Risk, Society and Ethics (SAM525) is a compulsory course for the MSc. programs Risk management and Societal Safety. The course evolves around 48 problem-solving questions. The literature that is used in the course is Risk by Deborah Lupton (2013) and The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction by Martin Hollis (1994).
Here is my take on answering these questions. The way I used this to study is by going through the flashcards, and writing down each answer before checking it (!). Keep in mind that the flashcards are very concise, and one should be able to explain all the terms in the flashcards. After that, I would filter out the questions I cannot answer, and see if I can answer them using the information in the table. If I don’t fully understand the information in the table, I would refer back to the book an lectures. Keep going through the flashcards until you can answer all of them.
Flashcards
Open the Flashcards in a new Window!
The password for the flashcards is: Mr.Roget
Questions and Answers
| SAM 525 Risk, Society and Ethics | Problem-solving questions | Flashcards |
| Lecture 1 What is Science What is Risk; Main topics and problems Hollis chapter 1 Lupton chapter 1 | 1. What do we mean when we talk about science? Science is a way of looking at reality, it’s rationally producing facts and is fundamentally critical. 2. What is “the great enlightenment project”? “The Great Enlightenment Project” refers to a transformative intellectual movement in the 17th and 18th centuries. It marked a shift away from traditional beliefs, with thinkers like Descartes, Hobbes, and Copernicus challenging established views about human knowledge, society, and the natural world. It emphasized empirical observation, rejected dogma, and reshaped modern thought. 3. What do we mean when we say that the meaning of risk has changed through history? The meaning of risk has transformed from being a product of superstition to a subject amenable to rational analysis and management. 4. How do we combine “the great enlightenment project” with modernity? Combining “the great enlightenment project” with modernity entails preserving and advancing the Enlightenment’s commitment to reason and knowledge in our contemporary era as a fundamental basis for societal advancement and order. | Question 1: What do we mean when we talk about science? Science is a way of looking at reality and its rationally producing facts and is fundamentally critical. Question 2: What is “the Great Enlightenment Project”? Answer 2: Transformation, Intellectual movement, Empirical observation, Rational analysis Question 3: What do we mean when we say that the meaning of risk has changed through history? Answer 3: Superstition to Rational Analysis Question 4: How do we combine “the Great Enlightenment Project” with modernity? Answer 4: Preserve reason, Advance knowledge, Societal advancement |
| Lecture 2 The problem of structure and action Different perspectives of risk Hollis chapter 1 Aven, Renn and Rosa Lupton, chapter 2 | 5. What do we mean by ontology, methodology and epistemology? Ontology deals with questions about the nature of reality, methodology addresses the methods and techniques used to investigate that reality, and epistemology explores how we come to know and understand it. 6. Define and clarify the difference between actions, actors, games, and structures. Actions are the specific behaviors or activities carried out by actors, who can be individuals or groups. These actions often occur within the context of games, which involve strategic interactions. The broader context in which actions and games take place is shaped by structures, which encompass the social, economic, cultural, and institutional elements that influence and constrain the choices and behaviors of actors in a society or social setting. 7. How can we define and operationalise risk? Risk can be understood as the potential for uncertain and unpredictable events or outcomes that may have positive or negative consequences. It encompasses the inherent unpredictability and variability in various aspects of life, from financial investments to societal progress. Operationalization of Risk: To operationalize risk, we need to establish a framework that allows for its measurement and analysis. 8. Explain how risk may have different ontological and epistemological approaches in social sciences. The ontological and epistemological approaches to risk in social sciences range from realism, which acknowledges an objective existence of risk but recognizes the influence of social and cultural factors on perception, to weak constructionism/critical realism, which sees risk as both objective and context-dependent, to strong constructionism, which questions the very notion of objective risk and emphasizes its cultural and historical contingency. | Question 5: What do we mean by ontology, methodology, and epistemology? Answer 5: Ontology – Nature of reality, Methodology – Research methods, Epistemology – How we know and understand reality Question 6: Define and clarify the difference between actions, actors, games, and structures. Answer 6: Actions are the specific behaviors or activities carried out by actors, who can be individuals or groups. These actions often occur within the context of games, which involve strategic interactions. The broader context in which actions and games take place is shaped by structures, which encompass the social, economic, cultural, and institutional elements that influence and constrain the choices and behaviors of actors in a society or social setting. Question 7: How can we define and operationalize risk? Answer 7: Risk – Potential for uncertain outcomes, Operationalization – Creating a measurement framework Question 8: Explain how risk may have different ontological and epistemological approaches in social sciences. Answer 8: Ontological approaches range from realism to (weak) constructionism, Epistemological approaches differ in the perception of objective risk and its context-dependency. |
| Lecture 3 The rationalistic way of science. The realistic versus constructivist perspective of risk Hollis chapter 2 Lupton chapter 2 | 9. What does it mean when we claim that “reality” is considered mechanical? When we claim that “reality” is considered mechanical in the context of social sciences, we are essentially using a metaphor from the physical sciences to describe an approach to understanding and explaining social phenomena. This metaphor suggests that social reality is viewed in a way that is akin to a mechanical system composed of various components, such as “nuts and bolts,” or “cogs and wheels,” 10. What is “necessity” in science? In the context of science, “necessity” refers to the idea that certain events, phenomena, or outcomes are determined by underlying laws, principles, or conditions that make them inevitable or required. It implies that there is a causal relationship or a deterministic connection between specific factors or variables, leading to a particular result or consequence. 