Search

Before proceeding to a re-theorization of risk society, it is necessary to situate the theory of risk society within contemporary sociology of risk. Beck’s work on risk society is one of the leading approaches, if not the leading approach, to risk in contemporary sociology (Lupton 1999; Zinn 2008), which has led to him becoming a central figure in sociological theory more generally (Outhwaite 2009). His work on risk society (Beck 199 2a, 1995a, 1999, 2009a) has had a significant impact on the discipline (for a selection, see Giddens 1990; Beck, Giddens, and Lash 1994; Wynne 1996; Adam, Beck, and Van Loon 2000; Savage 2000; Bauman 2007; Atkinson 2010a), which has led to his growing ‘canonical’ status in British and European sociology (see Outhwaite 2009). Consequently, the centrality of the theory of risk society to contemporary sociology in itself suggests the importance of taking it as an object of study. Given its fundamental importance to contemporary sociology, a critical analysis and reconstruction of Beck’s theorization of risk society could in itself have a significant impact on the sociology of risk, social theory, and the study of contemporary inequalities.

Having proceeded through two chapters on social theory and risk, a chapter on class, and two chapters concerning the relation between risk and contemporary widening inequalities, it is now necessary to address three key questions in this concluding chapter. Firstly, what has been established? Secondly, what is novel about these conclusions? Lastly, it is necessary to answer the ‘so what’ question; that is, what contribution to social knowledge can be made by advancing the debate regarding risk and class inequalities? The conclusion will provide an answer to each of these questions, with its structure following the order of these questions closely.

Despite the analytical insight that Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society provides into key aspects of contemporary social life, the theory of risk society has been subject to important criticisms. One of the most powerful criticisms of Beck’s theorization of risk society is that Beck ‘totalizes’ risk, treating risk as if it is the ‘centre’ of contemporary social and material life, thus neglecting other important factors (Dean 1999: 181–2; Rasborg 2012: 10). This criticism creates a particularly important challenge for this study. Conceiving of risk as the sole ‘centre’ of social relations precludes the exploration of other key structuring factors, such as class relations or the interrelations between risk and class. Another aspect of Beck’s theory of risk society that has received extensive critical attention is his understanding of risk society as an epoch fundamentally different than previous epochs based on the qualitatively different roles of risk in the emerging risk society (Scott 2000; see also Lupton 1999; Mythen 2004: 39; Savage 2009b). Given these two fundamental criticisms it is necessary to ask: is the theory of risk society the appropriate basis for developing an understanding of contemporary risk?