Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2004
  • Online publication date: June 2012

5 - Governing Environmental Harms in a Risk Society

Summary

This chapter critically examines the ‘risk society’ thesis and the questions it raises concerning the definition and governing of environmental harms. We first outline the main features of Beck's approach to risk. The limitations of this work are then discussed drawing on social constructionist concepts to highlight the main areas of debate. Finally, we provide a critique of both realist and social constructionist perspectives on risk using the post-structuralist analytical frameworks of governmentality and actor-network theory. We argue that these two latter frameworks represent a coherent way of 1) moving beyond the dualistic objectivist/subjectivist thinking that characterises both realism and social constructionism, and 2) demonstrating the complex ways in which environmental harms are co-constructed as risks.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUES

To understand how environmental harms assume prominence as risks it is useful to consider first Ulrich Beck's seminal work, Risk Society: Towards a new modernity (1992). While Beck was by no means the first sociologist to write about the nature and management of risk, his work has had a major influence in environmental sociology and therefore provides a starting point in exploring the sociological literature on the production, definition and responses to ecological harms.

Emergence of the risk society

Beck's Risk Society is a theory of modernisation. It describes a shift from classical to reflexive modernisation. For Beck, classical modernisation is characterised by a politics centred on material progress and the distribution of wealth and prosperity (‘goods’).

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
References
Adam, B., and J. Van Loon 2000, ‘Introduction: repositioning risk: the challenge for social theory’. In B. Adam, U. Beck and J. Van Loon (eds) The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical issues for social theory, London: Sage, pp. 1–31
Barry, J. 1999, Environment and Social Theory, London: Routledge
Beck, U. 1992, Risk Society: Towards a new modernity, transl. M. Ritter, London: Sage
Benton, T. 1994, ‘Biology and social theory in the environmental debate’. In M. Redclift and T. Benton (eds) Social Theory and the Global Environment, London: Routledge, pp. 28–50
Boyne, R. 2001, ‘Cosmopolis and risk. A conversation with Ulrich Beck’, Theory, Culture and Society 18: 47–63
Burningham, K., and Cooper, G. 1999, ‘Being constructive: social constructionism and the environment’, Sociology 33(2): 297–316
Callon, M. 1986, ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’. In Law, Power, Action and Belief, pp. 196–233
Capek, S. 1993, ‘The “environmental justice” frame: a conceptual discussion and an application’, Social Problems 40: 5–24
Clark, J., and Murdoch, J. 1997, ‘Local knowledge and the precarious extension of scientific networks: a reflection on three case studies’, Sociologia Ruralis 37(1): 38–60
Crook, S. 1999, ‘Ordering risks’. In Lupton, Risk and Sociocultural Theory, pp. 160–85
Dean, M. 1999, ‘Risk, calculable and incalculable’. In Lupton, Risk and Sociocultural Theory, pp. 131–59
Dunlap, R., and W. R. Catton 1994, ‘Struggling with human exceptionalism: the rise, decline and revitalisation of environmental sociology’, American Sociologist Spring: 5–30
Elliot, A. 2002, ‘Beck's sociology of risk: a critical assessment’, Sociology 36(2): 293–315
Giddens, A. 1990, The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford University Press
Hannigan, J. A. 1995, Environmental Sociology: A social constructionist perspective, London: Routledge
Irwin, A. 2001, Sociology and the Environment, Cambridge: Polity Press
Latour, B. 1986, ‘The powers of association’. In Law, Power, Action and Belief, pp. 264–80
Latour, B. 1987, Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press
Latour, B. 1993, We Have Never Been Modern, transl. Catherine Porter, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Law, J. (ed.) 1986, Power, Action and Belief: A new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Lupton, D. (ed.) 1999, Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New directions and perspectives, Cambridge University Press
Martell, L. 1994, Ecology and Society: An introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press
Miller, P., and Rose, N. 1990, ‘Governing economic life’, Economy and Society 19(1): 1–31
Murdoch, J. 1997, ‘Inhuman/nonhuman/human: actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15: 731–56
Murdoch, J. 2000, ‘Ecologising sociology: actor-network theory, co-constructionism and the problem of human exemptionalism’, Sociology 35(1): 111–33
Murdoch, J., and Clark, J. 1994, ‘Sustainable knowledge’, Geoforum 25(2): 115–32
Rose, N. 1999, Powers of Freedom: Reframing political thought, Cambridge University Press
Rose, N., and Miller, P. 1992, ‘Political power beyond the state: problematics of government’, British Journal of Sociology 43(2): 173–205
Singleton, V., and Michael, M. 1993, ‘Actor-networks and ambivalence: general practitioners in the UK Cervical Screening Programme’, Social Studies of Science 23: 227–64
Star, S. L. 1991, ‘Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions’. In J. Law (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination, London: Routledge, pp. 26–56
Wynne, B. 1996, ‘May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert/lay knowledge divide’. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds), Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a new ecology, London: Sage, pp. 44–88