11. Explain the techno-scientific perspective and the social constructivist perspective of risk. The techno-scientific perspective emphasizes objectivity, rationality, and the role of empirical analysis in understanding and managing risk. In contrast, the social constructivist perspective highlights the subjective and socially constructed nature of risk, where meaning, language, and power dynamics play crucial roles in shaping our perceptions of what is risky or threatening. These perspectives offer different lenses through which to analyse and address risk in various contexts. 12. Discuss whether the techno-scientific perspective of risk and social constructivist perspective of risk are competing or compatible. The techno-scientific and social constructivist perspectives of risk are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. They offer different lenses through which to analyze and address risk, and by integrating both perspectives, we can achieve a more holistic and nuanced understanding of risk that takes into account both objective and subjective dimensions, as well as the broader social, cultural, and political context in which risk is situated. This comprehensive approach can lead to more effective risk assessment and management strategies. | Question 9: What does it mean when we claim that “reality” is considered mechanical? Answer 9: Reality viewed as a mechanical system metaphor, akin to a machine with various components. Question 10: What is “necessity” in science? Answer 10: Necessity in science implies events or outcomes are determined by underlying laws or conditions, making them inevitable. Question 11: Explain the techno-scientific perspective and the social constructivist perspective of risk. Answer 11: Techno-scientific – Emphasizes objectivity, rationality, empirical analysis. Social constructivist – Highlights subjectivity and social construction of risk. Question 12: Are the techno-scientific and social constructivist perspectives of risk competing or compatible? Answer 12: They are complementary, offering different lenses for a holistic understanding of risk. |
| Lecture 4 Positivistic science The third way Hollis chapter 3, 4 | 13. What is positivism, and what is logical positivism? While positivism is a broader philosophical approach emphasizing empirical observation and scientific methodology, logical positivism is a specific development within positivism that adds the verification principle and extends these ideas to the philosophy of language and science. Logical positivism is a more specialized and refined version of the broader positivist perspective. 14. Explain how David Hume considers causation and how this view impacts relationships between predictions and explanations. David Hume, an 18th-century Scottish philosopher, is known for his empiricist views on causation. He argued that causation is not something that can be observed directly in the world but is rather a mental habit or expectation that arises from repeated observations of one event (the cause) followed by another event (the effect). Hume famously proposed the concept of “constant conjunction,” where we come to associate two events as causally related if we consistently see them occurring together. However, he believed that we cannot perceive causation itself; we only see regular sequences of events. Hume’s view on causation has significant implications for the relationships between predictions and explanations. Since he argued that causation is a psychological habit rather than a necessary connection in the external world, he raised doubts about the ability to make certain predictions based on past observations. According to Hume, we can never be certain that the future will resemble the past because causation, as we understand it, is not a fundamental aspect of reality. Therefore, predictions based on past experiences are probabilistic and subject to revision if new observations challenge our expectations. 15. Explain how Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn describe scientific development. Karl Popper: Popper is known for his philosophy of science, particularly the concept of falsifiability. He argued that scientific theories should be formulated in a way that makes them open to potential falsification through empirical testing. According to Popper, science advances when hypotheses and theories are subjected to rigorous testing, and if they survive attempts at falsification, they gain empirical support. He considered science as an ongoing process of conjecture and refutation, where theories are constantly tested and refined. Thomas Kuhn: Kuhn’s influential work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” introduced the concept of scientific paradigms. He argued that scientific development occurs in two phases: normal science, where scientists work within established paradigms (shared worldviews and methodologies), and scientific revolutions, where a new paradigm emerges to replace the old one due to anomalies and paradigm shifts. Kuhn emphasized the role of social and psychological factors in scientific development, alongside empirical research. He viewed science as a complex, sociocultural endeavor characterized by shifts in scientific consensus and paradigms. 16. What does Immanuel Kant mean by the quote: «Concepts without perceptions are empty and percept without concepts are blind”? Immanuel Kant’s quote, “Concepts without perceptions are empty and perceptions without concepts are blind,” reflects his philosophy of epistemology and the relationship between human cognition and experience. Kant argued that knowledge is a product of both empirical sensory experience (perceptions) and the innate structures of the mind (concepts). “Concepts without perceptions are empty”: This part of the quote suggests that concepts or categories of thought, which are innate to human cognition, lack content and meaning without being grounded in actual sensory experiences. Concepts give structure and meaning to our perceptions, allowing us to organize and understand the sensory data we encounter. “Perceptions without concepts are blind”: This part emphasizes that sensory perceptions alone, without the framework of concepts and categories, lack intelligibility and coherence. In other words, raw sensory experiences would be chaotic and unintelligible without the mental categories and concepts that help us make sense of them. Kant’s philosophy, known as transcendental idealism, asserts that the mind actively structures and organizes sensory input through its innate categories and concepts, thereby shaping our understanding of the world. This quote encapsulates his view that both sensory experiences and mental concepts are essential for human knowledge and understanding. | Question 13: What is positivism, and what is logical positivism? Answer 13: Positivism – Emphasizes empirical observation and scientific methodology. Logical positivism – A specialized version adding the verification principle and philosophy of language. Question 14: Explain how David Hume considers causation and how this view impacts relationships between predictions and explanations. Answer 