LIVING IN THE WORLD RISK SOCIETY

- Ulrich Beck

The narrative of risk is a narrative of irony. Beck asserts that the highly developed institutions
of modern society, such as science, state, business and military, attempt to anticipate what
cannot be anticipated. Beck believes that the scientific-technical society aims to be perfect in
terms of controlling and anticipating the unknown risk and claiming security, but
imperfection comes in through the idea risk.
The irony of risk here is that, rationality, or the experiences of the past, encourages
anticipation of the wrong kind of risk. The one people believe can be calculated and
controlled, whereas the disaster arises from what people do not know and cannot calculate.
Beck investigates this irony of risk. He believes risk is ambivalence. Being at risk is the way
of being and ruling in the world of modernity. He believes modern society is full of risk and
being at global risk is the human condition at the beginning of the 21st century. He even
questions, if and do we learn something from the world risk society.
Beck believes Nietzsche’s ‘age of comparison’ reflected a slight vision or premonition about
the experience of global risk society. Age of comparison talks about how society and cultures
of various times should be compared, earlier kinds to modern to future. Society and culture
of earlier kinds were rooted to their locality/ ‘nationality’/geographical contours. In societies
and cultures of future it could be possible for human beings to outgrow/transcend both the
nation state and international order, i.e a development of a ‘global’ society where life is
becoming cosmopolitan.
To the extent that risk is experienced as omnipresent, there are only 3 possible reactions,
denial, apathy and transformation. The first is largely inscribed in modern culture, the second
resembles post-modern nihilism, and the third is the cosmopolitan moment of world risk
society which Beck focuses on. The existential shock of danger, in which lies the
fundamental ambivalence of global risks, opens unintentionally the (mis)fortune of a possible
beginning. The expectation of the unexpected(risk) requires that the self-evident is no longer
taken as self-evident. The shock of danger is a call for a new beginning, where there is a new
beginning, action is possible. Human beings enter into relations across borders. Risk of
danger opens avenues for action.
Beck’s aim is to focus on a new critical theory to look at the past and the future of modernity.
He uses the words, irony and ambivalence, as a means of keeping the 2 contradictory views
in balance together to reflect modern society’s capacity of being self destructive and also its

This study source was downloaded by 100000839422775 from CourseHero.com on 09-25-2022 22:21:23 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/117500537/Risk-societydocx/
 ability to begin anew which resonates with the idea of Reflexive modernization. He
demonstrates the same in 3 steps,:
Old dangers-new risks: what is new about world risk society
Ruse of history: to what extent are global risks a global force in present
Consequences: to understand the manufactured uncertainty brought on by ourselves because
of modernity.

OLD DANGERS—NEW RISKS: WHAT IS NEW ABOUT WORLD RISK SOCIETY?

Modern society has become a risk society in the sense that it is increasingly occupied with
debating, preventing and managing risks that it itself has produced. Modern societies are
distinguished precisely by how to a large extent they have succeeded to bring under control
uncertainties (accidents, violence). However destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina
brings forward that in face of natural forces, the claim to control of modern societies
remains limited.
There is a key distinction between risk and catastrophe. Risk does not mean catastrophe it is
rather the anticipation of catastrophe. Risks are not real, they are becoming real. If
destruction and disaster are anticipated, then that produces a compulsion to act. This
compulsion to act in the anticipation of risk conceals the irony of the promise of security
made by scientists, companies and governments, which in wondrous fashion contributes to
an increase in risks.
Beck describes risk society as an inescapable condition of advanced industrialization and
criticized the ‘mathematicised morality’ of expert thinking and public discourse on ‘risk
profiling’. Beck asserts that risk cannot be reduced to a product of probability of occurrence
multiplied with the intensity and scope of potential harm. Rather it’s a socially constructed
phenomenon in which some people have a greater capacity to define risks than others. Risks
that work up the developed countries in the West are luxury risks, like their worlds appear a
lot safer than, say, war torn regions of Afghanistan and Middle East. Risk exposure is
replacing class as the principal inequality of modern society. In risk society, relations of
definition are to be conceived analogous to Marx’s relations of production. The inequalities
of definition enable powerful actors to maximize risks for ‘others’ and minimize risks for
‘themselves’. Risk is essentially a power game, which is especially true for world risk society
where Western governments or powerful economic actors define risk for others.
The theory of world risk society maintains that modern societies’ foundations are shaken by
the global anticipation of global catastrophes and modern societies are shaped by new kinds
of risks.
Perceptions of global risk are characterized by 3 features:
 De-localization: global risk’s causes and consequences of are not limited to one
geographical location or space, it is in principle omnipresent. De-localization takes
place at 3 levels:

