20 Modernity, Risk and Reflexivity: Ulrich Beck

Amiya Kumar Das

Risk Society and Reflexive Modernization: Ulrich Beck

1. Introduction

Sociology is largely seen as an outcome of modernism emerged out of modernist philosophy and thinking. It took a proper disciplinary shape in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Forerunners of sociology discipline such as Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were engaged in analysing the social changes that occurred in the modern period. „As a modernist project, it was committed to the idea that it was possible to produce reliable knowledge about society that human beings could use to shape their futures for the better‟ (Bilton et al 2002).

In common understanding, „modern‟ means contemporary or newest. For sociologists, it is the advent of enlightenment philosophy or enlightenment movement clubbed with industrial revolution and scientific progress where reason and rationality became the buzzword. Modernist thinkers emphasised that this modernism emerged in Western Europe and others followed it, though this view is contested by many social thinkers. Along with the modernist idea, science and technology developed in an unpredictable way. People started questioning the religious institutions. Most people started governing themselves in tune with the modernist ideology where they thought they have control over their own life.

Along with the advent of modernization process, society changed drastically mostly in the western part of the world. It had both advantages and disadvantages. The industrialization brought about development along with other forms of hazards and risks. Often in common parlance risk is defined as potential exposure to a given danger or hazard in terms of health and wealth. It is also sometimes regarded as anticipating uncertainty and it is mostly subjective in nature. In present times risk has taken a prominent place in the discourse of welfare for human beings. Mostly it is used in the context of health and wealth.

In earlier days the risk was attributed to fate, luck, nature‟s fury and to some other types of supernatural powers. But because of the Enlightenment and modernity, reason and logic became important tool for analyzing social processes. They tried to find out causal relationship between all types of phenomena. Risk became a matter of scientific prediction rather than explanation on the basis of supernatural powers. In recent times risk can be anticipated from not only hazardous industries, but also from a kind of lifestyle where we use too much of electronic devices from cooking instruments to use of mobile phones. Risk is also attached to the wellness and illness behaviour. After the prominence of AIDS and other types of fatal diseases, health is also exposed to risks.

2. The ‘Risk Society’ 

The concept of Risk Society was mainly developed and conceptualised by German sociologist Ulrich Beck and later expanded by Anthony Giddens and Niklas Luhmann. Though Giddens‟ ideas on risk society have similarity with Beck‟s, Luhmann differs from Beck‟s approach in his ideas. In common understanding it denotes to the modern society‟s engagement and response to the element of risk. Giddens points out that mostly the risk is used in the negative connotation. „The word refers to a world which we are both exploring and seeking to normalise and control‟. Essentially, “risk” always has a negative connotation, since it refers to the chance of avoiding an unwanted outcome‟ (Giddens 1999: 3).

Giddens traces back to the origins of risk society to two fundamental transformations which are affecting the lives of the people. Each is connected to the increasing influence of science and technology. The first transformation he calls it as the end of nature; and the second one is the end of tradition (Giddens 1999). Giddens talks about the initial phase of human civilization where people were threatened by forms of natural calamities like earthquakes, floods, plagues, droughts and so on. Now, since last few decades, humans worry about what they have done to nature. This transition makes one major point of entry in risk society.

Giddens emphasises on the distinctions should be made between „risk‟ and „hazard‟. He suggests we must differentiate risk from hazard or danger. He stresses that though life in the middle ages was hazardous, there was no notion of risk. In the medieval period people were more dependent on god or supernatural power to save themselves from the fury of nature. Giddens emphasizes that the idea of risk is associated with the aspiration to control the future. When the whole society is preoccupied with future and its safety, it generates the notion of risk. According to Giddens, the idea of risk was first used by western explorers when they ventured into exploring geographical space through water ways. The word risk refers to both exploration and seeking to normalize and control the future. Giddens argues that essentially, „risk‟ always has a negative connotation as it refers to the chance of avoiding an unwanted outcome. But it has positive aspects as well, in terms of the taking of bold initiatives in the face of a problematic future (Giddens 1999).

Ulrich Beck is considered as the pioneer of the idea on risk society and has substantial contribution to the idea of modernization and risk society. He views modernization and risk society to be closely related. He understands modernization as a process where changes took place due to rationalization and technological inventions. In the footnote he writes:

Modernization means surges of technological rationalization and changes in work and organization, but beyond that it includes much more: the change in societal characteristics and normal biographies, changes of lifestyle and forms of love, change in the structures of power and influence, in the forms of political repression and participation, in views of reality and in norms of knowledge. In social science’s understanding of modernity, the plough, the steam locomotive and the microchip are visible indicators of a much deeper process, which comprises and reshapes the entire social structure (Beck 1992: 50, footnote no.1).

Confronting with the dangers of modernization, Beck suggested the concept of reflexive modernization. This concept will be discussed in the coming section. Relating the process of modernization and risk society, he defines risk society as „a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself. Risks, as opposed to older dangers, are consequences which relate to the threatening force of modernization and to its globalization of doubt. They are politically reflexive‟ (Beck 1992: 21).

Both Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens relate risk society to the advent of modernity. They develop the concept of reflexive modernization and reflexivity to understand how individual and society scrutinise itself. Both the sociologists argue that human civilization has been facing risk since early period in terms of natural disasters. But the modern society is facing risk in terms new kind of illnesses, crime, accidents which are offshoots of the modernization process.

Beck points out that capitalist expansion and consumerism practices are also responsible for creating the condition of risk. Rich people might avert risk through certain kind of precautions by buying good food and water. But it is difficult to avoid the polluted air. He says it is the knowledge and information which is more useful than wealth to avert risk. Giddens argues that though risk is associated with a certain kinds of social practices, it also can be avoided by discipline and changed economic and consumption behaviour in the society.

3. Knowledge and Risk Society 

Both Beck and Giddens have strongly pointed out the role of knowledge in the risk society. How information and knowledge can put us away from the risk. Deborah Lupton in her book „Risk ‟ categorizes risk society into the following theoretical categories. These are cognitive, socio-cultural, social constructionist theories on risk.

3.1  Cognitive Science Perspective 

Deborah Lupton holds the view that the cognitive science perspective is a kind of techno-scientific approach to risk, emerging from fields as engineering, statistics, and psychology and so on to calculate the probability of danger or hazard. She remarks that „risks, according to this model, are pre- existing in nature and in principle are able to be identified through scientific measurement and calculation and controlled using this knowledge‟ (Lupton 1999: 19). The cognitive science approach takes individuals as emotion-free actors, in a way which is similar to economic rational actors who pursue private interests more passionately. Mary Douglas has criticised this approach as very narrow and overlooking other socio cultural aspects of the human being.

3.2  Socio-Cultural Perspectives 

Cognitive science approach has been criticized for overlooking the social and cultural contexts of the risk. Lupton opines that socio-cultural perspectives on risk emphasize the very aspects that cognitive science has neglected. Socio-cultural perspectives have emerged from disciplines such as cultural anthropology, philosophy, sociology, social history, cultural geography etc. Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens‟ idea of „risk society‟ can come under this category of risk (Lupton 1999: 25). Sociologists like Beck and Giddens have adopted a macro perspective. They link the idea of risk society to the process of modernization and characterize it as an outcome of modernity.

Lupton also includes the „governmentality‟ scholars in this perspective who have taken up Foucault‟s insights on governmentality to explore risk in the context of regulation and disciplining the mass populations. Risk could be viewed differently by differently people depending on their position in respective social groups. Risk has become an important and prevalent idea in the human civilization over last two centuries. With the modern technology and rational action, it is believed that risk can be controlled and regulated by the human beings.

3.3  Social Constructionist Perspectives 

In the social constructionist perspective, risk is analyzed on the basis of the perception and response through social, cultural and political processes. Danger, hazard and risk all these concepts might change over a period of time according to the context and people‟s perception on the same. It is difficult to establish an objective or standard parameters for danger or hazard. To define the object of risk, it is often contested. In a particular context a risk is defined through a discourse. For an example, three decades earlier, drinking water could be collected from any of the sources in rural and semi urban area, but now it is a matter of great concern. People are very much conscious about the quality and nature of water borne disease. It also depends on class. A poor person can draw drinking water from the pond where as a wealthy or rich person may not even want to take a bath in the same water.

So it depends on the kinds of knowledge construction about risk discourses in a particular historical context where social, cultural and political factors influence in the construction of the risk object.

4. Risk and Reflexive Modernization 

This section discusses the core theme of this module. Giddens and Beck both consider the concept of risk society as an outcome of modernization process. Deborah Lupton observes that both these sociologists relate the concept of risk to the conditions of late modernity. Their approach of risk society focuses on processes such as individualization, reflexivity and globalization.

Ulrich Beck has written extensively on risk. One of his important and founding works on risk is „Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity‟. He has also written on reflexive modernization which was produced along with Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash. His many others works include: „Ecological Politics in the Age of Risk‟, „Ecological Enlightenment‟, „What is Globalization?‟ ,„World Risk Society‟, „Individualization‟ (with E. Beck-Gernsheim), „Power in the Global Age‟, „Cosmopolitan Vision‟, „World at Risk‟. In these works, Beck develops the idea of risk society, reflexive modernization and individualization. Taking from examples of western countries, he argues industrial nations and societies are progressing towards risk society. The individual pursuance of wealth and rationality generates more risk. He links these factors to the outcome of modernity.

Beck also links the notion of risk to people‟s knowledge and awareness. This has gone into people‟s imagination and taken a prominent place in the popular discourse. The more society is entering towards risk, the more conscious they are getting about the risk. Essentially, Beck is concerned about risk which is a result of modernization. Beck argues that risk is a kind of social construct which is presented through scientific argument and evidences. Beck has taken up two major approaches to define risk. One is „natural-scientific objectivism‟ and the other one is „cultural relativism‟ on hazard. According to him both the approaches are having certain usefulness as well as some fallacy. The scientific method helps in predicting the nature of hazard and can measure it while it can ignore context specific perception of risk. The cultural relativism approach can differ in the context of space and time.

Ulrich Beck tries to find out a new perspective by combing these two approaches. With the integration of these two approaches he finds out a new approach and terms it as „sociological perspective‟ in his book (1995) Ecological Politics in the Age of Risk. He explains that to perceive risk in terms of senses is very difficult because of the high modernised industries in the modern society as opposed to a different type of risk and hazard in the early industrial period. During that period risk and hazard could be perceived though the sensory organs which were obvious but these days it is very difficult to comprehend the risk. So he argues many risks in modern period exist in scientific knowledge rather than in everyday experience of people.

The modernization is grossly marked with the difference from the pre-modern period in terms of controlling the nature. In the pre-modern times nature was seen as a part of belief system where people believed in god and devil. The Enlightenment movement and development of a rational attitude bolstered the development of science and technology. Here in the modern period people started controlling the natural calamities which were earlier perceived as the creation of god or devil. Contemporary problems on risk could be linked to the human‟s activity and humans can be held responsible for these acts of hazards. Though science and technology has created many facilities, at the same time the process of industrialization, modernization and globalization have created many challenges and uncertainties for the human civilization. In modern times according to Beck, the risk is a result of human activities and the externalities of industrialization and nuclear proliferation. So he says hazards and risks are based on decision making process and they become more and more political issues day by day than a natural process.

5. Reflexive Modernization 

To understand and counter the risk and hazard in the modern society, the idea of „reflexive modernization‟ was developed by Beck and Giddens. Uncertainty creates more anxiety than risk. So it is useful to analyze risk with reference to uncertainty at various levels such as organizational or individual level. Of late, the modern society which is grossly an industrial society has realised that it is a risk society. It raises dilemma over the claim of supremacy of the modernist power. The recent example from the nuclear catastrophe of the Fukushima Daiichi in Japan and Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine are crucial. In this context one should engage in reflexive modernization, which according to Beck highlights that the modernization and industrial society which gives blind eye to these kind of externalities. Reflexive process forces the modern society to reflect on the risky situation and contemplate to counter it.

Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens, both the sociologists are also known in the domain of social sciences for developing the concept reflexive modernization. Beck looks at modernity from a critical perspective. Like Anthony Elliott mentions that Beck critically examines sociology of modernization. Beck considers many theorists in social sciences to be confused between industrial societies with modernization. These two concepts mostly analyzed in a binary condition such as good or bad, positive or negative etc. Beck even considers that most of the social theories have taken a position that society is changing and progressing through production and utilization of resources. In this, the social theories also equate modernity with industrial society. Beck reminds that society is not only progressing but there are risks and dangers which infiltrates to the society and modern institutions (Elliott 2002).

Ulrich Beck understands that the present society is positioned between industrial society and advanced modernity. In „Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order‟ jointly written with Anthony Giddens and Schott Lash, Beck discusses the idea of reflexive modernization. For him „reflexive‟ means self-confrontation. In the process of modernization of society and industrialization, risk comes unintentionally and becomes the part of the modernization project. Beck writes „risk society is not an option which could be chosen or rejected in the course of political debate. It arises through the automatic operation of autonomous modernization processes which are blind and deaf to consequences and dangers‟ (Beck quoted in Elliot 2002: 297).

Beck suggests that reflexive modernization initiates modern people into „self-confrontation‟ with the consequences of risk that cannot be easily fought, controlled and overcome. The limitation of the modernization process in addressing or informing about the danger and risk creates the condition for human beings to bring in to a condition of self-confrontation which he terms as reflexive modernization. He also warns us about the irresponsible side of risk society that emerged out of modernization process.

