According to Ericson and Haggerty (1997), "In a risk society, governance is directed at the provision of security" (p. 85).
According to Ericson and Haggerty (1997), one main point of Beck's thesis was that the risk society was "the inevitable product of the harmful effects of modern science and technology" (p.113).
We are living in a society controlled by technology, and the risks associated with technology and science are not the same as industrial modernity,now amassing wealth is overshadowed by risk avoidance and class consciousness replaced by risk consciousness (Ekberg 344). Risk society (RS) theorists "focus on manufactured risks (348) and believe technology is out of social control but is being used as social control (Ekberg 346). People are no longer reliant on tradition, but this freedom "can generate isolation, alienation, fragmentation and discontent" (Ekberg 346) because people are choosing directions for their lives that may scare them because there is no tradition/guide to which to follow. This creates a society of uneasy people that, instead of uniting in more tradition or religion, unite around risk and safety and form "imaginary risk communities" (Ekberg 346). Risk in a risk society is different from other areas because society has moved from nature to technology and has changed our perception of risk making us examine risk as a social product rather than a realist perspective. It is also created a gap between actual and perceived risk, progressed from "invisible to visible to virtual risk" and changing "spatial, temporal and demographic distribution of risk which creates a more borderless risk" (Ekberg 347). The most concerning risks are the risks due to technological advances (Ekberg 348).
2007
"The risk society expands the traditional concept of risk understood as the sum of the probability of an adverse event and the magnitude of the consequences, to include the subjective perception of risk, the inter-subjective communication of risk and the social experience of living in a risk environment...it is not just health and the environment that are at risk, but in addition, the fundamental sociopolitical views of liberty, equality, justice, rights and democracy are now at risk" (Ekberg 343).
Critique
Rose asserts that were are not totally away from risks that impacted premodernity, and it is irresponsible to say that earlier risks no longer exist, especially for underdeveloped counties that might not have well-developed social states. There is also still racial violence and sexism that permeate society (Ekberg 360). Rose also points out that a shift from wartime to peacetime risks obfuscates the potential damage that militaries can do such as weaponized diseases.
Ekberg brings out that Beck doesn't fully commit to whether risks effect everyone the same or effect different people disproportionally (egalitarian or hierarchical). In his seminal 1992 work Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Beck is contradictory by saying risk effects everyone but also saying wealth buffers risk and poverty attracts it (Ekberg 361). Luhman tries to explain this by saying that both rich and poor face proportionally the same risks, but the specific risks may be different such as "the wealthy have more to lose, the poor starve more often" (qtd. Ekberg 361). Ekberg questions if the emphasis of technology over natural risks is exaggerated because natural disasters cause more loss of life than technological ones. This over-emphasis on technological and (socially constructed) risks may present a false sense of safety and lessen emergency management planning for real, natural risks (Ekberg 362). Also, according to Ekberg, risks in the risk society are depicted as bad by Beck, and sometimes the benefits are overlooked. Risks researchers are concerned with making tech safer, but Beck insinuates risk is about anxiety, fear, and resistance (Ekberg 362). He even defines risk as being related to "danger, disaster, and crisis and at times moves towards the extreme of catastrophe, holocaust, or apocalypse. Risk is associated with the potential for loss, injury, harm, fatality, or destruction" (Ekberg 362). Risk has benefits, and the field of risk and risk researchers are not out always out to "cultivate public anxiety, fear and resistance" (Ekberg 362). This type of view would create "a Luddite attitude of dystopian pessimism rather than vigilant optimism" (Ekberg 362). Risks are sometimes valued in society, and Adams points out that media values risk takers like sports players (Adams 16). Adams also thinks that society is overwrought with legislation to minimize potential threats. Luhmann has thus argued that this legislation overuse may cause people to have a false feeling of security, reliance on technology, and resist responsibility for risk-scenarios (Ekberg 363). Ultimately Ekberg questions use of the term risk, and asks whether risk is the right word. Additionally, if it is, then how is one defining a risk? If the world is a world of risk, is anything a risk if everything is a risk (Ekberg 363).
References:
Adams, John. Risk. London: University College London Press, 1995.
Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage, 1992.
Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K.D. (1997). The Risk Society. In R.V. Ericson & K.D. Haggerty (Eds.) Policing the risk society (pp. 81-130). U of Toronto: Toronto.
Ekberg, Merryn. "The Parameters of the Risk Society: A Review and Exploration." Current Sociology 55: 343-366. Web. 21 July 2014.
Luhmann, N. Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1993.
Rose, Hilary. ‘Risk, Trust and Scepticism in the Age of the New Genetics’, in B. Adam, U. Beck and J. van Loon (eds) The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: Sage, 2000.