ULRICH BECK

by Taekyeong Goh (2023)

Ulrich Beck was born in Slupsk, Pomerania in 1944, and spent his childhood in Hanover, Germany. He pursued his university studies in law in Freiburg but later shifted his focus to political science, philosophy, psychology, and sociology at Ludwig-Maximilian University (LMU) in Munich. He earned his doctorate degree in sociology from LMU in 1972, with a thesis on “Problems of Social Structure and Modernization,” which focused on the impact of social change on personal identity. Beck began his career as a lecturer at the University of Münster. During his tenure at the University of Bamberg, Beck wrote his influential book, "Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity" (Risikogesellschaft) in 1986. He worked as a professor of sociology at LMU from 1992 until 2009 when he became a professor emeritus. Beck was also a founding director of the Reflexive Modernization Research Center, which aimed to foster interdisciplinary and collaborative research projects for the empirical investigation of social change.

Beck's work on risk sparked international scholarly discourse, leading to scientific conversations in various social science fields, including sociology, economics, psychology, management, criminology, and political science. Beck's work on risk and globalization made him one of the most important social theorists of his generation. He continued to write on these topics in subsequent works, including World Risk Society (1999), Power in the Global Age (2005), and The Metamorphosis of the World (2016). The remainder of this article will focus on Beck’s “risk society” and attempt to compare it with Zygmunt Bauman’s idea of liquid modernity.

A POST-MODERNITY: CLASSICAL MODERNIZATION AND REFLEXIVCE MODERNIZATION

Beck presents an essentially three-stage periodization of social change: feudal society, industrial society, and risk society. Feudal society represents a pre-modern era that is comprised of traditional forms of social life and feudal structures of domination and authority. According to Beck, forces of industrialization and rationalization gave rise to the industrial society which contained early modern social institutions. Classical modernization, situated within the history and experience of pre-modernity, then evolves into reflexive modernization (Beck 1992: 10, 19). Reflexive modernization is directly tied to the concept of risk. Beck defines risk as “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself” and “consequences related to the threatening force of modernization and to its globalization of doubt” (Beck 1992: 21). In late industrial society, new forms of industrialized, decision-produced incalculabilities and threats spread out by the globalized high-risk industries. Consequently, the logic of risk production supersedes the logic of wealth production in the risk society. While the system of industrial society is built on faith in science and techno-economic progress, risks and conflicts related to them occur around systemic causes coinciding with the motor of progress and profit (Beck 1992: 39). Risks also impact the social structure in ways distinct from social class and poverty. While poverty is hierarchic, risks are not spare even the wealthy and powerful (Beck 1992: 37). Particularly, where risk positions and class positions overlap, for example, the Third World, will experience new international inequalities which undermine the order of national jurisdictions (Beck 1992: 23).

Another important characteristic of reflexive modernization toward risk society is that the monopolized structures by science, men, marriage, and politics are facing transformation. 

“Monopolies are breaking up – the monopolies of science on rationality, of men on professions, of marriage on sexuality, and of politics on policy – but worlds are not collapsing. But each of these monopolies also stands in contradiction to the principles that were established along with modernity. … This also means, however, that many risks and issues arise within the continuity of modernity and are asserted against the bifurcation of its principles in the project of industrial society” (Beck 1992: 232).

Beck suggests that different understandings of science and politics are needed in the risk society rather than those in the industrial society. He especially suggests that the extension and legal protection of certain possibilities of sub-politics are the essential tasks of a democratic political system in the future of the risk society, and the possessors of monopolies must be supplemented by chances of self-criticism (Beck 1992: 234).

CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY IN THE PROCESS OF SOCIAL CHANGE

“Industrial society never is and never was possible only as industrial society, but always as half industrial and half feudal society, whose feudal side is not a relic of tradition, but the product and foundation of industrial society. In that way, as industrial society triumphs, it has always promoted the dissolution of its family morality, its gender fates, its taboos relative to marriage, parenthood and sexuality, even the reunification of housework and wage labor” (Beck 1992: 89). 

Beck posits that modernization is not the process that radically changes every social aspect into new forms. Instead, he argues that the intermingling of continuity and discontinuity in the internal and external relations with the process of social change should be taken into account to describe modernity. Through the individualization and diversification of lifestyles, biography as a reflexive project leads individuals to become the agents of their life planning by their own decisions not by social classes, the frame of gender, and the family (Beck 1992: 90). However, there are also tendencies toward the institutionalization and standardization of individual modes of living. Individuals become dependent on the labor market due to institutional dependency, and this results in dependencies on education, consumption, welfare state regulations, and so on.

