Sociology. Anthony Giddens
Beck’s explanation
Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the politics of modern societies was dominated by a major conflict of interest between workers and employers – in Marx’s terms, between the non-owning working class and the propertyowning capitalist class. The conflict centred on issues of wealth distribution as trade unions and labour parties sought a more equal distribution of the socially produced wealth. Such struggles still continue, of course. But Ulrich Beck (1992, 2002, 2009) argues that this distributional conflict is losing its significance as environmental risks rise to prominence. He says that more people are beginning to realize that their fight for a share of the ‘wealth cake’ is futile if the cake itself is being poisoned as a result of pollution and environmental damage (Beck 2002: 128). Beck argues that:
the knowledge is spreading that the sources of wealth are ‘polluted’ by growing ‘hazardous side effects’. This is not at all new, but it has remained unnoticed for a long time in the efforts to overcome poverty…. To put it differently, in the risk society the unknown and unintended consequences come to be a dominant force in history and society. (1992: 20–1)
Industrial societies are slowly dissolving as environmental problems build up; this is an unintended consequence of the rush for economic growth and material prosperity. Beck (1999) argues that we are, in effect, moving into a ‘world risk society’ – a new type of society in which risk consciousness and risk avoidance are becoming central features – because environmental pollution does not respect national boundaries. No matter where industrial production or consumption takes place, its consequences can be felt in very distant locations. The relatively rich countries are not immune from industrial pollution and global environmental damage. We will remain dependent on science and high technology, though, because it is only through these that industrial processes can be safely and effectively managed.
Beck wants to show us that the environmental issue is moving from the margins of political concern towards the centre. Most of the risks we face are the products of human activity; they are not like the purely natural disasters of film and television. This means that the environment becomes an issue for political debate and decision-making, and we can see the creation of environmental organizations and Green political parties in the 1970s as the first step towards inclusion of environmental issues into mainstream politics.
Critical points
One of the main criticisms of Beck’s overall thesis is that there is not (yet) enough evidence to support his theory of the transition to a ‘risk society’, even though there is today more awareness of environmental risks (Hajer 1996). Similarly, the idea that older forms of class-based politics are losing out to a new politics of risk seems premature. In most countries, Green political parties have not broken through the conventional party system, and globally the issue of wealth creation and distribution still tends to dominate over environmental protection whenever these objectives clash. Finally, it has been argued that the thesis fails to take account of cultural variability in definitions of risk (Douglas 1994; Scott 2000). What is defined as ‘risk’ in some societies may not be so defined in others, in the same way that what is defined as pollution in wealthy industrial societies is often seen as a sign of healthy economic development in poorer developing countries.
Contemporary significance
The concept of risk holds a special place in current sociological debates on environmental issues and the direction of social change. Beck’s risk thesis is useful, because it provides part of an explanation for why environmental movement concerns have found such a receptive audience. Once people become sensitized to risks, the arguments of environmentalists begin to make more sense. Beck’s Risk Society has taken sociological thinking on modernity and its possible futures in a new and highly original direction, making us rethink the sociological tradition, and for this reason it has rightly become a modern classic of social theory.
THINKING CRITICALLY
How aware are you of risks in your everyday life? Do you engage in any ‘risk-taking activities’ and, if so, why do you do it? Is risk always a negative part of modern life or can you think of any positive aspects?
Consumerism and environmental damage
One important ‘manufactured risk’ is environmental damage caused by patterns of mass consumption. Consumption refers to the goods, services, energy and resources that are used by people, and it is a phenomenon with both positive and negative dimensions. On the one hand, rising levels of consumption around the world mean that people are living under better conditions than in the past. On the other hand, mass consumption has negative impacts too. Consumption patterns can damage the environmental resource base and exacerbate patterns of inequality.
It has been argued that industrial capitalism sets societies on a ‘treadmill of production’ leading to environmental damage, using up natural resources at a rapid rate and generating high levels of pollution and waste (Schnaiberg 1980). However, in the twentieth century it was modern consumerism which kept that treadmill running faster in this direction (Bell 2011). Consumption is something that human beings have to engage in to survive, but modern consumption is very different from earlier forms.
Mass production must be accompanied by large-scale consumption. The products of industry have to be bought and consumed, though producing and consuming may well be carried out in geographically distant locations. Products are made wherever it is cheapest to do so and consumed wherever the best price can be gained. In the past sixty years or so, this has led to industrial production moving to developing countries. The rapid transformation of the newly industrializing countries (NICs), such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan in the 1970s and recent industrial development in India, China and Malaysia, testifies to this, which is part of the globalization process.
Sociologists also view consumerism as a way of thinking, a mentality or even an ideology (Corrigan 1997; Campbell 1992). We can understand this aspect if we ask why people continually consume and want to consume. Perhaps it is simply because consumer goods have ‘use-value’ for people, helping to save them time and effort. But luxury items fit this explanation less well. They show another side to modern consumerism – its role in the social status competition within society (see chapter 12, ‘Social Interaction and Daily Life’). Differentiated mass consumption allows for complex, fine-grained distinctions to be made according to the styles and fashions of the day. People may be prepared to pay a premium for the latest fashions because these products allow them to say something about themselves, to communicate their status or aspirations in a highly visible way. Even products with a clear use-value, such as clothes, are also fashionable items that are discarded and replaced before their ‘use-value’ has expired. Large amounts of such fashion-fuelled waste increase pressure on the environment.
Over time, consumer products become embedded into the routines of everyday life and are taken for granted. When this happens, it becomes difficult to think there is an alternative. Concerns about plastic pollution and its effects on marine life led to charging for plastic carrier bags and the promotion of stronger, ‘bags for life’ aimed at breaking shoppers’ routine expectation of free plastic bags and educating them at the same time. This is a simple example of targeted, pro-environment behaviour modification. Similar campaigns continue today in relation to ‘fast-coffee’ cups, straws and lids and a range of plastic packaging from major retail chains.
Decarbonizing the ‘car system’?
Perhaps the best example of an environmentally damaging consumer product is the motor vehicle, particularly the private car (Lucas et al. 2011). Many households have one, two, or more cars, and people