The real uncertainty at stake in the language of risk is the relationship between power and democracy.

Michael M. Bell and Diane B. Mayerfeld

Introduction

Contemporary philosophy focuses as much on the social construction of risk assessment, management, and communication as classifying technology as good, bad, or indifferent. The central issues addressed relate to citizen involvement--or lack of involvement--in technology policy making. Contemporary viewpoints acknowledge improvements in living conditions brought about by advances in technology while noting that the manner in which risk is defined and by whom strongly affects technology policy. This section reviews viewpoints offered by Ulrich Beck and Michael Bell and Diane Mayerfeld on relationships among risk, power, and democracy.


Compass

    Key Questions

      In what ways do differing philosophies of technology affect technology development and policy?
      Who controls the language of risk?

    Examples

      In what ways is the language used by proponents and opponents of the sampler technologies biased so as to lead one to the point of view of the source? What are the "buzz words" that inflame our emotions and influence our decision making?

      How much do you trust the opponents of gm foods? How much do you trust the proponents of gm foods?

      Apart from your opinions about gm foods, do you think American society is benefited by the activities of organizations such as the Council for Biotechnology Information and the Turning Point Project?

      Are American's experiencing "future shock"? That is, is technology advancing more rapidly than our ability to adjust to it?



The Risk Society

Ulrich Beck, in Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, expands upon the solution offered by Habermas to the critical philosophy of technology. Beck challenges our understandings of modernity, science, and technology and, in so doing, helps us recognize the need for new conceptions of these endeavors and our place in a society characterized not by relations of production, but by relations of risk. That is, Beck thinks the focal point of science and technology policies should be the effects of technology on the welfare of all citizens, not on the benefits enjoyed by a few citizens.

The Introduction to Risk Society, written by Scott Lash and Brian Wynne, provides a good review of Beck's viewpoints. This Introduction is summarized here.

Philosophers and social scientists long have sought to develop approaches for maximizing the use of beneficial technology while avoiding its negative consequences. Beck asserts that the dominant perspectives reflect scientism--the culture of science--which excludes non-rational forms of discourse and argument.

Thus, arguments not endorsed by officially sponsored scientific or governmental agencies, or those put forth by external agencies, such as consumer advocacy groups, are considered non-rational if they challenge assumptions of the status quo. Public skepticism is treated as non-rational and thus is not considered to be of sufficient importance to be taken seriously except as a barrier to scientific and technological progress. In the politics of technology evaluation even social scientific explanations of risk can be relegated to reflect merely the inaccurate perceptions of a misinformed public. As stated by Lash and Wynne, "technical experts are given pole position to define agendas and impose bounding premises a priori on risk discourses."

Beck argues for a new paradigm of risk evaluation, one that recognizes the benefits of technology development, but at the same time recognizes the many different and equally legitimate ways that technology can be rationally evaluated. This reflexive modernization, in contrast with traditional modernization, seeks to understand technology in practice--the unintended, unavoidable, and undesirable consequences of technology adoption--and the necessary and beneficial aspects of socially constructed risk assessments on technology development and use.

General Principles of Reflexive Modernization
  1. Physical risks always are created and effected in social systems, for example by organizations and institutions that are supposed to manage and control the risky activity.
  2. The magnitude of the physical risks is therefore a direct function of the quality of social relations and processes.
  3. The primary risk, even for the most technically intensive activities, is therefore that of the public's social dependency upon institutions and actors who might not have their best interests in mind.

The Rationalization of Risk

Bell and Mayerfeld (full text article) express concerns about how the language employed by experts to convey risk to the public can be used to manipulate rather than inform. They argue that what is different about the worries of the present day is neither the number of hazards we face nor the degree of uncertainty we feel about our lives, but rather it is the language we use to think and talk about them. They note that the language of risk can be used to explain uncertainty; but it also can be used to explain it away. Bell and Mayerfeld suggest that the language of risk as it is being used today has some strikingly undemocratic implications and strongly urge greater caution in its use by social scientists and policy makers.