Beck (1992: 129) addresses that in a risk society due to all the associated hazards and opportunities, new forms of flexible, pluralized underemployment are integrated into the labor market. In contrast to the standardized nature of full employment in industrial society, which encompassed elements such as the labor contract, fixed work locations, and specific working hours, the demarcation between work and non-work becomes more flexible. Although this flexibilization of employment meets the increasing interest in the balance between work and life, gaining sovereignty over people’s work also can be linked to the privatization of the risks of work (Beck 1992: 144). Moreover, Beck views that social structure is changing from the social class in the industrial society to social risk positions in the risk society. Risks are also the object of distributions like wealth (Beck 1992: 26). While social wealth is dealing with the market economy under the positive logic of acquisition, risk positions are about a negative logic of disposition and avoidance (Beck 1992: 27). Yet, it is important to consider the remaining validity of social class cultures and traditions along with the risk positioning. Lastly, Beck insists that social life framed in the family and gender is detraditionalized in the risk society. In industrial society, social life and relationships such as marriage, parenthood, sexuality, and love are normative and standardized within the framework of the nuclear family. However, in the risk society, the increasing pressures to work out insecurity by oneself arises in new and pluralized settings as well as non-familial forms of life through a reflexive way of loosening and coordinating individual biographies (Beck 1992: 115).

BECK AND BAUMAN

New Modernity

Beck and Bauman share the idea that a new type of modernity emerges in the current society, differing from the classical form of modernity: Beck categorized these two periodical forms of modernity into industrial society and risk society, while Bauman named them as solid modernity and liquid modernity. Both theorists have a common perspective in the early modern era. Bauman (2000: 59) describes solid modernity as a modern rational capitalist society which bound to material production and economic development. Similarly, Beck’s notion of industrial society also relies on techno-economic progress and associated institutions. They both assume that the trends of globalization, individualization, and technological development drive cultural and social change toward post-modern society.

However, their perspectives diverge when it comes to post-modernity and the relationship between nature and society. Bauman’s conception of modernization is based on the permanent feature of modernity, which he refers to as the “melting of solids” (Bauman 2000: 6). Liquid society is an advanced form of continuous modernization where individualization is processed more than before. The transition from solid modernity to liquid modernity entails a world that is more unsettled, flexible, disintegrated, and mobilized in politics, economy, and social life (Bauman 2000: 14).

In contrast, Beck emphasizes the notion of continuity and rupture in social development. While industrial society encompasses both traditional and capitalist structures, risk society possesses its own distinct features alongside remnants of pre-modernity and early modernity. Notably, the concept of risk serves as the most prominent point of departure between Beck and Bauman. While Bauman’s focus lies predominantly on the dynamics within human society, Beck considers the relationship between nature and society. For Beck (2000: 80), “nature can no longer be understood outside of society, or society outside of nature.” This divergence in perspective leads Beck to provide theoretical understandings for new forms of solidarity within global society, particularly in response to the fear of environmental hazards.

Social Life in A New Modernity

Both Beck and Bauman put forth distinct ideas about how social life undergoes a transformation in post-modern society.

Beck’s idea has some alignment with Bauman’s contention that social actions in new modernity are down to individuals. In light capitalism in liquid modernity, individuals need to deal with a new type of uncertainty that not knowing the ends instead of not knowing the means. The ad, ‘Have car, can travel’, addresses that light capitalism opens an infinite collection of possibilities to choose goals rather than finding the means to the ends (Bauman 2000: 61). There are no more absolute values holding people to the ends of heavy capitalism: making money and working endlessly. In other words, social actions in liquid society are not mean-obsessed but value-obsessed. Liquid modernity, therefore, demands individuals establish priorities and make choices by relinquishing unexplored possibilities (Bauman 2000: 63). In regard to individualized decision-making, Beck (1992: 136) also argues that “a vigorous model of action in everyday life” is demanded to work through the emerging possibilities of decisions to build individual’s biography in a meaningful way. However, Beck further claims the production of risks when the industrial system profits from the abuses it produces should be considered:

“Needs can be satisfied; risks are a bottomless barrel of demands, unsatisfiable, infinite. Risks can be manipulated. Demands, and thus markets, of a completely new type can be created by varying the definition of risk, especially demand for the avoidance of risk” (Beck, 1992: 56).

