Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abschied von der ‚Risiko-Gesellschaft‛?

  • Chapter
Intention und Funktion

Zusammenfassung

Das Jahr 2006 markiert den 20. Jahrestag dreier bedeutender technischer Katastrophen: der Tschernobyl-Katastrophe, des Challenger-Unfalls und der Verschmutzung des Rheins nach einem Feuer in einer Lagerhalle für Chemikalien in Basel. Diese drei Ereignisse hatten weitreichende Auswirkungen auf die öffentliche Meinung. Bereits vor 1986 hatten mehrere Umfragen in den Vereinigten Staaten, Kanada und in den meisten Staaten Europas eine ambivalente Haltung von einem Großteil der Bevölkerung im Hinblick auf die Möglichkeiten und Risiken großer technologischer Systeme aufgezeigt.1 Studien zur Risiko-Wahrnehmung und Untersuchungen zu Einstellungen gegenüber neuen Technologien wiesen nach, dass sich die Bevölkerung mit Auswirkungen von Großtechnologien auf Umwelt und Gesundheit zwar kritisch auseinandergesetzt hatte, sie aber weiterhin den Beteuerungen der technischen und politischen Elite vertraute. Obwohl dieses Vertrauen durch den Beinahe-Unfall in Three-Mile- Island und die Auseinandersetzung über Nuklear-Abfälle bereits ins Wanken geraten war, waren die meisten US-Amerikaner (siehe Bella et al. 1988; Kasperson et al. 1999) und ebenso auch die meisten Europäer davon überzeugt, dass Großtechnologien wie Kernenergie oder Müllverbrennungsanlagen aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen notwendig seien – wenn auch als wenig geliebte Symbole der Modernisierung (siehe Otway/von Winterfeldt 1982; Barke/ Jenkins-Smith 1993). Zudem wiesen Meinungsumfragen nach, dass der ‚Expertenkultur‘ Fachwissen und die Fähigkeit zur Problemlösung zugeschrieben wurde, auch wenn diese Kultur wesentlich schlechter bei der Beurteilung assoziativer Merkmale, wie emotionale Nähe und zugeschriebene moralische Motivation, abschnitt. Die Vertreter der ökologischen Bewegung und die Kritiker von Technik wurden als ehrliche und tapfere Kämpfer mit überzeugenden Motiven, aber mangelndem technischen Fachwissen eingestuft. Das öffentliche Bild wurde durch den Dualismus Rationalität der wissenschaftlichen und technologischen Experten auf der einen, und Moralität der Umweltschützer und Technikkritiker auf der anderen Seite geprägt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Adams, Barbara/Beck, Ulrich/van Loon, Jost (Hg.) (2000): The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barke, Richard P./Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. (1993): Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy. In: Risk Communication 13, Bd. 4: 425-439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastide, Sophie/Moatti, Jean-Paul/Pages, Jean-Pierre/Fagnani, Francis (1989): Risk Perception and the Social Acceptability of Technologies: The French Case. In: Risk Analysis 9: 215-223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich (1986): Die Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich (1988): Gegengifte: Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich/Giddens, Anthony/Lash, Scott (Hg.) (1994): Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bella, David A./Mosher, Charles D./Calvo, Steven N. (1988): Technocracy and Trust: Nuclear Waste Controversy. In: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering 114: 27-39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boholm, Aesa (1998): Comparative Studies of Risk Perception: A Review of Twenty Years of Research. In: Journal of Risk Research 1/2: 135-163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breyer, Stephen (1992): Breaking the Vicious Circle: Towards Effective Risk Regulation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brion, Denis (1988): An Essay on LULU, NIMBY, and the Problem of Distributive Justice. In: Environmental Affairs 15: 437-503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Climate Change (2001): The Scientific Basis: Contribution of the IPCC Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report. New York: IPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, Cary (1999): The Limits of Consensus. In: Environment 41/28: 28-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, Cary/Lazer, David (2003): Management-Based Regulation: Prescribing Private Management to Achieve Public Goals. In: Law and Society 37: 691-730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Maurie J. (1999): Science and Society in Historical Perspective: Implications for Social Theories of Risk. In: Environmental Values. Special Issue: Risk 8/2: 153-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello, Vincent T. (1983): The Perception of Technological Risks: A Literature Review. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 23: 285-297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich, George/Löfstedt, Ragnar E. (Hg.) (1999): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dake, Karl (1991): Orienting Dispositions in the Perceptions of Risk: An Analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases. In: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22: 61-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, Thomas/Stern, Paul C./Rycroft, Robert W. (1989): Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk. In: Sociological Forum 4: 47-69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg, Britt-Marie (1991): Perception of Risk: Studies of Risk Attitudes, Perceptions, and Definitions. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch (1985): Managing Risk Perceptions. In: Issues in Science and Technology 2/1: 83-96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch (1996): Public Values in Risk Research. In: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Special Issue: Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Herausgegeben von Howard Kunreuther und Paul Slovic. Thousand Oaks: Sage): 75-84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch/Slovic, Paul/Lichtenstein, Sarah/Read, Stephen/Combs, Barbara (1978): How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits. In: Policy Sciences 9: 127-152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, William R. (1993): Risk and ‚Recreancy‘: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions. In: Social Forces 71: 909-932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony (1990): The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony (1994): Living in a Post-Traditional Society. In: Beck et al. (1994): 56-109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Malvin (1997): Health Effects of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident. In: Lake et al. (1997): 228-246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Leroy C./Gardner, Gerald T../DeLuca, Donald R./Tieman, Adrian/Doob, Leonard W./Stolwijk, Jan A. J. (Hg.) (1988): Perceptions of Technological Risk and Benefits. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, John D./Wiener, Jonathan B. (Hg.) (1995): Risk vs. Risk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, John D. (1996): The Biases of Public Perception. SRA-Europe Meeting, University of Surrey. Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Robin S. (2004): Valuing Risk Management Choices. In: McDaniels/Small (2004): 213-250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadden, Susan G. (Hg.) (1984): Risk Analysis, Institutions, and Public Policy. Port Washington, N.Y.: Associated Faculty Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampel, Jurgen/Klinke, Andreas/Renn, Ortwin (2000): Beyond ‚Red‘ Hope and ‚Green‘ Distrust. Public Perception of Genetic Engineering in Germany. In: Politeia 16/60: 68-82.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (Hg.) (1998): Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure. ICNIRP Report 5. Wien: ICNIRP.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2000): World Disasters Report 2000. Genf: International Federation.