Bell and Mayerfeld disagree that our times are more risky than the times of our ancestors. Their observations are that:
  • We live in a time of much risk; but so have others before us.
  • People always have sought for some sense of control over uncertainties.
  • What is changed is not the amount of risk, but control over the language of risk.
Historically, risk definition has fallen primarily to technicians with the expertise to understand the technical aspects of material innovations. But it should be recognized that evaluations of risk are subjective, not objective. Therefore control over the manner in which risk is defined and assessed is critical to risk management and communication.
  • Quantitative risk estimates are precise, but often are not accurate because they rely upon a whole series of assumptions, guesses, and extrapolations that limit their accuracy.
  • Estimated risks often do not account for multiple hazards that occur in conjunction with one another in complex technological systems. For example, we might estimate the risk of pesticides A and B, but often we do not estimate the risk of pesticide A in combination with pesticide B.
  • Numbers often carry disproportionate effect in technological assessments of risk.
  • Risk assessments often falsely homogenize populations. That is, the risk for a child might be different than the risk for an adult.
Given the limitations of risk assessment, control over risk definitions and strategic communication with the public become central to risk management:
  • Because people are aware of the limitations of quantitative risk assessment, they tend to respond with skepticism to these assessments, even though they tend to trust science and science-based organizations.
  • The field of risk communication arose in response to this form of "illogical" reasoning by the public.
  • Most risk communication efforts begin with the premise that scientific experts know actual risk and the skeptical public, out of ignorance or irrational fear or both, misperceives actual risk.
  • The goal of risk communication, therefore, is to educate the public for the purpose of removing their irrational fears. A central assumption of this approach is that experts favor the technology being discussed and non-experts (i.e., the public) opposes the technology.
  • "In its most extreme form, manipulative risk communication results in legal maneuvering to withhold information from the public altogether."
  • "In short, risk communication is infected with a contempt for the public, which perpetuates its undemocratic bias and also ensures the continued failure of risk communication efforts."
If control over language strongly affects risk management, then advanced procedures must be developed for interacting with the public about technology and risk:
  • "Risk is a far from neutral language. Rather than representing interest-free rationality, nameless knowledge that applies to everyone, risk represents the deeply interested knowledge of those who are able to command it."
  • People are becoming more aware of how power relationships influence risk.
  • "The reaction against risk represents democracy, not the hysteria of the ill-informed."
  • Risk assessments often falsely divide the population into those affected and those unaffected. Humanist viewpoints consider all to be affected when some are affected.
If control over language is critical to risk assessment and management, then citizens need to be become aware of risk assessment procedures and risk communication techniques used to convey information about technologies to them. The tenets of the critical philosophy alert us to the need to become aware also of how power relationships can affect risk assessment and communication.
  • Beck argues that technology advancement occurs so rapidly that our institutions cannot keep up, leading to a "risk society." To Beck, new hazards have led to new critiques of technology.
  • Bell and Mayerfeld believe that we have no more hazards or worry about hazards than we had before. Instead, we have a growth of new language for debating about hazards and greater public interest in discussing potential hazards related to technology development.
  • "The real uncertainty at stake in the language of risk is the relationship between power and democracy."

Summary

Beck thinks that because society has become more risky, citizens need to become more involved in the process of risk assessment and management. Bell and Mayerfeld, on the other hand, think that the world is no more risky than it has been before, but that control over the language of risk, which strongly affects technology assessment and management, has become more advanced and therefore in need of more careful scrutiny by the public.


Application in Context

    How does the language of risk affect your perceptions of technology?
  • The first four links presented on the Sampler web site regarding genetic engineering present this technology in a favorable manner, while the last four links present concerns about and objections to it. Skim through these materials again looking for key terms, use of language, or the context in which arguments are presented to investigate how the language of risk is used to sway opinion.
  • What are some key terms or phrases advocates use to make genetic modification of food seem like a good idea?
  • What key terms or phrases do opponents use to make this technology seem like a bad idea?


Go Back to Previous Page Go Forward to Next Page Go to the Home Page Go to the Reading Assignments Page