Risk society

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Risk society is a catchphrase coined by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck and the main title of one of his books from 1986, which was also very successful on the general book market.

Basic thesis

The basic thesis is: We are witnessing a break within modernity, which is breaking free from the contours of classic industrial society and is shaping a new shape, the so-called (industrial society) risk society. Similar to the way in which modernization dissolved the ossified agrarian society in the 19th century and peeled out the structural image of an industrial society, modernization today dissolves the contours of industrial society and another social shape emerges in the continuity of modernity (p. 13 f.).

In order to distinguish the second from the first, industrial modernity, Beck distinguishes above all between the “logic of wealth production” and the increasingly prevalent “logic of risk production”: “In advanced modernity , social production of wealth systematically goes hand in hand with social production Production of risks . Correspondingly, the distribution problems and conflicts of the shortage society are superimposed by the problems and conflicts that arise from the production, definition and distribution of scientifically and technically produced risks. ”There is a“ change from the logic of wealth distribution [...] to the logic of risk distribution “(P. 25; italics in the original).

To the extent that modern society addresses self-produced risks, it becomes reflexive : “It is no longer [only] about making usable nature, about releasing humans from traditional constraints, but rather [...] essentially about problems that follow from technical and economic development itself. The modernization process becomes 'reflexive', itself a topic and a problem. ”(p. 26).

Risks

Beck uses the term “risks” to mean “scientific distribution of pollutants” on the one hand, and “social risk situations ” such as unemployment (p. 31) on the other . It is characteristic that the corresponding risks are usually no longer distributed according to class boundaries, but can tend to affect everyone, just as radioactivity does not differentiate between rich and poor: "Need is hierarchical, smog is democratic" (p. 48). There is a tendency towards a more even distribution of unemployment across all classes.

Beck points out that risks are always the result of a social construction process. It is not the abstract risks themselves that are perceived as threatening, but their concrete thematization by the mass media. This leads to the fact that “reality [...] is cognitively structured and perceived according to a scheme of security and danger ” (p. 48).

Paradoxically, however, the inflation of “perceived risks” generally leads to more indifference: “Where everything turns into danger, somehow nothing is dangerous anymore” (p. 48).

Success with science and the public

In addition to making it easier for laypeople to read, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which threatened Europe in 1986, also contributed to the fact that his book achieved an unusual sales success for sociological literature and that the title quickly became a “catchphrase” . Beck on this in a foreword to the second edition in May 1986:

"The talk of [...] risk society [...] has got a bitter aftertaste. Much that was argued for in writing - the imperceptibility of the dangers, their dependence on knowledge, their supranationality [...] - reads like a flat description of the present after the Chernobyl catastrophe. Oh, had it remained the evocation of a future that must be prevented! "

The sociologist Armin Nassehi therefore also certifies Beck that he “clearly hit the nerve of the times”. Beck succeeded "with a tremendous [...] diagnostic sensitivity" in " naming the uncertainty of the modern project " (p. 253 f.).

Nassehi attributes this first general uncertainty of modernity (which thereby becomes a reflexive modernity) to a “common reference problem”: “The uncertainty about the consequences of current action for immediate or far-reaching futures” (p. 252). The result is the “paradoxical situation that action has to be taken, although in the end there is no appropriate basis” (p. 254).

criticism

The relative decrease in the importance of social stratification, which Beck asserts, is viewed with skepticism by many sociologists and denied, for example, in the event of a disaster .

The significance of the risks, which Beck presents as historically unique, is in some cases put into perspective in view of new research results on the ecological self-endangerment of ancient civilizations, which could also lead to the collapse of these societies. This applies in particular to Beck's limitation to risk as a decisive characteristic for describing companies.

further reading

  • Ulrich Beck (1988): Antidotes. Organized irresponsibility . Frankfurt a. M .: Suhrkamp , ISBN 3-518-11468-9 .
  • Ulrich Beck (1991): Politics in the Risk Society . Frankfurt a. M .: Suhrkamp, ISBN 3-518-38331-0 .
  • Marc Lothar Mewes: Public law and liability law in the risk society. The deficits of public law and the possibilities and limits of risk control through liability law and liability insurance , Frankfurt am Main 2006.
  • Markus Holzinger, Stefan May, Wiebke Pohler (2010): World risk society as a state of emergency , Weilerswist: Velbrück . ISBN 393880887X
  • Ingo Mörth / Doris Baum (eds.) (2000): Society and lifestyle on the threshold of the new millennium. Present and future of the adventure, risk, information and world society 
  • Herfried Münkler , Matthias Bohlender, Sabine Meurer: Security and Risk. On dealing with danger in the 21st century. transcript Verlag, Bielefeld 2010.
  • Cornelius Prittwitz: Criminal Law and Risk. Studies on the crisis of criminal law and criminal policy in the risk society , Frankfurt am Main 1993, ISBN 978-3-465-02587-0 .
  • Andreas Metzner: The pitfalls of the objects - About the risks of society and their reality , Frankfurt, New York (Campus) 2002, ISBN 978-3-593-37026-2 .
  • Gabriele Metzler: Democratization of Risk? Ulrich Becks “Risk Society” , in: Zeithistorische Forschungen / Studies in Contemporary History 7 (2010), pp. 323–327.

Footnotes

  1. ↑ a b c d e f Ulrich Beck: Risk Society. On the way to a different modern age . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt a. M. 1986. ISBN 3-518-13326-8 .
  2. ↑ cf. also Joachim Möller, Achim Schmillen: High concentration on a few - increasing risk for everyone. iab short report 24/2008 (PDF; 759 kB)
  3. ↑ Christoph Lau: Risk Discourses. Social disputes and the definition of risks . In: social world . Vol. 40, supra, 1986, pp. 417-436.
  4. ↑ a b c Armin Nassehi: Risk Society. In: Georg Kneer , Armin Nassehi , Markus Schroer (eds.): Sociological concepts of society. Concepts of modern time diagnostics. W. Fink, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-8252-1961-5 .
  5. ^ Risk Society. In: Key Contemporary Concepts. London: Sage UK, 2003. Credo Reference. Retrieved May 18, 2011.
  6. ↑ Ingo Mörth / Doris Baum (eds.); Society and lifestyle on the threshold of the new millennium. Present and future of the adventure, risk, information and world society , presentations and work results from the seminar "Sociological Theory" WS 1999/2000, Linz 2000: University of Linz, Institute of Sociology: Chapter 2.3 The "Risk Society" and its characteristics and Chapter 2.4 The future of the risk society