14: Hume views causation as a mental habit arising from repeated observations of constant conjunction. Predictions based on past observations are probabilistic due to the absence of necessary causal connections. Question 15: Explain how Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn describe scientific development. Answer 15: Karl Popper believed that scientists should create theories that can be proven wrong. Science moves forward when we test these theories and find they survive scrutiny. It’s like a game of “try to prove me wrong,” and the best theories withstand all challenges. Thomas Kuhn, on the other hand, talked about scientific communities and their shared beliefs, which he called “paradigms.” In normal science, everyone agrees on the rules and plays by them. But sometimes, there are problems that don’t fit the rules, creating “anomalies.” When anomalies pile up, scientists might change the rules in a “paradigm shift,” adopting a new way of thinking. It’s like a game where the rules change when the old ones no longer work. Question 16: What does Immanuel Kant mean by the quote: “Concepts without perceptions are empty and perceptions without concepts are blind”? Answer 16: Kant’s quote highlights the interdependence of concepts and perceptions in human cognition, emphasizing that concepts give meaning to perceptions, and perceptions provide content to concepts. |
| Lecture 5 System, system theory Agent, actors, agency Hollis chapter 5, 6 | 17. What are functional explanations, and what do we mean when proposing “social facts as things”? Functional explanations are a type of explanation that seeks to explain the purpose or function of a social fact. In other words, functional explanations try to answer the question of why a particular social fact exists and what purpose it serves in society. When we propose “social facts as things,” we mean that social facts should be treated as objective, external things that exist independently of individual consciousness. This idea was proposed by Emile Durkheim, who argued that social facts are external to individuals and have a coercive power over them. According to Durkheim, social facts are not reducible to individual actions or beliefs, but rather exist as objective phenomena that can be studied scientifically. 18. Explain the difference between methodological individualism and methodological holism and elaborate what Emile Durkheim means with “collective consciousness”. Methodological individualism and methodological holism are two contrasting approaches in sociology and social science that pertain to how social phenomena are explained and analyzed: Methodological Individualism: Methodological individualism is an approach that seeks to understand and explain social phenomena by focusing on the actions, motivations, and decisions of individual actors within a society. It posits that social phenomena, such as institutions, norms, and organizations, emerge as a result of the actions and interactions of individuals. According to methodological individualism, society is seen as an aggregation of individual behaviors and choices. Social explanations are reduced to explanations about individual actions and preferences. This approach often emphasizes the importance of micro-level analysis, looking at the motivations and actions of individuals to understand larger social patterns. Methodological Holism: Methodological holism, on the other hand, approaches the study of social phenomena by focusing on larger, collective entities or systems, such as societies, cultures, or institutions. It contends that social phenomena cannot be fully understood by analyzing only the actions and motivations of individual actors. Instead, it considers the collective or systemic aspects of society as primary. Methodological holism seeks to identify emergent properties or patterns that arise from the interactions and relationships among various elements of a society. This approach often emphasizes macro-level analysis, looking at the structure and dynamics of society as a whole to explain social phenomena. Emile Durkheim’s concept of “collective consciousness” is closely related to methodological holism. Durkheim, a prominent sociologist, believed that society is more than just the sum of its individual members’ actions and beliefs. He argued that societies have a collective consciousness, which refers to the shared beliefs, values, norms, and moral principles that bind individuals together within a society. Key points about Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness: Collective consciousness represents the collective beliefs and values that guide and regulate individual behavior within a society. It is a social force that exerts influence on individuals, shaping their actions and decisions. Durkheim believed that the collective consciousness played a crucial role in maintaining social cohesion and order, as it provided a common moral framework and a sense of belonging for members of a society. Deviations from the collective consciousness, such as deviant or criminal behavior, were seen as disruptions to social stability. In summary, methodological individualism emphasizes the role of individual actions and motivations in explaining social phenomena, while methodological holism focuses on collective entities and systemic factors. Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness underscores the importance of shared beliefs and values in shaping society and maintaining social order. 19. What is a rational agent, and how can we describe games with such agents? Account for the game “prisoners dilemma”. A rational agent, in the context of game theory and economics, is an individual or entity that makes decisions and choices based on a set of preferences, beliefs, and constraints while seeking to maximize their own utility or well-being. Rational agents are assumed to make decisions logically, weighing the potential costs and benefits of different actions to arrive at the choice that will optimize their outcomes. They are assumed to have full knowledge. This concept is foundational in many economic and game-theoretic models. Game theory is a branch of mathematics and economics that studies strategic interactions between rational agents in situations where the outcome of one agent’s choice depends on the choices made by others. Games can be described using the following components: Players: The individuals or entities making decisions, often referred to as players, are rational agents. Strategies: Players have a set of strategies or actions they can choose from. Payoffs: Each combination of strategies chosen by the players results in a certain outcome or payoff for each player. Payoffs represent the benefits or utilities associated with each possible outcome. One classic example of a game in game theory is the “Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Prisoner’s Dilemma: In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, two suspects are arrested for a crime and placed in separate rooms, unable to communicate with each other. The authorities