Beck cautions that within the context of an individualized society, novel forms of personal risks emerge, necessitating new requirements in education, therapy, and politics to facilitate improved personal and reflexive production of biography.

Furthermore, Beck would partially concede with Bauman’s provision of the relationship between capital and labor in liquid modernity. Bauman (2000: 148-150) insists that marriages ‘till death us do part’ between capital and labor become rare in liquid society due to the flexibility of time, space, and work and the uncertainty. As capital becomes exterritorial and light, the long-term engagement and mutual dependency between capital and labor are faded out. Employment thus becomes short-term and precarious in light capitalism. Beck also argues that “class society will pale into insignificance beside an individualized society of employees” (Beck 1992: 100). He illustrates the system of flexible and pluralized underemployment in risk society:

“In principle, this system permits clear delinea­tions between work and non-work, which can be determined spatially and temporally, but it also comprises mutually exclusive social and legal statuses of employment and non-employment. In the current and coming waves of automation, this system of standardized full employment is beginning to soften and fray at the margins into flexibilizations of its three supporting pillars: labor law, work site and working hours. Thus the boundaries between work and non-work are becoming fluid. Flexible, pluralized forms of underemployment are spreading” (Beck 1992: 142).

While Beck's focus lies more on the institutions of labor rather than the relationship between capital and labor, there is a significant overlap in Beck and Bauman's perspectives on the transformations within labor in the post-modern era. However, Beck introduces the concept of risks into these changes. He recognizes that a "risk-fraught system of flexible, pluralized, decentralized underemployment" may address the issue of unemployment but remains rooted in the profit-oriented rationalization of industrial society (Beck 1992: 143-149). Beck posits that various forms of part-time employment and outsourcing will proliferate, underscoring the importance of political responses aimed at expanding the social protection system and implementing minimum wage laws (Beck 1992: 149).

CONCLUSION

Ulrich Beck's contributions to our comprehension of social change through the lens of reflexive modernization are remarkable on multiple fronts. Firstly, Beck's theory encompasses a broad spectrum, spanning the historical trajectory of modernization, beginning from feudal society and extending to the emergence of the risk society. Secondly, his notion of risk has had a profound impact on the field of social science, prompting a call for reflexivity in the examination of human society and its interactions with the environment. Lastly, Beck's theory of risk society offers a comprehensive framework for understanding social inequalities, social risk positions, and the distinctive characteristics of social development from multi-level perspectives.

However, despite the valuable theoretical insights Beck offers in the study of social development, his theory of risk society is not without important criticisms. One criticism suggests that Beck’s emphasis on risks might lead to an overestimation of their importance, potentially overshadowing other crucial factors. Additionally, Beck’s theory of risks appears to be reliant on the role of science in defining, assessing, monitoring, and managing risks. Although he acknowledges the inherent incalculability and invisibility of risks, Beck’s understanding of risk perception exhibits linkages with a utilitarian approach.

Furthermore, Beck’s perspective on risk management and institutionalization predominantly focuses on advanced Western countries, portraying the Third World as victims of risks and poverty, while neglecting to explore how these countries respond to risks. This omission raises questions about the role of grassroots movements and the civil society sector in the dynamics of the risk society, which Beck fails sufficiently consider.

Notwithstanding these limitations, Ulrich Beck remains a representative theorist and a significant global thinker in sociology. His work offers a critical reflection that goes beyond the confines of mainstream modernization theorists, who often restrict their analysis to intra-societal relations. Beck’s contributions to environmental sociology have ignited interdisciplinary discussions on how to address global environmental crises, which are consequences of economic development and modernization.

In an era where global climate change poses a substantial threat to sustainability, Beck’s theory of risk society compels us to engage in critical thinking. It urges us to reflect on why and how certain environmental issues have become the central problem in the global society, how our lives have changed after perceiving these issues as risks, and what actions we should take in our everyday lives to effectively tackle these risks. Therefore, Beck provides us with opportunities to comprehend both the macro view of social change and the micro view of personal transformation.

REFERENCES 

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Beck, Ulrich. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beck, Ulrich. 2002. Power in the Global Age: A New Global Political Economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beck, Ulrich. 2016. The Metamorphosis of the World. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.