According to British sociologist Anthony Giddens, a risk society is "a society increasingly

preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk," [3] whilst
the German sociologist Ulrich Beck defines it as "a systematic way of dealing with hazards and
insecurities induced and introduced by modernisation itself (Beck 1992:21)".[1]

Beck (1992:50)[1] defined modernization as,"surges of technological rationalization and changes

in work and organization, but beyond that includes much more: the change in societal
characteristics and normal biographies, changes in 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 the 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."

Ulrich Beck is the contemporary theorist of modernity. He is a German sociologist who has
written extensively about risk and globalization. He argues that the risk which is inherent in
modern society would contribute towards the formation of a global risk society. In a modern
society, there is technological change.

And technology produces new forms of risks and we are constantly required to respond and
adjust to these changes. The risk society, he argues, is not limited to environmental and health
risks alone, it includes a whole series of interrelated changes within contemporary social life
such as shifting employment patterns, heightened job insecurity, declining influence of tradition
and custom, erosion of traditional family patterns and democratization of personal relations.

What is particular about the modern risk society is that the hazards of risk do not remain
restricted to one country only. In the age of globalization, these risks affect all countries and all
social classes. They have global, not merely personal consequences.

Similarly, many forms of manufactured risk, such as those concerning human health and the
environment, cross-national boundaries. Becks theory of modernity is presented in his book,
Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (1992).

Defining risk, he says:

Industrial society has created many new dangers of risks unknown in previous ages. The risks
associated with global warming are one example. In the present era of industrialization, the
nature of risk has undergone tremendous change. Earlier, there was no absence of risk. But these
risks were natural dangers or hazards. There was earthquake, there was epidemic, there was
famine and there were floods.

1
But, the risks in the modern society are created by our own social development and by the
development of science and technology. Sometimes, we fail to ascertain the risk involved in a
particular aspect of technology. For instance, no one quite knows what risks are involved in the
production of genetically modified foods.

What is modernity?

The modernity, which is found in the present world, is called new modernity by Beck. It
essentially gives birth to a risk society. Explaining the meaning of new modernity as given by
Beck, Ritzer comments: Beck labels the new, or better at newly emerging, form of reflexive
modernity.

A process of individualization has taken place in the west. That is, agents (individuals) are
becoming increasingly free of structural constraints and are as a result, better able to reflexively
create not only themselves, but also the societies in which they live. For example, instead of
being determined by their class situations, people operate more or less on their own. Left to their
own devices, people have been forced to be more reflexive.

Beck has made his perspective on modernity very clear when he says that the new modernity has
abandoned the old modernity and enables the individual to take his own decisions without any
reference to his class or caste consideration. If his self-evaluation of society is faulty, he is likely
to succumb to risk. Now, most of the risks emerge from the modernity in which he lives. The
new modernity is different from the industrial modernity. In his own words:

Just as modernization dissolved the structure of feudal society in the nineteenth century and
produced the industrial society, modernization today is dissolving industrial society and another
modernity is coming into being. The thesis of this book is: we are witnessing not the end but
the beginning of modernity that is, of modernity beyond its industrial design.

Becks new modernity has emerged out of the industrial modernity. In this new modernity, the
social relations and institutions have to be individually chosen. In fact, in this new modem
society, social ties and connection have to be established, maintained and renewed by individuals
themselves. The shift from industrial society to the risk society is a major break in the process of
transformation.

Specialty of risk society:

In classical or industrial society the ideal was equality. And, the notions of welfare, humanism,
freedom and equality were inspired by enlightenment. This ideal is abandoned in the new
modernity. In classical modernity people achieved solidarity to attain equality. But, in
contemporary advanced modernity, the attempt to achieve solidarity is found in the search for the
largely negative and defensive goal of being spared from danger and risk.

2
The risk in the new society is produced by the sources of wealth. Specifically, industry and its
side-effects are producing a wide range of hazardous, even deadly, consequences for society and
as a result of globalization, the world as a whole.

Using the concepts of time and space, Beck makes the point that these modem risks are not
restricted to place (a nuclear accident in one geographic locale could affect many other nations)
or time (a nuclear accident could have genetic effects that might affect future generations). While
social class is central in industrial society and risk is fundamental to it. These are not unrelated,
says Beck:

The history of risk distribution shows that, like wealth, risks adhere to the class pattern, only
inversely; wealth accumulates at the top, risk at the bottom. To that extent, risks seem to
strengthen, not to abolish, class society. Poverty attracts an unfortunate abundance of risks. By
contrast, the wealthy (in income, power, or education) can purchase safety and freedom from
risk.