Deborah Lupton in her analysis of Beck‟s work on risk and reflexivity writes that the concept of risk is linked to reflexivity because anxieties about risks serve to pose questions about current practices. Lupton mentions that Becks outline three features of reflexive approach. In risk society, society becomes reflexive in three ways, stemming from the newly global nature of risk.

a. First, society becomes an issue and a problem for itself at the global level.

b. Second,  the  awareness  of  the  global  nature  of  risk  triggers  new  impulses  towards  the development of co-operative international institutions.

c. Third, the boundaries of the political come to be removed, leading to world-wide alliances.

By these processes, risk society becomes „world risk society‟, in which the public sphere of political debate and action is globalized (Lupton 1999: 68).

6. Individualization 

Ulrich Beck develops the concept of individualisation along with the concepts of risk society and reflexive modernization. It is in a way similar to Zygmunt Bauman‟s idea of liquid modernity. Here Beck does not refer to alienation. Here individuals are desired to produce their own biography and life story unlike in traditional sense where people had fixed roles. Individualization could be seen as an outcome of modernization process and Beck looks at it as a part of the globalizing force. Beck defines individualization as „the disintegration of the certainties of industrial society as well as the compulsion to find and invent new certainties for oneself and others without them‟ (Beck 1994: 14).

In the contemporary times, the process of individualization has taken a strong position as people are more concerned about the own self and try to shape it according to their wish. As opposed to the traditional society where people used to give importance to the social structure, now they are keen to follow their own life and create their own biography which is dependent on their own interests. Beck emphasizes that individualization can be observed ubiquitously. Beck compares the individualization approach to the reflexive biography model. The individualization is a part of everyday social processes and its affect various categories of people in a different manner. As mentioned in the previous section of this module, in earlier societies life events were attributed to somebody‟s luck and fate or play of something beyond the individual‟s control, where as in present context individuals are responsible for creating their own life story or biography with self-introspection what Beck calls as reflexive biography. In this condition, society is no more controlling the individual totally rather it is a part of individual‟s creation of the self.

The process of individualization has also affected other institutions in the society such as marriage, religion, education, occupation and so on. In the high modern or late modern era people have good number of options where they can go for various non-traditional kinds of jobs and occupations. In the domain of education, there are wide range of disciplines and practices. Similarly in the field of religion people are no more part of the rigid religious practices, but they can switch over to various other forms of faiths and religions.

7. Criticism to Beck’s Work 

Deborah Lupton points out that Beck demonstrates anger at the hazardous nature of life in late modernity. Beck envisages that the whole human civilization may be destroyed by danger and hazard created by the risk society which is an outcome of high modernization. Lupton observes weak version of the social constructionism in Becks writing where he writes about the social and cultural processes by which understandings and perceptions of risk are mediated. Critics have alleged that „reflexive modernization‟ proposition is based on generalizations that lack grounding in everyday life and real experiences of people. They also allege that Beck and Giddens conceptualization of modernity and self-reflexivity or reflexive modernization as simplistic. They have not considered the complexity of various kinds of forces and resistance with the modernization process itself. Both the sociologists are alleged that they have ignored the communal or collective understanding and resistance to the shared meaning on risk while evaluating individualization.

8. Conclusion 

Beck (2006) writes that modern society has become a risk society in the sense that it is increasingly occupied with debating, preventing and managing risks that it has produced. He raises questions as to whether modern societies are able to control the contingencies and uncertainties, for example with respect to accidents, violence and sickness. Like Tsunami catastrophe, the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina, Beck makes a key distinction between risk and catastrophe. According to him risk does not mean catastrophe. Risk means the anticipation of catastrophe. He further defines that risk „is not reducible to the product of probability of occurrence multiplied with the intensity and scope of potential harm‟. Rather, it is a socially constructed phenomenon, in which some people have a greater capacity to define risks than others.

Beck outlines that risks are not limited to the local phenomena rather it is characterised by the three kinds of characteristics for the perception of risk. The theory of world risk society maintains, however, that modern societies are shaped by new kinds of risks, that their foundations are shaken by the global anticipation of global catastrophes. Such perceptions of global risk are characterized by three features:

a. De-localization: its causes and consequences are not limited to one geographical location or space, they are in principle omnipresent.

b. Incalculableness: its consequences are in principle incalculable; at bottom it is a matter of „hypothetical‟ risks,  which,  not  least,  are based  on  science,  induced  not-knowing and normative dissent.

c. Non-compensability: the security  dream of first modernity was based on the scientific utopia of making the unsafe consequences and dangers of decisions ever more controllable; accidents could occur, as long as and because they were considered compensable  (Beck 2006: 337).

Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens have common ideas regarding the concept of risk in the modern context. Both agree that the risk is generated in the contemporary times due to modernization and industrialization. It is also argued by them that risk is not only scientific in calculation and perception, it is a political game. Only reflexivity or reflexive modernization can be used a counter tool to the risk or hazard. They argue that risk and reflexivity often affect the private life of people. They go through this dilemma of risk in their everyday life.

Beck attributes the risk reflexivity to the growing number of the cases of risks in the modern times whereas Giddens differ from this view. Giddens argues that cases of risk in modern times have not increased, rather the awareness of scientific knowledge has given people the ability to speculate about the risk. For him it is not the real happening which is a matter of anxiety rather than the apprehension or speculation about risk.

Deborah Lupton writes that for Giddens that reflexivity takes place through expert systems. People believe and rely on expert knowledge, but for Beck, reflexivity is a critique of expertise, based not in trust but distrust of expert systems, particularly in relation to environmental hazards.  Lupton mentions that Beck‟s and Giddens‟ speculations on the nature of risk in contemporary societies have been enormously influential in contemporary sociology. Ideas proposed by Giddens and Beck give insights into both the political and structural feature of risk. Both the sociologists are also successful in analysing the changes in the meanings of risk over the eras of pre-modernity, early modernity and late modernity. The implications on ideas about risk, subjectivity and social relations they have put forward are valuable and suggestive (Lupton 1999).

Beck argues that we live in a very vulnerable era due to various industrial hazards and nuclear proliferation. The only way to protect ourselves from the hazard is through reflexive modernization. This idea is also supported by Anthony Giddens but from a different perspective. Though there are limitations to the construction of risk society, nevertheless the idea of risk society became highly influential in the social science literature and has provided valuable insights various aspects of risk.

9. Summary 

The following points of importance can be gathered from this chapter:

• The idea and concept of risk society was developed by German sociologist Ulrich Beck and later on Anthony Giddens also contributed to the literature. Beck developed this concept in response to the modern and industrialised society.
• Risk society is conceptualised in terms of society‟s response to the harm, hazard and insecurities created and induced by the modern and industrialised society.
• Both Beck and Giddens look at various process of the modern industrials society and calculate the risk generated by it. Contemporary times is marked by high modernism and there exists a global world  in terms  of  network  of  technologies  through  telecommunication,  information  and communication technologies.  At  the  same  time  it  has  created  hazards  and  danger  to  the environment  Nuclear proliferation  and  warfare  are  examples  of  this  kind.  In  their  analysis ecological and environmental concern holds crucial importance.
• Ulrich Beck argues that risk is self-created and manufactured by the modern human being To counter the excessive domination of modern industrialization and minimise the risk, collective and individual social concerns led to the process of reflexive modernization.
• Beck developed  the  concept  of  reflexive  modernization  along  with  risk  society.  Reflexive modernization is a counter answer to the rising nuclear proliferation and massive industrialization of the society.
• As critique  to  modernization  and  industrialization,  reflexive  modernization  surfaced  in  the society. It is widely agreed among social scientists that risk has affected the modern society and reflexive modernization is the counter to the risk society which is proposed by Beck and Giddens.
• Individualization approach gives an individual scope to orient his or her life according to various choices. It creates a multiplicity of option unlike pre-modern era where society used to function in more or less within a fixed kind of structure. Today, unlike the past, individuals are responsible for creating their own life story or biography with self-introspection or what Beck calls as reflexive biography. In this condition, society is no more controlling the individual totally rather it is a part of individual‟s creation of the self.

10.  References

1. Beck, Ulrich. “Living in the World Risk Society.” Economy and Society Volume 35, no.3(2006):329- 345.
2. Beck, Ulrich. Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995
3. Beck, Ulrich. Reflexive governance: politics in the global risk society in Jan-Peter Voß, Dierk Bauknecht and René Kemp (Ed) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, pp. 31-56, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006.
4. Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity translated by Mark Ritter London: Sage Publications, 1992.
5. Beck, Ulrich. The reinvention of politics: towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash, Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, pp. 1–55. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994
6. Bilton, Tony, Kevin Bonnett and Pip Jones. Introductory Sociology, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
7. Douglas, Mary and Aaron Wildavsky. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983
8. Elliott, Anthony. “Beck‟s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment” Sociology 36, no.2 (2002): 293– 315.
9. Giddens, Anthony. “Risk and Responsibility” Modern Law Review 62, no.1 (1999):1-10. Lupton, Deborah. Risk.  London and New York: Routledge, 1999.