Concept Of Risk Society

1. How does the idea of Risk articulated by Ulrich Beck, modify the traditional concept of1) Modernity 2) Science And what are the social consequences? Give examples from Climate change, Nuclear energy, Pollution etc.?

Answer – German Sociologist Ulrich Beck is known as one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century. He along with Anthony Giddens coined the idea of a ‘risk society’ and challenged the traditional concepts of modernity and science, which were hallmarks of the industrial class-based society. He articulated the idea of ‘risk society’ and attributed it to the modern western societies.

The traditional societies, according to Beck were characterized by ‘uncertainty’ and not ‘risk’. Most of the hazards or dangers

The idea of risk has profound social consequences. Another linkage established by Beck is globalization of these risks. Many risks like pollution, climate change and nuclear weapons have global dimensions. New communities of risk can be created across national borders which can have substantial socio-economic and political implications. Risk society is a global phenomenon therefore requires global solutions. From here comes the idea of ‘reflexive modernization’. In a risk society, society becomes more self-reflexive and self-critical and acts to change itself. Greater international cooperation like the UN, Kyoto Protocol, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties etc. are steps that the contemporary risk society is taking in order to meet the challenges posed by the newer risks.

The class society was dominated by the idea of equality and welfare whereas the risk society is dominated by the idea of safety. Fear and anxiety have come to characterize the risk society instead of ‘need’ which characterized the class society. Insecurity has replaced scarcity. The debates around nuclear energy and climate change are dominated by questions of safety and security and not need or

For example the nature and behavior of greenhouse gases can be understood to a great extent by scientific analysis.

However, it is not enough to deal with climate change. There are greater questions of ethics, morality, responsibility, politics, economics, health, environment and law among other things that have to be taken into consideration. Science can tell us what is happening; to some extent what will happen and also what we can do but it cannot tell us how we will do it or do we want to do it.

The answer to these questions lies in what we value and how we value. These are questions of ethics and morality. Some of the major underlying norms in climate change mitigation like intergenerational equity, shared but differentiated responsibility and polluter pays principle involves questions of ethics, morality and cooperation. To go a step further, we also need to question the validity of these norms and find out if they are sufficient to deal with climate change. We need science once again. For example the question of whether the polluter should pay for the pollution he/she causes can be answered based on morals and ethics. But how do we decide the extent of the damage caused by the polluter in terms of area, people and time. Moreover how does one arrive at what needs to be paid to compensate and if it is monetary , how much money is to be paid, how does one quantify