    Google Scholar 

  • IRGC (2005): White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Framework (Genf: International Risk Governance Council).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, Carlo C./Renn, Ortwin/Rosa, Eugene A./Webler, Thomas (2001): Risk, Uncertainty and Rational Action. London: Earthscan: 193-208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila (1999): The Songlines of Risk. In: Environmental Values (Special Issue: Risk 8/2. Übersetzung durch Sebastian Schlaf): 135-152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila (2004): Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In: Dies. (Hg.): States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge: 31-54.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Barclay G./Kandel, William A. (1992): Population Growth, Urbanization, Disaster Risk and Vulnerability in Metropolitan Areas: A Conceptual Framework. In: Kreimer, Alcira/Munasinghe, Mohan (Hg.) (1992): Environmental Management and Urban Vulnerability. Discussion Papers Nr. 168, Washington: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, Helmut/Kasperson, Roger E./Wiedemann, Peter M. (Hg.) (1988): Risk Communication. Forschungszentrum Jülich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, Jeanne X./Kasperson, Roger E./Pidgeon, Nick/Slovic, Paul (2003): The Social Amplification of Risk: Assessing Fifteen Years of Research and Theory. In: Pidgeon et al. (2003): 13-46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, Roger E. (1992): The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework of Risk, In:Krimsky/Golding (1992): 153-178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, Roger E./Golding, Dominic/Kasperson, Jeanne X. (1999): Risk, Trust, and Democratic Theory. In: Cvetkovich/Löfstedt (1999): 22-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, Roger E./Renn, Ortwin/Slovic Paul/Brown, Halina S./Emel, Jaque/Goble, Robert/Kasperson, Jeanne X./Ratick, Samuel (1998): The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. In: Löfstedt/Frewer (1998): 149-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, Ray/Greulich, Tamsin (2004): Communication, Consultation, Community: MCF Site Deployment Consultation Handbook. Melbourne: Mobile Carriers Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, Sheldon/Golding, Dominic (Hg.) (1992): Social Theories of Risk. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunsch, B. (1998): Risk Management in Practice. In: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998): 327-242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, John V./Bock, Gregory R./Cardew, Gail (Hg.) (1997): Health Impacts of Large Releases of Radionuclides. Ciba Foundation Symposium 203. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lash, Scott/Urry, John (Hg.) (1994): Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lash, Scott (2000): Risk Culture. In: Adams et al. (2000): 47-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, Larry (1996): The Pseudo-Science of Science? The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. In: Ders. (Hg.): Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method and Evidence. Boulder: Westview Press: 166-192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Terry R. (1998): The Perception of Risks: An Overview of Research and Theory. In: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998): 77-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberatore, Angela/Funtowicz, Silvio (2003): Democratizing Expertise, Expertising Democracy: What Does This Mean, and Why Bother? In: Science and Public Policy 30/3: 146-150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnerooth-Bayer, Joanne E./Löfstedt, Ragnar E./Sjöstedt, Gunnar (Hg.) (2001): Transboundary Risk Management. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, Ragnar/Frewer, Lynn (Hg.) (1998): The Earthscan Reader in Risk and Modern Society. Nachdruck von 1988: Journal of Risk Analysis. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas (1986): Ökologische Kommunikation. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas (1989): Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas (1990): Technology, Environment, and Social Risk: A Systems Perspective. In: Industrial Crisis Quarterly 4: 223-231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Brent K. (1999): Globalisation, Environmental Degradation and Ulrich Beck‘s Risk Society. In: Environmental Values (Special Issue: Risk 8/2): 253-275.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels, Timothy/Small, Mitchell J. (Hg.) (2004): Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, Donella H./Meadows, Dennis L./Randers, Joergen (Hg.) (1972): The Limits of Growth. Stuttgart: DVA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, Donella H./Meadows, Dennis L./Randers, Joergen (Hg.) (1992): The New Limits of Growth - The Situation of Mankind: A Threat and A Chance for the Future. Stuttgart: DVA.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003): Emerging Systemic Risks: Final Report to the OECD Futures Project. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otway, Harry J./Thomas, Kerry (1982): Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy. In: Risk Analysis 2: 69-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otway, Harry J./von Winterfeldt, Detlef (1982): Beyond Acceptable Risk: On the Social Acceptability of Technologies. In: Policy Sciences 14/3: 247-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, Charles (1984): Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, Nick/Kasperson, Roger E./Slovic, Paul (Hg.) (2003): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, Steve (1984): Disagreeing about Risk: The Institutional Cultures of Risk Management and Planning for Future Generations. In: Hadden (1984): 150-178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin (1981): Man, Technology, and Risk. Jül-Spez 115 (Forschungszentrum Jülich 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin (1984): Risikowahrnehmung der Kernenergie. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin (1996): Verlorene Einheit von Wissen und Moral. In: Tagesanzeiger Zürich 10-31 (31.10.1996): 2-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin (1997): Three Decades of Risk Research: Accomplishments and New Challenges. In: Journal of Risk Research 1/1: 49-71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin/Dreyer, Marion/Klinke, Andreas/Losert, Christine (Hg.) (2002): Systemic Risks: A New Challenge for Risk Management. Contribution to the OECD International Futures Project on Emerging Systemic Risks. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redclift, Michael/Benton, Ted (Hg.) (1994): Social Theory and the Global Environment. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann, Bernd/Renn, Ortwin (2000): Risk Perception Research – An Introduction. In: Dies. (Hg.): Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer: 11-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, Eugene A. (1988): NAMBY PAMBY and NIMBY PIMBY: Public Issues in the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities. In: Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 3: 114-123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundle, John B./Turcotte, Donald L./Klein, William (Hg.) (1996): Reduction and Predictability of Natural Disasters. Bd. 25 (Santa Fee Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity). New York: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sand, Peter H. (2000): The Precautionary Principle: A European Perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6/3: 445-458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, Peter M. (1988): Hazard versus Outrage: A Conceptual Frame for Describing Public Perception of Risk. In: Jungerman et al. (1988): 163-168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwing, Richard/Albers, Walter (Hg.) (1981): Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, James F./Clarke, Lee (1992): Social Organization and Risk. In: Dies. (Hg.): Organizations, Uncertainties, and Risk. Boulder: Westview: 309-321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, Kristin S. (1995): Evaluating the Expertise of Experts. In: Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 6: 115-126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, Lennart/Jansson, Bengt/Brenot, Jean/Frewer, Lynn/Prades, Anna/Tönnessen, Arnfinn (Hg.) (2000): Risk Perception in Commemoration of Chernobyl: A Cross-National Study. RHIZIKON: Risk Research Report 33 (Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklair, Leslie (1994): Global Sociology und Global Environmental Change. In: Redclift/Berton (1994): 205-227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul (1987): Perception of Risk. In: Science 236/4799: 280-285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul/Fischhoff, Baruch/Lichtenstein, Sarah (1981): Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In: Schwing/Albers (1981): 181-216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic Paul/Fischhoff Baruch/Lichtenstein, Sarah (1981a): Perceived Risk: Psychological Factors and Social Implications. In: Royal Society (Hg.) (1981): Proceedings of the Royal Society, A376. London: Royal Society: 17-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler, Thomas/Levine, Debra/Rakel, Horst/Renn, Ortwin (1991): The Group Delphi: A Novel Attempt at Reducing Uncertainty. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39: 253-263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) (2000): World in Transition: Strategies for Managing Global Environmental Risks. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian (1992): Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement. In: Krimsky/Golding (1992): 275-297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeckhauser, Richard/Viscusi, W. Kip (1996): The Risk Management Dilemma. In: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Special Issue: Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Herausgegeben von Howard Kunreuther und Paul Slovic. Thousand Oaks: Sage): 144-155.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Ortwin Renn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Jens Aderhold Olaf Kranz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Renn, O. (2007). Abschied von der ‚Risiko-Gesellschaft‛?. In: Aderhold, J., Kranz, O. (eds) Intention und Funktion. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90627-0_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90627-0_12

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-15183-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-90627-0

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation