin to question our security and ends when the potential threat has
manifested itself. The concept of risk attempts to break away from the linear relation
between past, present and future, as it becomes apparent that the past has no longer
the potential to affect the present, since we are inevitably discussing in terms of might
what happen, accepting that we are not aware of the potential outcomes 17. There are
no expert or false-proof decisions. Thus, in the risk society of reflexive
modernization, a rigid and technocratic decision making process is no longer relevant.
Though Beck does not outright reject the process of rational thinking in understanding
our world introduced by the Enlightenment, he has emphasized the paradoxical
coexistence of progress and risk, creating an interdisciplinary approach for risk
research.

Word Count: 1818

Bibliography:
1. Beck, U. (1992) Risk society towards a new modernity. London: Sage
Publications
17 Beck, U. (1999) World risk society. Malden: MA Polity Press pp 135-137

2. Beck, U. (1999) World risk society. Malden: MA Polity Press


3. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
4. Elliott, A. (2002). Beck's Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment. Sociology,
36(2), pp.293-315
5. Dingwall, R. (1999). "Risk Society": The Cult of Theory and the Millennium?
Social Policy and Administration, 33(4), pp.474-491
6. Carruthers, B. and Weiss, L. (2000). The Myth of the Powerless State.
Contemporary Sociology, 29(1), p.265
7. Ericson, R. and Doyle, A. (2003). Risk and morality. Toronto, Ont.: University
of Toronto Press
8. Saussure, F., Bally, C., Sechehaye, A., Riedlinger, A. and De Mauro, T. (1995).
Cours de linguistique generale. Paris: Payot. pp.
http://home.wlu.edu/~levys/courses/anth252f2006/saussure.pdf
9. Foucault, M. and Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon
Books. http://uwf.edu/dearle/foucault.pdf
10. Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment. [New
York]: Herder and Herder.

You might also like