Critically examine Ulrich Becks notion of the Risk Society.

The term risk carries other attached terms like aversion, prevention and control, when an event
has risks involved, it instantly allows the mind to carry cost-benefit analysis or calculations to
ward it off. Interestingly risks can just be predicted, estimated and they belong to the future;
which simply means that risks loom invisibly in the world and as Ulrich states, calculating the
incalculable, colonizing the future. The increasing emergence of risks is caused by increasing
modernity, therefore risks today, unlike the past are not natural catastrophes, demons or gods, but
they are the difference of modern quantifiable risks and un-quantifiable insecurities created for
tomorrow.
In order to decrease the prevalence of risks, its damages should be communicated and
communication according to the writer requires language, the question arises whether there is an
existence of a definitive language to communicate the risks in the future. Ulrich gives the
example of risks that will be impending on the nation 10,000 years ahead of now, would they be
able to understand English or symbols that are crafted today? But as a matter of fact, two
thousand years ago English did not even exist in the similar state as it is today, how can the
society of today warn the risk-exposed society of tomorrow? In such a scenario, uncontrollable
risks are born which bear no language but are dauntingly present in the society, and this
phenomenon aptly describes a World Risk Society.
Uncontrollable risks are not confined to boundaries of any nation or state, they cannot be traced
back straight to its originators, be it a place or a person. When such risks defy all the boundaries
or confinement then there stays no question of compensation for the damages caused by
uncontrollable risks, meaning there is no certain insurance or prevention for risks that cannot be
calculated (Adam, 2002; Beck, 1992, 1999; Featherstone, 2000; Giddens, 1994; Latour, 2002;
van Loon, 2000). Ulrich also examines the worlds interdependence due to factors like economy,
power and ecology. He notes that risks have the potential to affect everyone due to inter-linkages
caused by the above mentioned factors but have a disproportionate distribution of the effects
because different historical backgrounds, cultural and political patterns. For Beck, modernity is
the factor causing the risks which were not faced before, and it is the failure of modern social
institutions who have not constructed proper systems for mitigation or prevention.
Becks theory has captivated many sociologists concerned with understanding the complex
temporal and spatial conclusions of invisible hazards and dangers including the Ozone hole
effects. Spatial refers to being boundary-less and temporal is the duration or the long latency of
dangers lying ahead. The theory suggests the inevitability of uncontrollable risks, I reiterate, and
that such risks remain incalculable and unquantifiable. However a classical counter-argument is
presented by Bryan S. Turner in From Regulation to Risk,(1994: 1801). He clears out his
stance by saying that unquantifiable risks are not the product of modernity; they possessed
spatial, temporal and social dimensions three centuries back as well, the devastating plagues of
earlier centuries were certainly global, democratic and general. Peasant and aristocrats died

equally horrible deaths. Moreover the question is of suitability of the theory or World Risk
Society and its existence in the contemporary culture. Today risk is measured and calculated
from the yardstick of perception, interpretation and the multiple approaches are undertaken to
estimate risks. In such stances, Becks theory can be at best a simple risk aversion tool for risks
that are seen as risks due to social structuring of perception. Beck has the tendency to ignore the
psychodynamic and affective dimensions of subjectivity and intersubjective relations. (Elliot,
1996; Hollway and Jefferson,1997). This repeats the fact that subjectivity and intersubjectivity is
constructed through psychological, cultural, hermeneutical and aesthetical factors which again
are help in constructing the perceived risks present in any society. Mary Douglas (1986, 1992)
also researched risks as an anthropologist and concluded that risks occur due to human ignorance
of the many potential threats of daily life and instead concentrate only on selected aspects. And
surprisingly, Beck fails to discuss any aspect of anthropology of risks, his theory seems
adamantly misconstrued. He tends to make generalizations about human agents, modern
institutions and culture. Furthermore, Beck states his terms on reflexivity (self-dissolution) and
reflection (knowledge).(1994b: 176-7)
Modernization undercuts modernization, unintended and unseen, and therefore also reflectionfreeReflexivity of the modernity can lead to reflection on the self-dissolution and selfendangerment of the industrial society, but it need not to so.
This approach explains that Beck takes societys progress as reflexive driven by blind social
processes. (Lash et al., 1996) Also that, much of the critique rises when the popular theory fails
to wedge a clear distinction between reflexivity and reflection, one can consider todays scenario
and conclude that the societies driven by blind social process and incompatible with concepts of
referentiality, reflexivity or reflection.
Now coming to a more interesting point, Beck states, Risks display an equalizing effect. Or
simply put, risks in the risk society are globally prevalent and everyone is affected by it. But
Beck fails to take the sociological stance being a sociologist himself; the notion of power and
denomination, being information rich and poor, the political participation. Instead he states that
the risk society consists of classless capitalism and the differences between labours and capitalist
diminish. As a matter of fact, we notice that the reach of communication technologies, transfer of
knowledge, wealth, socio-cultural dimensions influence how individuals conceive the project of
reflexive modernity. Then how can Beck point out towards homogeneity? Such individualism
fuels great economic exclusions, rifts and class divisions and the theory stand hollow on this
part. Income inequalities have escalated (Braun, 1991; Lemert, 1997), developments in society is
varied, technology transfer proliferation is less in some nations and such external factors play a
vital role in structuring of societys perception, perception on the other hand changes the ways
risks are conceived, taking us squarely back to the start, how will risks affect globally when the
world is not even structured similarly?

By probing deeper, one can suggest that Beck gives an extremely simple and basic sketch of
modernity, highlight and propagandizing the homogeneity of risks, suggesting that
uncontrollable risks are universal. His main argument revolves on the side-effects of risks but no
emphasis is laid on the foundations of modernity. Thus the theory remains side-angled and
welcomes various critiques from modern science, postmodernism or anthropology. At subjective
individual and cultural levels, Beck makes numerous unjustified assertions and reductions
without giving any thought towards social construction of risks which includes the cognitive
abilities, techno-scientific progress and emotional factors which greatly influence and shape riskassessments in modern societies.