offer each prisoner a choice: cooperate with the other by remaining silent (cooperate) or betray the other by confessing (defect). The possible outcomes and associated payoffs are as follows: If both prisoners remain silent (cooperate), they both receive a relatively light sentence, representing a good outcome for both. If both prisoners confess (defect), they both receive a moderately severe sentence, representing a bad outcome for both. If one prisoner remains silent (cooperates) while the other confesses (defects), the one who confesses (defects) receives a very light sentence (as a reward for cooperating with authorities), while the one who remains silent (cooperates) receives a very severe sentence (as a punishment for not cooperating). The dilemma arises because each prisoner individually has an incentive to confess (defect) to minimize their own sentence, regardless of what the other prisoner does. However, if both prisoners act in their self-interest and confess, they both end up with worse outcomes than if they had both remained silent. The Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates a situation where rational agents pursuing their individual self-interest can lead to a collectively suboptimal outcome. It is often used as a model to analyse scenarios in which cooperation could benefit all parties, but individual incentives push them toward non-cooperative behaviour, resulting in a less desirable overall outcome. This concept has applications in various fields, including economics, psychology, and sociology. | Question 17: What are functional explanations, and what do we mean when proposing “social facts as things”? Answer 17: Functional explanations focus on the purpose or function of a social fact. “Social facts as things” means treating them as objective entities external to individuals. Question 18: Explain the difference between methodological individualism and methodological holism and elaborate what Emile Durkheim means with “collective consciousness”. Answer 18: Methodological individualism emphasizes individual actions, while methodological holism looks at larger societal structures. Durkheim’s “collective consciousness” is shared beliefs and values shaping social order. Question 19: What is a rational agent, and how can we describe games with such agents? Account for the game “prisoners dilemma”. Answer 19: A rational agent is one who makes choices to maximize their own well-being. Games involve players, strategies, and payoffs. The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” is a game where self-interested choices lead to a suboptimal outcome for both players. |
| Lecture 6 Understanding social action Risk and Culture Hollis chapter 7 Lupton chapter 3, | 20. Describe meaning when we refer to human action, and account for the four ideal types of human action developed by Max Weber. When we refer to “human action” in sociology and social theory, we are typically discussing the intentional and purposeful behavior of individuals within a social context. Human action encompasses the range of actions, decisions, and behaviors that individuals engage in as they interact with others and navigate the complexities of social life. It is a central concept in understanding human behavior and social phenomena. Max Weber, a prominent sociologist, developed the concept of “ideal types” to help analyze and categorize different forms of human action. Ideal types are analytical constructs or models that serve as simplified representations of complex social phenomena. Weber proposed four ideal types of human action, each of which helps us understand and categorize different modes of behavior: Zweckrational (Instrumentally Rational Action): Zweckrational action is characterized by individuals pursuing specific goals or ends in a rational and efficient manner. In this type of action, individuals carefully assess means and ends, calculating the most efficient way to achieve their objectives. Economic decision-making in a market-driven society often exemplifies zweckrational action, as individuals weigh costs, benefits, and consequences to maximize their self-interest. Wertrational (Value-Rational Action): Wertrational action is guided by deeply held values, beliefs, or ethical principles. Individuals engage in this type of action because they believe it aligns with their moral or ethical convictions, even if it may not be the most efficient means to an end. Religious devotion or acts driven by a sense of duty can be examples of wertrational action. Affektuell (Affectual Action): Affektuell action is driven by emotions, feelings, or passions rather than rational calculation or adherence to values. Individuals in this mode of action act impulsively based on their emotional states and reactions. Acts of anger, love, or fear that lead to impulsive behavior are instances of affektuell action. Traditional Action: Traditional action is guided by established customs, habits, and norms deeply ingrained in a particular culture or society. Individuals in traditional action follow long-standing practices without questioning or deliberating their actions. Rituals, customs, and behaviors passed down through generations are examples of traditional action. 21. What do we mean when we claim that social action is “rule following”? When we claim that social action is “rule following,” we are referring to the idea that much of human behavior in society is guided by explicit or implicit rules, norms, and expectations. Social action is not random or arbitrary; rather, it often adheres to established patterns of behavior that are considered appropriate and acceptable within a particular social or cultural context. 22. Discuss how Mary Douglas’ cultural theory of risk concurs with social concepts such as rules, “games” practises and forms of life? Mary Douglas’ cultural theory of risk offers a unique perspective on how individuals and societies perceive and respond to risk. Her theory, often associated with her book “Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory,” emphasizes the cultural and symbolic dimensions of risk perception and management. In the context of her theory, several social concepts, including rules, games, practices, and forms of life, align with her ideas. Here’s how they concur: Rules: Mary Douglas argues that cultural rules and norms play a significant role in shaping how societies perceive and manage risk. Different cultures and social groups have distinct sets of rules and norms that determine what is considered safe or risky behavior. These rules dictate how individuals should interact with their environment and with each other. They define what is acceptable and unacceptable, and deviations from these rules can be seen as risky behavior. For example, in some cultures, dietary rules and taboos may determine what is considered safe to eat. Violating these rules may be seen as risky behavior because it challenges established norms. Games: Douglas’ theory recognizes that risk perception can be akin to a social game with its own set of rules. These rules often depend on cultural