This paper calls attention to some basic problems and inner contradictions in the German sociologist Ulrich Beck’s theory of the ‘(world) risk society’ or reflexive (second) modernity. A main thread in the critique is that of addressing the theoretical ambiguities that seem to characterize Beck’s at the same time ‘social constructivist’ and ‘realist’ notion of risk – ambiguities that seem to be repeated on the one hand in Beck’s view on the relation between knowledge and unawareness in (...) reflexive modernity and on the other hand in his view on the role of the mass media in the ‘(world) risk society’. Moreover, Beck’s notions of second modernity, reflexivity, rationality and critique are critically examined. With the alternative positions discussed in the paper – represented by Jeffrey C. Alexander, Niklas Luhmann and Mitchell Dean – some indications are given as to how one might fruitfully elaborate on the problem of risk. Thus, rather than a mainly technology-driven new type of social reality, the ‘(world) risk society’ could perhaps better be seen as indicating a changing cultural self-understanding of late modern society, a new ‘semantics of crisis', or the emergence of new forms of governmentality in the contemporary welfare state. In conclusion, some indications are given as to how an analysis of more specific ‘risk logics' or ‘rationalities' could be elaborated on, and a terminology that reflects this more differentiated approach to risk in late modern society is suggested. (shrink)

Ulrich Beck's best selling Risk Society established risk on the sociological agenda. It brought together a wide range of issues centering on environmental, health and personal risk, provided a rallying ground for researchers and activists in a variety of social movements and acted as a reference point for state and local policies in risk management. The Risk Society and Beyond charts the progress of Beck's ideas and traces their evolution. It demonstrates why the (...) issues raised by Beck reverberate widely throughout social theory and covers the new risks that Beck did not foresee, associated with the emergence of new technologies, genetic and cybernetic. The book is unique because it offers both an introduction to the main arguments in Risk Society and develops a range of critical discussions of aspects of this and other works of Beck. (shrink)

The construction of a secure and safe society using information and communication technology is recognised as an urgent issue in Japan. This recognition is based on public fear about crime related to manufactured risk caused by modernisation or industrial civilisation. This fear has created a social atmosphere that has led to the rapid development and implementation of security systems using ICT, such as security cameras, smart IC cards and mobile phones, to establish security and safety in Japanese (...) class='Hi'>society. However, the never-ending quest for social security and safety with ICT will inevitably cause further manufactured risk, which could lead to serious problems in the future. We have to recognise such risk and control it appropriately. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the philosophical consideration of anthropological crisis in the risk society in his historical transformation. The research is aimed to anthropological analysis of the risk society in order to identify its new features in the modern era. As a methodological principle of research, the author defines the distinction between anthropological and cosmological approaches in philosophy. It is about their complex relationships and contradictions in the development of the civilizational process. The anthropological crisis (...) becomes apparent when society becomes a “society of risk” in the modern era. The article reveals the cause of the anthropological crisis in the risk society: the social production of wealth becomes the production of risks. In the XXI century there is a “world society of risk”, which is associated with the process of globalization. The risk research methodology suggests the need to anticipate unpredictable. The main difficulty in risk analysis is that the risk is between certainty and uncertainty, between rational and irrational. Two main trends - the reflexivity of the unknown and the cosmopolitan moment - point to a global change in the society in the 21st century, whose priority is security. In the historical and social philosophical perspective, security is understood as a concept that encompasses integrity, inviolability, inviolability with respect to corporeality, life and property. In the context of the modern anthropological crisis, security has become the main value concept of the social political language. The logic of uniqueness gives way to the logic of ambiguity, which finds its expression in the connection of the risk society with the cosmopolitism. The “cosmopolitan moment” of the world risk society presupposes recognition of the uniqueness of the Other as an opportunity to overcome the anthropological crisis. (shrink)

Recent theory of ideology and art has focused on the strange phenomenon of interpassivity – a phenomenon that is the exact obverse of ‘interactivity’ in the sense of being active through another subject who does the job for me, like the Hegelian Idea manipulating human passions to achieve its goals.