Beck has applied his argument of risk distribution from class to nations also. He says that
compared to rich nations, the poor ones are more vulnerable to risks. Thus, poor nations suffer all
the time from risk while the rich nations are able to push many risks as far away as possible.

Further, the rich nations profit from the risks as far away as possible. Further, the rich nations
profit from the risks they produce for example, by producing and selling technologies that help
prevent risks from occurring or deal with their adverse effects once they do occur.

One more important difference between the earlier or classical modernity and new modernity is
brought out by Beck. In industrial modernity nature and society were deeply intervened. It
means, changes brought in society also affected the natural environment, and those in turn
affected society.

Thus according to Beck:

Nature is society and society is also nature; nature has been politicized, with the result that
natural scientists, like social scientists, have had their work politicized. Before closing Becks
theory of modern risk society we would only comment that if to-days modernity is so much
characterized by risk, what would happen to the postmodern society? What the postmodernists
see as chaos or lack of pattern, Beck sees as risk or uncertainty. The management of risk is the
prime feature of the global order.

3
Environmental risks

In 1986, right after the Chernobyl disaster, Ulrich Beck, a sociology professor at the University
of Munich, published the original German text, Risikogesellschaft, of his highly influential and
catalytic work (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1986). Risikogesellschaft was published in English as Risk
Society: Towards a New Modernity in 1992. The ecological crisis is central to this social analysis
of the contemporary period. Beck argued that environmental risks had become the predominant
product, not just an unpleasant, manageable side-effect, of industrial society.

Giddens and Beck argued that whilst humans have always been subjected to a level of risk - such
as natural disasters - these have usually been perceived as produced by non-human forces.
Modern societies, however, are exposed to risks such as pollution, newly discovered illnesses,
crime, that are the result of the modernization process itself. Giddens defines these two types of
risks as external risks and manufactured risks.[5] Manufactured risks are marked by a high level
of human agency involved in both producing, and mitigating such risks.

As manufactured risks are the product of human activity, authors like Giddens and Beck argue
that it is possible for societies to assess the level of risk that is being produced, or that is about to
be produced. This sort of reflexive introspection can in turn alter the planned activities
themselves. As an example, disasters such as Chernobyl and the Love Canal Crisis, public faith
in the modern project has declined leaving public distrust in industry, government and experts.[6]

Social concerns led to increased regulation of the nuclear power industry and to the abandonment
of some expansion plans, altering the course of modernization itself. This increased critique of
modern industrial practices is said to have resulted in a state of reflexive modernization,
illustrated by concepts such as sustainability and the precautionary principle that focus on
preventative measures to decrease levels of risk.

There are differing opinions as to how the concept of a risk society interacts with social
hierarchies and class distinctions.[7] Most agree that social relations have altered with the
introduction of manufactured risks and reflexive modernization. Risks, much like wealth, are
distributed unevenly in a population and will influence quality of life.

Beck has argued that older forms of class structure - based mainly on the accumulation of wealth
- atrophy in a modern, risk society, in which people occupy social risk positions that are achieved
through risk aversion. "In some of their dimensions these follow the inequalities of class and
strata positions, but they bring a fundamentally different distribution logic into play". [8] Beck
contends that widespread risks contain a 'boomerang effect', in that individuals producing risks
will also be exposed to them. This argument suggests that wealthy individuals whose capital is
largely responsible for creating pollution will also have to suffer when, for example, the
contaminants seep into the water supply. This argument may seem oversimplified, as wealthy

4
people may have the ability to mitigate risk more easily by, for example, buying bottled water.
Beck, however, has argued that the distribution of this sort of risk is the result of knowledge,
rather than wealth. Whilst the wealthy person may have access to resources that enable him or
her to avert risk, this would not even be an option were the person unaware that the risk even
existed.

By contrast, Giddens has argued that older forms of class structure maintain a somewhat stronger
role in a risk society, now being partly defined "in terms of differential access to forms of self-
actualization and empowerment".[9] Giddens has also tended to approach the concept of a risk
society more positively than Beck, suggesting that there "can be no question of merely taking a
negative attitude towards risk. Risk needs to be disciplined, but active risk-taking is a core
element of a dynamic economy and an innovative society."[10]