This study source was downloaded by 100000839422775 from CourseHero.com on 09-25-2022 22:21:23 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/117500537/Risk-societydocx/
 1. Spatial: the new risks do not respect nation/state/any other border. Territorially not
limited.
2. Temporal: the new risks have a long latency period (e.g. nuclear waste), their effect
over time cannot be reliably determined and limited.
3. Social: with the increasing complexity, the effects, causes and consequences is no
longer possible with any degree of reliability.
 Incalculableness: its consequences are in principle incalculable. This incalculability of
risk is closely connected to the importance of not-knowing to risk calculation
 Non compensability: The logic of compensation is taken over by the principle of
precaution through prevention. For example, if the climate has changed irreversibly, if
progress in human genetics make irreversible interventions, such changes aren’t
compensable. Therefore such a catastrophe whose potential of destruction threats
everyone, then in such a scenario, risks calculated on experience and rationality
collapses. The logic of compensability gets replaced by ‘precaution through
prevention’. The irony is if risks are held to be non compensable, then the problem of
incalculability of the risk and not-knowing the risk is radicalized. And now if risk
calculation based experience and rationality collapses (in non compensable risk), to
‘prevent’ the risk, out of precaution, people imagine the worst possible. We also try to
anticipate and prevents risks whose existence has not been proven. The boundary b/w
rationality and hysteria becomes blurred.

The crucial point is that for the discovery of the unknown unknowns, the knowledge control
and security claim of state and society has to be renewed, deepened and expanded. But the
irony lies in the institutionalized security claim to have to control something without knowing
if it even exists.
To answer why does science and other disciplines concern themselves with what it doesn’t
even know, it is because in the face of manufactured uncertainties, society more than ever
relies and insists on security and control. Ironically, it is the unknown unknowns which
provoke far-reaching conflicts over defining and constructing political rules with the aim of
preventing the worst.

CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL RISK SOCIETY THESIS

1) From trustee to suspect: Global risks are the expression of a new form of ‘global
interdependence’, which cannot be adequately addressed by way of ‘national’ politics
or ‘international’ forms of co-operation. With all the past and present experiences of
human beings with uncertainties without any ready solution to the resulting problems,
key institutions of modernity such as science, business, politics which are supposed to
guarantee security and rationality find that their apparatus no longer holds good. The
perception towards them changes from trustee to suspect. They’re no longer just
instruments of risk management but a source of risk. Their actions lead to risk.
2) Tragic individualization: as a consequence, everyday life in world risk society is
characterized by a new variant of individualization. Individualization is a
default outcome of a failure of expert systems to manage risks. Individual is
forced to