Under conditions of growing interconnectedness of the global economy, more and more stakeholders are exposed to risks and costs resulting from business activities that are neither regulated nor compensated for by means of national governance. The changing distribution of risks poses a threat to the legitimacy of business firms that normally derive their legitimacy from operating in compliance with the legal rules of democratic nation states. However, during the process of globalization, the regulatory power of nation states has been weakened (...) and many production processes have been shifted to states with weak regulatory frameworks where businesses operate outside the reach of the democratic nation state. As a result, business firms have to address the various legitimacy challenges of their operations directly and cannot rely upon the legitimacy of their regulatory environment. These developments challenge the dominant approach to corporate governance that regards shareholders as the only stakeholder group in need of special protection due to risks not covered by contracts and legal regulations. On the basis of these considerations, we argue for a democratization of corporate governance structures in order to compensate for the governance deficits in their regulatory environment and to cope with the changing allocation of risks and costs. By way of democratic involvement of various stakeholders, business firms may be able to mitigate the redistribution of individual risk and address the resulting legitimacy deficits even when operating under conditions of regulatory gaps and governance failure. (shrink)

This article differentiates between three different axes of conflict in world risk society. The first axis is that of ecological conflicts, which are by their very essence global. The second is global financial crises, which, in a first stage, can be individualized and nationalized. And the third, which suddenly broke upon us on September 11th, is the threat of transnational terror networks, which empowers governments and states. Two sets of implications are drawn: first, there are the political dynamics (...) of world risk society. In an age where trust and faith in God, class and progress have largely disappeared, humanity's common fear has proved the last - ambivalent - resource for making new bonds. Second, the methodological nationalism that preoccupies the sociological imagination has to be overcome and a `methodological cosmopolitism' has to be created. (shrink)

(2001). Association and deliberation in risk society: Two faces of ecological democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy: Vol. 4, Associative Democracy: The Real Third Way, pp. 85-104.

The dominance of the modern concept of risk and calculability is challenged by and has to be distinguished from “manufactured uncertainties.” Typically today, conflict and controversy flare up around this particular type of new manufactured risk. Neither natural disasters – threats – coming from the outside and thus attributable to God or nature have this effect any longer. Nor do the specific calculable uncertainties – “risks” – which are determinable with actuarial precision interms of a probability calculus backed (...) up by insurance and monetary compensation fall in this category. At the centre of attention today, by contrast, are “manufactured uncertainties.” They are distinguished by the fact that they are dependent on human decisions, created by society itself, immanent to society and thus non-externalizable, collectively imposed and thus individually unavoidable. (shrink)

Digitalization is often associated with optimistic grand narratives about a future society in academic discourse. While the word is frequently linked with hopes and expectations of societal rebirth and beneficial changes for societies and organizations, there has been little attention given to systematically investigating the risks associated with digitalization. This paper aims to investigate the relationship between digitalization and risk, thereby characterizing “the digital risk society.” By conducting a narrative summary and thematic analysis of 34 academic (...) papers three aggregated themes were outlined: First, in the digital risk society, intangible technologies serve as solutions while simultaneously introducing new risks. Second, as an increasing number of tasks are delegated to machines with opaque inner functions, society is suffering from dehumanization. Third, scholars are calling for new approaches to govern these technologies, spurred by concerns over their potentially harmful use. (shrink)

This paper analyzes post-Mao China as a complex risk society in which social, economic, and ecological risk syndromes pertaining to highly diverse levels and systems of development are manifested simultaneously. Complex risk society is a theoretical extension of Ulrich Beck’s thesis on risk society, focusing on complex developmental temporalities that are pervasively symptomatic of rapidly but asymmetrically developing political economies. In my earlier study, Korea was defined as a complex risk society (...) in which risk syndromes of developed, undeveloped, and compressively developing societies are concurrently generated. In the current study, post-Mao China is also analyzed as a complex risk society which is, in fact, more complex than Korea. Paradoxically, due to its explosive development in the post-Mao era which even dwarfs Korea, China is now confronted by all of its capitalist neighbour’s risk syndromes. Besides, due to its so-called gradual approach to reform, China is beset with a complicated mix of socialist and post-socialist syndromes of risks. Gradual reform is in practice a sort of peripatetic pluralism in economic and social reform for maximizing developmental utilities of all types of human, material, and institutional resources—a policy line inevitably accompanied by similarly plural sources and factors of social, economic, and ecological risks. The unprecedented temporal and systemic complexity in China’s risk structure has crucial implications for the country’s much deplored tendency for inequalities. In particular, class inequalities and regional disparities seem to be manifest in risk dimensions no less critically than in material dimensions. The state’s developmentalism alone is no solution for risk complexities or inequalities. (shrink)

This paper will discuss the introduction of Restorative Approaches (RA) in schools, contextualising this within a discussion of international concerns about school safety, (in)discipline and school violence. It will explore questions about the compatibility of RA with zero tolerance and positive/assertive discipline approaches and the use of disciplinary exclusion in a ‘risk society’.

