Problems in Risk Society

With the increase of the frequency and scope of human activities, the impact of their decisions and actions on nature and human society itself has been greatly enhanced, so that the risk structure has gradually evolved from natural risk to artificial uncertainty. The second is the risk of "institutionalization" and "institutionalization". Human beings have the nature of adventure, but they also have the instinct to seek security. The establishment of a series of systems since modern times has provided an environment and normative framework for the realization of these two contradictory orientations. Many systems related to the market (usually the stock market) provide incentives for adventure, while various systems established by modern countries provide protection for human security. However, both risk-oriented and safety-oriented systems bring another kind of risk, that is, the risk of operation failure, thus transforming the "institutionalization" of risk into "institutionalization" risk.

The social and economic changes since modern times have shaped the basic landscape of modern risks: the scope and depth of human intervention in social life and nature have expanded, decision-making and behavior have become the main source of risks, and man-made risks have surpassed natural risks to become the dominant content of risk structure; With the help of modern governance mechanism and various governance means, human beings' ability to cope with risks has been improved, but at the same time they are faced with new risks brought by governance, namely institutionalized risks (including market risks) and technical risks. Both of them have become the main types of modern risk structure, which have potential global influence and global threat if conditions permit; There are unlikely but serious risks, such as nuclear leakage. This kind of risk has induced the formation of global risk awareness, and human beings have an overall understanding of coping with risks.

Other understandings

What exactly is a risk society? Different scholars have different definitions. We can sum up three ways of understanding:

realism

The first is a realist, represented by the old "new risk" theory, who thinks that the emergence of risk society is due to the emergence of new and more influential risks, such as totalitarian growth, racial discrimination, polarization between the rich and the poor, lack of nationality, and some local or sudden events can lead to or trigger potential social disasters, such as nuclear crisis and financial crisis.

Risk society

Cultural significance

The second understanding is that in the cultural sense, the emergence of risk society reflects the deepening of human understanding of risk. Like van? Pritt Prittwitz's "disaster paradox" theory and Scott Lash's "risk culture" theory. Pritt Weitz believes that we have a new understanding of the side effects of technological development, that is, the disasters it brings. In other words, in a risky society, we realize that the original means to solve problems have caused new problems. Rush put forward his own point of view from criticizing Baker's "risk society" theory. He believes that the concept of risk society cannot accurately describe the situation we are facing at present, because risks are not arranged in an orderly manner and have a clear structure and direction. More importantly, risk, as a result of psychological cognition, has different interpretations in different cultural backgrounds, and different groups have their own ideal prospects for dealing with risks, so risk is more of a cultural phenomenon than a social order. He believes that Baker and Giddens still belong to institutionalism, and they define risk in the risk society supported by institutional structure. This risk society is standardized and orderly, but it also presents a vertical structure with a certain hierarchical order, and its foundation is selfish individualism. Contrary to the risk society, the risk culture is chaotic, showing a horizontal and unorganized state, which is based on paying attention to social affairs. The concept of risk society assumes that there is a hot and difficult point of public concern in a society, which is usually called social focus. It assumes that there is a definite, institutionalized and standardized governance scope, and every individual member of society needs a hierarchical order for his own practical interests. On the contrary, the risk culture does not assume a certain order, but an uncertain disorderly state, which needs natural adjustment. Risk culture depends on the non-institutional and anti-institutional social state, and its spread depends not on procedural rules and norms, but on its substantive value. In the era of risk culture, the governance of social members depends not on laws and regulations, but on some symbolic concepts and beliefs, because social members in risk culture would rather have chaos and disorder in the sense of equality than strict hierarchy and order. The uncertain quasi-social members in the risk culture may be a fragmented collection, and they don't care much about their actual interests. They just have illusions and expectations for a better life.

set up；establish

The third understanding is institutionalism, represented by Baker, Giddens and others, who are advocates and builders of the theory of "risk society". Comparatively speaking, their analysis of risk is more comprehensive and profound, although there is still a defect that one institutional structure criticized by Rush replaces another institutional structure to deal with the risk of losing structural significance in contemporary times. Baker claimed that he was neither a realist nor a constructivist, but an institutionalist. The most important thing in the system is responsibility. For him, responsibility is contained in the "insurance principle" of simple modernity. In the reflective modernity, due to the unpredictability of space, time and society, the insurance principle can no longer be established. 1986, Baker published the book Risk Society in Germany, but the response was dull. The book was not marked until 1992? After Mark Ritter was translated into English, "risk society" was accepted by more western scholars and the public as a concept and theory. Giddens' rich and comprehensive works undoubtedly contribute to the popularization of this theory. Their discourses on risk society are highly complementary. Baker emphasizes technical risk (especially in his early works), while Giddens focuses on institutional risk; Baker's theory has obvious ecological color, while Giddens's discourse focuses on the narrative of social and political theory. Although they all think that there are fundamental differences in risk structure and cognition between traditional society and modern society, they do not simply stay in this "dichotomy", but make a more detailed distinction between modernity. In their view, early modernity (or simple modernity) solves the risks of traditional society, but it also creates new risks, and the accumulation of these risks constitutes the characteristics of late modernity (or advanced modernity, reflective modernity, radical modernity, etc.). Because risk is the characteristic of an era and a society, it can be said that a "risk society" has emerged.

Baker believes that the concept of risk society refers to a stage of modernity. At this stage, the threat on the road of industrialized society began to dominate. The concept of risk society has brought epoch-making systematic changes in three reference fields. First, the relationship between modern industrial resources and social and natural cultural resources. These resources gradually disappear after modernization is completely established; Secondly, the relationship between society and its own threats and problems is beyond the scope of social understanding of security. Once people realize the existence of these threats and problems, it is possible to shake the fundamental assumption of the old social order. Third, the source of collective or specific group meaning in industrial social culture (such as class consciousness or progressive belief) is drying up and losing its charm.