factors and shared beliefs. People engage in a “game” of risk perception where they assess potential dangers, make decisions, and interact with others based on their understanding of the rules of that game. Different cultures may have different “games” when it comes to risk, leading to varying risk perceptions and management strategies. What is considered risky in one culture may not be the same in another. Practices: Douglas’ theory acknowledges that risk perception and management are not abstract concepts but are deeply embedded in everyday practices. These practices are influenced by cultural norms and rules. The way people prepare and consume food, for example, is a practice that reflects cultural norms and rules related to hygiene and safety. These practices are shaped by how people perceive risks associated with food. Forms of Life: Douglas’ cultural theory of risk recognizes that risk perception is part of the broader “forms of life” that characterize specific cultures and societies. Different cultures have distinct ways of life, which include their beliefs, values, rituals, and practices. These forms of life also shape how people perceive and respond to risk. For example, the role of religion and spirituality in daily life can influence how people perceive risks and seek protection from them. In summary, Mary Douglas’ cultural theory of risk aligns with social concepts such as rules, games, practices, and forms of life by emphasizing that risk perception and management are deeply rooted in cultural and social contexts. Different cultures and societies have their own frameworks for understanding and responding to risk, and these frameworks are informed by shared norms, rules, practices, and ways of life. Understanding these cultural dimensions is essential for comprehending how individuals and societies make sense of and manage risk. 23. Account for the group-grid model and explain how the model relates to the Weberian ideal types.  The Group-Grid Model, developed by the anthropologist Mary Douglas and further elaborated by Michael Thompson, is a sociocultural framework that helps analyze and understand variations in social structures and relationships within different societies. It explores how individuals and groups within a society relate to each other based on two dimensions: group (groupness) and grid (institutionalization). This model provides insights into the organization of societies and the patterns of social behavior. The Group-Grid Model consists of two dimensions: Group (Groupness): The “group” dimension refers to the extent to which individuals in a society emphasize collective identities, shared norms, and communal relationships. In societies with a high emphasis on “group,” individuals prioritize their group memberships (e.g., family, clan, tribe) and maintain strong communal bonds. Group identity plays a central role in their lives. Grid (Institutionalization): The “grid” dimension refers to the extent to which societies have formal institutions, roles, and hierarchies that structure social life. In societies with a high degree of “grid,” there are well-defined roles, rules, and hierarchies that individuals are expected to follow. Social life is highly institutionalized. The Group-Grid Model creates a matrix with four quadrants, each representing a different societal configuration: Hierarchical (High Grid, Low Group): In hierarchical societies, there are strong institutions, roles, and hierarchies that structure social life (high grid). However, individual group memberships and communal bonds are relatively weak (low group). Bureaucratic organizations, formal institutions, and clear social hierarchies characterize these societies. Weber’s ideal type of “rational-legal authority” aligns with this quadrant. Egalitarian (Low Grid, Low Group): Egalitarian societies have relatively weak institutionalization and hierarchy (low grid). They also place less emphasis on collective identities and group memberships (low group). These societies often prioritize individual autonomy, with less formal structuring of social life. Individualist (Low Grid, High Group): In individualist societies, there is an emphasis on group identities and strong communal bonds (high group). However, formal institutions and hierarchies are relatively weak (low grid). Communal groups, such as extended families or religious communities, play a central role in social life. Weber’s concept of “charismatic authority” aligns with this quadrant. Fatalist (High Grid, High Group): Fatalist societies exhibit strong institutionalization and hierarchy (high grid). They also emphasize collective identities and group memberships (high group). In such societies, individuals have limited autonomy and adhere closely to prescribed roles and norms. In relation to Weberian ideal types, the Group-Grid Model provides a framework for understanding how different societies manifest Weber’s concepts of rationalization, authority, and social organization. The hierarchical quadrant aligns with Weber’s idea of rational-legal authority and bureaucratic organization, while the individualist quadrant resonates with Weber’s notion of charismatic authority and the role of communal groups. The model offers a nuanced perspective on social structures and relationships, helping scholars and researchers analyze and compare societies across different dimensions of groupness and institutionalization. | Question 20: Describe meaning when we refer to human action, and account for the four ideal types of human action developed by Max Weber. Answer 20: Human action refers to intentional and purposeful behavior within a social context. Max Weber proposed four ideal types of human action: Zweckrational (instrumentally rational), Wertrational (value-rational), Affektuell (affectual), and Traditional action. Question 21: What do we mean when we claim that social action is “rule following”? Answer 21: Social action being “rule following” means that much of human behavior adheres to established rules, norms, and expectations, guiding behavior within a social or cultural context. Question 22: Discuss how Mary Douglas’ cultural theory of risk concurs with social concepts such as rules, “games” practices and forms of life? Answer 22: Mary Douglas’ theory aligns with social concepts like rules, games, practices, and forms of life by emphasizing that risk perception is influenced by cultural norms and shared beliefs. Different societies have their own frameworks for understanding and managing risk. Question 23: Account for the group-grid model and explain how the model relates to the Weberian ideal types. Answer 23: The Group-Grid Model explores social structures based on groupness and institutionalization. It aligns with Weberian ideal types by providing a framework to understand social organization and authority structures in different societies. The model relates to Weber’s concepts of rationalization, authority, and social organization. |