The concept of the national is often perceived, both in public and academic discourse as the central obstacle for the realization of cosmopolitan orientations. Consequently, debates about the nation tend to revolve around its persistence or its demise. We depart from this either-or perspective by investigating the formation of the ‘cosmopolitan nation’ as a facet of world risk society. Modern collectivities are increasingly preoccupied with debating, preventing and managing risks. However, unlike earlier manifestations of risk characterized by (...) daring actions or predictability models, global risks can no longer be calculated or forecast. Accordingly, more influence accrues to the perception of risk, largely constructed by media representations. Cosmopolitanized risk collectivities are engendered through the anticipation of endangered futures which are, for the most part, communicated through an increasingly global media scape. While global media events produce shared exposure, risk conceptions retain distinctive political-cultural features as their respective meanings are prefigured by path-dependent pasts. Nevertheless, the promulgation of risk societies, we argue, results in a reimagination of nationhood which takes place in the context of: global norms (e.g. human rights); globalized markets; transnational migrations; global generations and their embeddedness in civil society movements; and the local interpenetration of world religions to name but a few of the global backdrops shaping new associational intersections. We develop our argument in four interrelated steps. Contrary to essentialized notions of nationalism or universal versions of cosmopolitanism, we address the cosmopolitan reconfiguration of nationhood by differentiating between presumptions of thick belonging and the actual proliferation of cosmopolitan affiliations. In a second step we overcome the territorial fixation of the social sciences by shifting our attention to temporal dimensions, with a particular focus on competing conceptions of the future. In a third step we demonstrate how these cosmopolitan transformations of nationhood are taking place in the context of a world risk society regime that marshals a set of cosmopolitan imperatives situating the global other in our midst. In a fourth step we illustrate these developments by exploring how the mediatization of risk, and concomitant notions of the future, contribute to the reimagination of cosmopolitan risk collectivities. (shrink)

Risk is most often associated with danger and perceived as a harmful aspect of life, as an insidious and unwelcome threat that should be avoided. Risk-taking, however, is sometimes a singular passion, a source of pleasure that becomes a way of life. When freely pursued as a valorised activity, it can be a path to self-fulfilment, an opportunity to confront new situations, and a means for redefining one’s self, testing personal abilities, increasing self-esteem or gaining recognition. Deliberate (...) class='Hi'>risk-taking is a form of character building. It accommodates life’s intensities. It is extremely popular in high-risk physical activities and sports and postmodern forms of adventure. (shrink)

After a short description of the major sociological theories based on the concept of risk (Douglas, Beck, Luhmann, Giddens) I propose to integrate the concept of risk with the concept of trust. On a less theoretical level I propose to consider governance as the institutional response to the growing complexity of the risk society. Above all, network governance – that is institutional steering based on a high community participation – seems to give good results in the (...) field of health care policies, as has been shown in the Emilia-Romagna area (Italy). (shrink)

At the heart of the book - two views (naturalist and humanist) on the dangers of and Prospects of "scientific and technological progress," that defining the face of modern civilization. Its leaders are now the information, genetic cal and biological technology.

This paper is organised in three interconnected parts. First, contemporary political economic approaches to understanding the structure of the global economic system are outlined and synthesised. Specifically, it is suggested that the current structural configuration of the globe is a transitional phase between the spatially-bounded configuration hypothesised by world-system theory and the configuration hypothesised by globalisation theorists. Second, the contemporary problem of environmental degradation is situated in a global structural context. Third, an outline and critique of Ulrich Beck 's theory (...) of the ' Risk Society ' is presented to illustrate the increasing inadequacy of nation-state-centric theories in explaining the dynamic linkage between global capitalism and local environmental degradation. (shrink)

Ulrich Beck characterized the transition from modern to late modern society as a shift from an industrial to a “risk society.” Contemporary society is challenged by negative side effects of modernization, including the increasing and imminent threat of global climate change. This article will test the validity of conceivable prescriptive elements associated with this sociological theory. In doing so, it will focus on the most recent legal developments aimed at tackling climate change within the EU. This (...) paper finds that the precautionary approach is unable to sufficiently shape balanced legal intervention in this day and age. However, the approach adopted by the EU appears to be more successful in this respect. (shrink)

Bringing together such thinkers as Ulrich Beck, Bruno Latour, Michael Redclift and Ted Benton, this important book discusses critical themes in the development ...