This study source was downloaded by 100000839422775 from CourseHero.com on 09-25-2022 22:21:23 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/117500537/Risk-societydocx/
 3) mistrust the promises of rationality and security of the key institutions (politics,
business, science)
4) World risk society produces new lines of conflict. As a matter of not knowing the
risk, global risks evade calculation by scientific methods. It the cultural perception
which assumes a key significance. Eg, for Europe, risk belief issues like climate
change is much important than the threat of terrorism. Americans believe that the
Europeans are suffering from an environmental hysteria, while Europeans believe
Americans are struck by terrorism hysteria. Basis of war in modern society is clash of
civilizations’ culture. Like the conflict of interest between capital and labour in first
modernity, the clash of risk cultures is the fundamental conflict of second modernity:
a) it is a matter of life, potentially of everyone; b) the decisions central to the
physical and moral survival of mankind have to be made within a horizon of disputed
not- knowing; c) in many areas the experimental logic of trial and error breaks down.
The theory of world risk society addresses the increasing realization of the irrepressible
omnipresence of radical uncertainty (meaning an uncertainty, whose analysis by key
institutions can’t be arrived at) in the modern world. Science, state, military are becoming a
part of the problem they are supposed to solve. We are not living in post modern but more
modern world, reflexive modernization.
Now, the idea of incalculable risk gives the idea of cosmopolitanism. (cosmopolitanism: the
idea of one united world with shared morality). Cosmopolitanism is juxtaposed to the idea of
nation state, and Beck strengthens this in terms of 6 components, which make up the
‘cosmopolitan moment’ of world risk society.
1) involuntary enlightenment: Hurricane Katrina, involuntarily and unexpectedly developed
an enlightenment function which broke all resistance. America and the world were
confronted by the repressed ‘other’ America, the largely racialized face of poverty. The
images of the poor were omnipresent during the coverage of Katrina. Such disasters highlight
the first law of world risk society: catastrophic risk follows the poor. Global risk has 2 sides:
the probability of the risk and the social vulnerability through the catastrophe. West is
egoistically selective in the risk it wants to highlight.
2) enforced communication across all borders and differences: the isolation which
distinguishes modern society is broken down due to the need to of communicative knowledge
to find a solution. Risk cut through the self-absorption of cultures, languages, religions,
systems and is the unintended, compulsory medium of communication in a world of
irreconcilable differences.
3) political catharsis (release of pent-up emotions): Risk help in overcoming conflicts with
across each other, across borders and displays the power to produce political catharsis.
Generations of enmity is overcame in the face of risk.
4) enforced cosmopolitanism: means global risks activate and connect actors across
borders, who otherwise do not want to have anything to do with one another. There are no
isolated risks in a global risk society, the same risk might pose itself differently within
various cultures, regions, systems everywhere. It is important to distinguish between the
philosophical and normative ideas of cosmopolitanism which arise from the idea of
philosophy of thinking how fruitful and nice it would be to be cosmopolitan and ‘impure’

This study source was downloaded by 100000839422775 from CourseHero.com on 09-25-2022 22:21:23 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/117500537/Risk-societydocx/
 actual cosmopolitanism,in its pure form (cosmo) cannot be applied to everybody because one
who has money can be cosmopolitan. In a world risk society, however, in the face of risk
we’re stimulated to break boundaries, transcend to make new beginnings.
5) Global risk as a wake up call in the face of the failure of government in the globalized
world: with the consequences of catastrophes like, Chernobyl, hurricane Katrina, awoke
people to question the government and its appropriate role. World risk society also highlight
the contradictory role of the govt., eg, govt. proclaims the right to everything and the right
being protected for citizens, but at the same time it abrogates all that in name of military
security as and when required.
6) possibility of an alternative government: with the extent of threat and shock of world risk
society, the horizon open to the idea of an alternative form of government, a cosmopolitan
state. The premises of the same would be interdependency, no nation cam cope with its
problems alone and for a realistic political alternative, globalization must not be decoded
only in economic terms but also in terms of strategic game of world power.

Global risk society creates alliance between govt. and civil society to come up with
cosmopolitan state. The neo-liberal state instrumentalizes the state in order to optimize and
legitimize the interests of capital around the world. Conversely, cosmo state in civil society
form aims at imagining and realizing post national order. The neo-liberal agenda surrounds
itself with self-legitimization and self-regulation. Cosmo state’s civil society agenda is
surrounded with human rights, global justice and struggles for the new narrative of radical-
democratic globalization. (lol basically, post national order in order to transcend cross
national identities and become global entities.)
The more cosmo the political structures and activities will be, more will be the promotion of
the national interests and greater individual power in a global age.
However there is also false cosmopolitanism, where behind the face of cosmopolitanism,
nation states are doing injustice by forwarding their own imperial agenda thereby abusing the
cosmo state idea.
Sociology needs to transcend nationalism(methodological; frame of reference) in order to
study global risk society. Mary Douglas’s and Michel Foucault’s theoretical approaches open
up risk as a battle for the redefinition and reproduction of state and scientific power. These
approaches haven’t been able to transcend nation state. ‘Nation’- state attempts to deal with
‘global’ risks in ‘isolation’. There needs to be emergence of a cosmopolitan sociology where
it talks about cosmo global risk and reflexive modernization, capable of adequately
conceptualizing risks and NOT remain caught up in the concepts of nation state modernity.

This study source was downloaded by 100000839422775 from CourseHero.com on 09-25-2022 22:21:23 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/117500537/Risk-societydocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)