| Lecture 7 Risk and reflexive modernisation Governmentality Lupton chapter 4, 5 | 24. Account for the concepts “modernity”, “late modernity” and “Risk Society”. Modernity: Modernity refers to a historical and social period characterized by significant changes in society, often associated with the transition from traditional to industrialized and urbanized societies. In the passage, the mention of “collective will” and the challenge of addressing global risks in a world moving into a “new phase of strongly state-centered politics” reflects the complexities of modernity. Modernity involves shifts in political, economic, and social structures, which can impact the ability to address global challenges collectively. Late Modernity: Late modernity is an extension of the modernity concept and represents a stage where the characteristics of modernity continue to evolve. Highlighting the global trend of states asserting control and the potential weakening of collective responses to global challenges. Late modernity implies a state of flux, where established systems and structures are adapting to new dynamics. Risk Society: The concept of Risk Society, as developed by Ulrich Beck, refers to a society in which risks associated with modernization and technological advancements have become central concerns. The mention of “global risks” intensifying and the separation of “scientific and social rationality”. In a Risk Society, the management of risks, such as those arising from technological developments or environmental changes, becomes a fundamental issue. 25. Discuss similarities and differences between the views of Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck on “the Risk Society”. Similarities: Recognition of Increasing Risks: Both Giddens and Beck acknowledge the idea that modern society is characterized by a heightened awareness of risks. They agree that risks are an integral part of contemporary life. Acknowledgement of Man-Made Risks: Both sociologists recognize the significance of man-made risks. Giddens mentions the shift from natural risks to man-made risks, and Beck also emphasizes the increase in systemic and civilizational risks, which can be attributed to human activities and the consequences of modernization. Importance of Reflexivity: Both Giddens and Beck emphasize the importance of self-awareness and reflexivity in dealing with risks. Giddens talks about “reflexive awareness,” and Beck discusses the need to overcome “organized irresponsibility.” They both highlight the role of human agency and the capacity for individuals and societies to reflect on and address risks. Differences: Role of Expert Systems: Giddens places a stronger emphasis on the role of expert systems, science, and technology in reducing risks. He believes that expert systems have contributed to risk reduction. In contrast, Beck’s perspective is more critical of expert systems, as he suggests that scientific and social rationality have fallen apart and remain intertwined, contributing to the complexity of managing risks. Perception of Overall Risk Level: Giddens argues that, in sum, the transition to a Risk Society has not necessarily made life conditions riskier. Instead, it has increased the level of reflection. In contrast, Beck’s perspective seems to be more pessimistic, suggesting an overall increase in risks, particularly civilizational and systemic risks. He points out the concept of “cosmopolitan world risk,” which includes both positive and negative aspects of global risks. Approach to Solutions: Giddens leans toward finding solutions to risks within national and multinational institutions. He sees the potential for addressing risks through established institutions and structures. Beck’s perspective, on the other hand, seems to emphasize the need for a more global, cosmopolitan approach to addressing risks and overcoming “sub-politics.” In summary, while both Giddens and Beck share common ground in their recognition of the increased awareness of risks in modern society and the importance of reflexivity, they differ in their views on the role of expert systems, the overall level of risk, and the approach to solutions. Giddens sees a more positive role for expert systems and a less pessimistic view of overall risk levels, while Beck’s perspective is more critical of expert systems and emphasizes a broader, cosmopolitan approach to managing risks. 26 Explain the notion of “governmentality”. Governmentality is a concept that encompasses the ways in which governing authorities shape and influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviours, including their management of risks. It involves a shift from a more authoritarian approach to risk management to one where individuals take on greater responsibility for their own risk-related decisions, guided by statistical probabilities and general guidelines provided by authorities. 27. According to the notion of governmentality, what seems to be reasonable risk strategies in contemporary western societies? Risk-Based Governance: Contemporary governance focuses on “risk,” which is regulated based on statistical probabilities about what poses a risk to a group or population. Authorities create guidelines for intervention, conduct surveillance to anticipate potential dangers, disseminate information about risks, and leave individuals to take responsibility for their own risk management based on average considerations. This shift allows for greater individual autonomy and choice. Participation and Democratization: Governmentality also includes elements of participation and democratization. Individuals have the right to influence matters concerning their own lives, and participation serves as a means of political schooling and socialization. This process involves promoting dialogue and public debate as a basis for decision-making. Encouraging Self-Regulation: Governmentality encourages individuals to take responsibility for their own lives, health, and welfare. It normalizes adaptations and self-discipline in carrying out one’s perceived responsibilities, which align with societal norms and expectations. Dynamic (self) governance Interaction: Governmentality reflects a dynamic interplay between how individuals and societies perceive and govern themselves. The way individuals govern themselves and others influences the production of new truths and ways of governance. | 24. Account for the concepts “modernity”, “late modernity” and “Risk Society”. Modernity: Modernity refers to a historical and social period characterized by significant changes in society, often associated with the transition from traditional to industrialized and urbanized societies. In the passage, the mention of “collective will” and the challenge of addressing global risks in a world moving into a “new phase of strongly state-centered politics” reflects the complexities of modernity. Modernity involves shifts in political, economic, and social structures, which can impact the ability to address global challenges collectively. Late Modernity: Late modernity is an extension of the modernity concept and represents a stage where the characteristics of modernity continue to evolve. Highlighting the global trend of states asserting control and the potential weakening of collective responses to global challenges. Late modernity implies a state of flux, where established systems and structures are adapting to new dynamics. Risk Society: The concept of Risk Society, as developed by Ulrich Beck, refers to a society in which risks associated with modernization and technological advancements have become central concerns. The mention of “global risks” intensifying and the separation of “scientific and social rationality”. In a Risk Society, the management of risks, such as those arising from technological developments or environmental changes, becomes a fundamental issue. 