As we can see, the side effects caused by the continuous development of science and economy have gradually brought human society into a risk society. While currently, the power of globalization is unceasingly forming a world risk society. German renowned philosopher and sociologist Ulrich Beck has opened a unique and novel researching angle to review science difficulty and abuse of modern world risk society, and has made comprehensive and profound analysis. World risk (...) society has three main characters: First, the emergence of the world risk society is linked to the two fundamental changes still influencing our lives, which is the so-called “end of nature” and “end of tradition”. Second, in world risk society, mankind lose their dependence on “expert system”. The religion is replaced by the concept uncertainty and uncontrollable. In addition, there are other series of problems and abuses between world risk society and traditional society. The prime mover of social changes in world risk society exists in the side effects instead of the instrumental ration in traditional times, etc. The problem in world risk society’s science ethics are as follows: First, expansion of ration. It is mankind’s extreme confidence in ration that causing unlimited development of technology and exploitation of resources. Thus almost everywhere in nature becomes man‐made nature. Second, rupture of knowledge. From “knowledge is virtue and virtue isknowledge” (Socrates) to “knowledge is power” (Bacon), now “knowledge is money” (Bacon). Third, displacement of science value. In traditional society, science research is scientists’ personal interests. Now science research turns its target to meeting social needs, and scientists gain more profits from the technologicalproducts directly. Beck has raised the theory of risk society, and attempted to use “reflexive modernity” as the strategic plan to respond the global consequence of modern science crisis, and expressed revelatory viewpoint on diagnosis of the essential of “reflexive modernity”. Similarly, Lash emphasizes risk culture toremind human to pay attention to the ecological threat and risk. In addition, Bauman and Habermas also have some statements, etc. So my conclusion is, we should consider the autonomy of science development and its inherent relationship with economic interests. In addition, what we concern is the science dual identity of both defendant and expert. Also, the public’s understanding of the uncertainty provides a space for democratization. (shrink)

How do we theorize the Chinese state, a state both transforming itself rapidly through economic rationalism and yet standing firmly through governmental authoritarianism? Where and how is the figure of the middle class situated in this Chinese state? How does a critical understanding of the Chinese situation offer insights into problems of risks associated with the middle class in the current global economic crisis/recession? To address these questions, I look at both the politics of the Chinese state and its transformative (...) relations to the people, the subject of the Chinese nation. More specifically, I examine the evolving relationship between the…. (shrink)

This article draws on contributions from the Sociology of Science and Technology and Science and Technology Studies, the Sociology of Risk and Uncertainty, and the Sociology of Work, focusing on the transformations of employment regarding expanded automation, robotization and informatization. The new work patterns emerging due to the introduction of software and hardware technologies, which are based on artificial intelligence, algorithms, big data gathering and robotic systems are examined closely. This article attempts to “open the black boxes” of the (...) “black carpet” (robotic sorting system) and examine the reorganization of Greek postal services through the introduction of software and hardware technologies, highlighting a) the high risk of flexible, pluralistic, decentralized (under)employment and aspects of the sub-politics of automation, b) the new forms of work organization and c) aspects of labor precariousness as a result of de-specialization or “flexible expertise” interconnected with new forms of inequalities based on AI, algorithms, big data and robots as reflected in the lived experiences of workers. The above are investigated through primary empirical social research in postal service companies in Greece. (shrink)

Our society is often understood and discussed as a society of non-contemporaneity —an issue that undoubtedly corresponds to a widespread and disturbing feeling in today's society. Both at personal level and in communicative contexts one often has the impression of an interlacement and a contrast among different rhythms, temporal horizons, durations and terms, and the result is usually a sort of pressure and a sense of inadequacy. It seems to me, however, that the difficulties we have to (...) face don't depend so much on the fact that we belong to a culture of not-contemporaneity: such cultures have existed, we can describe them and we can reconstruct their relationship with time, but they didn't have the problems of disorientation that seem to torment us today. On the contrary: we have them because our culture is rather a culture of contemporaneity, and this produces problems of synchronisation and a complexity of temporal relations we still cannot adequately deal with. German Unsere Gesellschaft wird oft als eine Gesellschaft der Ungleichzeitigkeit verstanden und diskutiert – eine Problematik, die zweifellos mit einer weitverbreiteten Verstörung in der heutigen Gesellschaft korrespondiert. Sowohl auf einer persönlichen Ebene als auch in kommunikativen Kontexten hat man oft den Eindruck eines Mit- und Gegeneinanders verschiedener Rhythmen, Zeithorizonte, Dauern und Enden, deren Ergebnis gewöhnlich eine Art Druck und ein Gefühl der Unzulänglichkeit sind. Es scheint mir aber, dass die Schwierigkeiten, denen wir uns zu stellen haben, nicht so sehr von unserer Verbundenheit mit einer Kultur der Ungleichzeitigkeit abhängen: Solche Kulturen haben bereits existiert, wir können sie beschreiben und ihre Zeitverhältnisse rekonstruieren, und doch haben sie nicht die Desorientierung erfahren, die uns heute quält. Im Gegenteil: Die heutigen Schwierigkeiten entspringen einer Kultur der Gleichzeitigkeit, die Probleme der Synchronisierung und komplexe Zeitverhältnisse mit sich bringt, mit denen wir immer noch nicht adäquat umgehen können. (shrink)

Coall & Hertwig (C&H) suggest that, because grandparental investments do not impact on child mortality in low-risk societies, fitness effects are not plausible any more. We found that grandparental investments could very well alleviate contemporary constraints on fertility. Cultural factors may influence both the occurrence and impact of grandparental investments.

재난 위험의 일상화, 복합화가 진행되면서 재난을 분리된 하나의 사건, 위험을 비정상적인 것으로 보고 재난 관리에 필요한 과학기술을 개발하고 법적인 제도를 정비하여 사후 대응적으로 현상을 복구하는 전통적인 위험 관리 패러다임은 점차 쇠퇴하고 있다. 현대 사회의 주요 인프라(critical infrastructures)들 사이의 통합성과 상호의존성 강화는 자연 재난, 인위적 재난 등의 전통적인 재난 구분을 어렵게 하고 재난 위험의 원인을 파악하고 이의 영향을 측정하는 것 역시 불가능에 가깝게 해놓고 있다. 위험에 대한 무지가 양산되고 있다는 것이다. 재난 위험의 항상성과 위험의 불확실성의 증가로 인해 위험 지식에 근거한 위험 (...) 관리 정책은 점차 한계에 직면하고 있다. 현대 사회가 직면한 불확실한 재난 위험을 항상 존재하는 것으로 인정하고 이를 제거하기 보다는 이에 적응하는 능력을 강조하는 회복탄력성(Resilience) 개념에 기초한 위험 관리 전략이 요청되고 있다. 회복탄력성이란 외부 교란을 흡수하며 동일한 정체성을 유지하고 변화에 대응하여 스스로를 재조직화할 수 있는 사회생태시스템의 능력을 의미한다. 회복탄력성에 기초한 위험 관리 전략은 사회의 물적 기반, 즉, 주요 인프라의 견고성과 대체성을 높이는 것 뿐만 아니라 물적, 인적, 경제적 자원들을 동원 활용할 수 있는 사회 조직과 문화, 정치 차원에서 견고성, 대체성, 융통성, 신속성 향상을 통해 사회의 위험 대응 능력을 높이는 것이다. 회복탄력성 향상은 새로운 시민성을 실천하는 시민들이 재난 위험에 대한 다양한 해결책을 스스로 찾아 나서고 위험 대응 훈련에 적극적으로 참여할 수 있도록 하는 정책적 지원에 의해 가능하다. (shrink)

RESUMEN: Esta era de la globalización es, como Beck ha apuntado, la era del riesgo global, que se caracteriza por el creciente nivel de riesgo en el manejo de los medios técnicos que amenaza la preservación del planeta y la supervivencia de la especie. En ese contexto, resulta cada vez más notoria la insuficiencia de un modelo de comprensión de los derechos humanos vinculado a la primera modernidad, que concibió los derechos ligados al marco espacial del Estado-nación y a una (...) concepción de la temporalidad como tiempo presente. Frente a ello, reivindicamos un nuevo paradigma de los derechos humanos que, a partir de la dimensión global de los problemas y de una concepción intergeneracional de la justicia, trascienda los límites territoriales del Estado e incorpore la dimensión del futuro en la protección de los bienes jurídicos. ABSTRACT: The globalisation era is, as Beck has pointed out, the age of global risk, characterized by the increasing level of risk in the management of technical means. In this context, the insufficiency of a model of understanding human rights linked to the first modernity becomes increasingly evident. Against this, we demand a new paradigm of human rights that, from the global dimension of problems and from an intergenerational conception of justice, transcend the territorial limits of the State and incorporate the dimension of future in the protection of legal assets. (shrink)