25. Discuss similarities and differences between the views of Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck on “the Risk Society”. Similarities: Recognition of Increasing Risks: Both Giddens and Beck acknowledge the idea that modern society is characterized by a heightened awareness of risks. They agree that risks are an integral part of contemporary life. Acknowledgment of Man-Made Risks: Both sociologists recognize the significance of man-made risks. Giddens mentions the shift from natural risks to man-made risks, and Beck also emphasizes the increase in systemic and civilizational risks, which can be attributed to human activities and the consequences of modernization. Importance of Reflexivity: Both Giddens and Beck emphasize the importance of self-awareness and reflexivity in dealing with risks. Giddens talks about “reflexive awareness,” and Beck discusses the need to overcome “organized irresponsibility.” They both highlight the role of human agency and the capacity for individuals and societies to reflect on and address risks. Differences: Role of Expert Systems: Giddens places a stronger emphasis on the role of expert systems, science, and technology in reducing risks. He believes that expert systems have contributed to risk reduction. In contrast, Beck’s perspective is more critical of expert systems, as he suggests that scientific and social rationality have fallen apart and remain intertwined, contributing to the complexity of managing risks. Perception of Overall Risk Level: Giddens argues that, in sum, the transition to a Risk Society has not necessarily made life conditions riskier. Instead, it has increased the level of reflection. In contrast, Beck’s perspective seems to be more pessimistic, suggesting an overall increase in risks, particularly civilizational and systemic risks. He points out the concept of “cosmopolitan world risk,” which includes both positive and negative aspects of global risks. Approach to Solutions: Giddens leans toward finding solutions to risks within national and multinational institutions. He sees the potential for addressing risks through established institutions and structures. Beck’s perspective, on the other hand, seems to emphasize the need for a more global, cosmopolitan approach to addressing risks and overcoming “sub-politics.” In summary, while both Giddens and Beck share common ground in their recognition of the increased awareness of risks in modern society and the importance of reflexivity, they differ in their views on the role of expert systems, the overall level of risk, and the approach to solutions. Giddens sees a more positive role for expert systems and a less pessimistic view of overall risk levels, while Beck’s perspective is more critical of expert systems and emphasizes a broader, cosmopolitan approach to managing risks. 26 Explain the notion of “governmentality”. Governmentality is a concept that encompasses the ways in which governing authorities shape and influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviours, including their management of risks. It involves a shift from a more authoritarian approach to risk management to one where individuals take on greater responsibility for their own risk-related decisions, guided by statistical probabilities and general guidelines provided by authorities. 27. According to the notion of governmentality, what seems to be reasonable risk strategies in contemporary western societies? Risk-Based Governance: Contemporary governance focuses on “risk,” which is regulated based on statistical probabilities about what poses a risk to a group or population. Authorities create guidelines for intervention, conduct surveillance to anticipate potential dangers, disseminate information about risks, and leave individuals to take responsibility for their own risk management based on average considerations. This shift allows for greater individual autonomy and choice. Participation and Democratization: Governmentality also includes elements of participation and democratization. Individuals have the right to influence matters concerning their own lives, and participation serves as a means of political schooling and socialization. This process involves promoting dialogue and public debate as a basis for decision-making. Encouraging Self-Regulation: Governmentality encourages individuals to take responsibility for their own lives, health, and welfare. It normalizes adaptations and self-discipline in carrying out one’s perceived responsibilities, which align with societal norms and expectations. Dynamic (self) governance Interaction: Governmentality reflects a dynamic interplay between how individuals and societies perceive and govern themselves. The way individuals govern themselves and others influences the production of new truths and ways of governance. |
| Lecture 8 Risk and subjectivity Self and roles Lupton chapter 6 Hollis chapter 8 | 28. Discuss why lay persons have different views on risk than so-called experts. In summary, the divergence in risk perceptions between laypersons and experts is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by differences in knowledge, expertise, trust in experts, personal experiences, cultural and social factors, and political beliefs. It is important to recognize that laypersons’ risk assessments are not solely based on a lack of knowledge but are also shaped by a variety of personal and societal factors. 29. Explain why reflexivity in late modernity, has broader connotations than proposed by Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck. Reflexivity, in the context of late modernity and sociological theory, refers to the capacity of individuals and societies to engage in self-awareness, self-examination, and critical reflection. It involves the ongoing process of individuals and social groups considering their own actions, beliefs, and values, and how these relate to the broader cultural, social, and institutional context in which they exist. The broader connotations of reflexivity in late modernity expand beyond the initial focus on risk society presented by Giddens and Beck. These expanded perspectives encompass issues of power, social inequality, interpretation, hermeneutics, habitus, and the complex interplay of personal and societal factors in shaping risk perceptions and responses. Reflexivity in late modernity is a multifaceted concept that is deeply intertwined with individual and collective experiences, identities, and socio-cultural contexts. 30. What do we mean by “roles” in social sciences? In the social sciences, “roles” refer to the expected behaviors, responsibilities, and functions associated with a particular position or status within a society or social structure. Institutional Roles: These roles are defined by institutions, organizations, and societal norms. Institutional roles come with specific expectations, rules, and responsibilities. Examples of institutional roles include a bureaucrat, a shopkeeper, a teacher, a doctor, a police officer, and so on. Fulfilling these roles often involves adhering to specific job descriptions, legal obligations, and professional codes of conduct. Normative Roles: Normative roles are based on social norms and expectations that may not be as clearly defined as institutional roles. These roles involve a set of quasi-moral or normative duties to perform. Examples of normative roles include being a parent, a friend, a good neighbor, or a responsible citizen. Fulfilling normative roles can vary depending on cultural, social, and individual factors, and they often involve moral and ethical considerations. 31. Account for differences between social identity and personal identity and how these differences relate to our definitions of agent and actor. Personal identity is about an individual’s subjective understanding of themselves, while social identity relates to how individuals identify with and are recognized by various social groups. Both personal and social identities play a role in shaping how individuals act as agents and actors in their respective roles and within the broader societal context. Personal identity informs the unique characteristics and values that an individual brings to their roles, while social identity relates to the collective categories and roles they assume in society. | Question 24: Account for the concepts “modernity”, “late modernity” and “Risk Society”. Answer 24: Modernity: A period of significant social change, often marked by the shift from traditional to industrialized societies. Late Modernity: An extension of modernity characterized by evolving characteristics. Risk Society: A society where the central concern is the management of risks associated with modernization and technological advancements. Question 25: Discuss similarities and differences between the views of Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck on “the Risk Society”. Answer 25: Similarities: Recognition of increasing risks. Acknowledgement of man-made risks. Importance of reflexivity. Differences: Role of expert systems. Perception of overall risk level. Approach to solutions. Question 26: Explain the notion “governmentality”. Answer 26: Governmentality refers to the ways governing authorities shape and influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviors, including their management of risks. It involves a shift towards individuals taking responsibility for their own risk-related decisions guided by authorities’ statistical probabilities and guidelines. Question 27: According to the notion of governmentality, what seems to be reasonable risk strategies in contemporary western societies? Answer 27: Risk-Based Governance. Participation and Democratization. Encouraging Self-Regulation. Dynamic (self) Governance Interaction. |
| Lecture 9 Risk and otherness Risk and pleasure Lupton 7, 8 | Question 32: What kinds of risks are associated with “otherness”? Answer 32: Risks associated with “otherness” include social exclusion, discrimination, cultural identity preservation, psychological well-being, physical safety, legal protections, economic opportunities, and more. Question 33: Discuss why we often fear “the other” and compare how risk linked to otherness concurs with the understanding of risk in the techno-scientific perspective. Answer 33: Fear of “the other” is often rooted in unfamiliarity, cultural differences, and social biases. The techno-scientific perspective on risk acknowledges that risk perceptions can be influenced by social and cultural frameworks, similar to fearing “the other.” Question 34: Elaborate the “concept of edgework” and how it is linked to risk-taking. Answer 34: Edgework is voluntary risk-taking for intense, adrenaline-inducing experiences. Motivated by personal fulfilment, excitement, and breaking routine. Participants in edgework manage and mitigate risks in pursuit of thrilling experiences. Question 35: Discuss how risk-taking differs between men and women. Answer 35: Differences due to societal norms, expectations, and individual traits. Men often engage in more physical and competitive risk-taking. Women may focus on relational and health-related risk-taking. Gender differences can also vary by culture and context. | Question 32: What kinds of risks are associated with “otherness”? Answer 32: Risks associated with “otherness” include social exclusion, discrimination, cultural identity preservation, psychological well-being, physical safety, legal protections, economic opportunities, and more. Question 33: Discuss why we often fear “the other” and compare how risk linked to otherness concurs with the understanding of risk in the techno-scientific perspective. Answer 33: Fear of “the other” is often rooted in unfamiliarity, cultural differences, and social biases. The techno-scientific perspective on risk acknowledges that risk perceptions can be influenced by social and cultural frameworks, similar to fearing “the other.” Question 34: Elaborate the “concept of edgework” and how it is linked to risk-taking. Answer 34: Edgework is voluntary risk-taking for intense, adrenaline-inducing experiences. Motivated by personal fulfilment, excitement, and breaking routine. Participants in edgework manage and mitigate risks in pursuit of thrilling experiences. Question 35: Discuss how risk-taking differs between men and women. Answer 35: Differences due to societal norms, expectations, and individual traits. Men often engage in more physical and competitive risk-taking. Women may focus on relational and health-related risk-taking. Gender differences can also vary by culture and context. |
| Lecture 10 Explaining and understanding Value – neutral social science Hollis 9, 10 | Question 36. How is it possible to explain and understand co-operation? In explaining cooperation, a combination of homo sociologicus and homo economicus is proposed, analyzing social action as an instrumentally rational choice within social constraints. Rules and reason, encompassing normative expectations, play a crucial role. Individuals have leeway to maneuver within established rules, and their responses are influenced not only by normative expectations but also by personal considerations. This approach synthesizes sociological and economic perspectives, emphasizing the intertwining of individual rationality and social structures. Question 37. What are the differences between rational and normative expectations? The normative expectations are the rules and values that are part of our social identity. For instance, we expect the liberals to vote for lower takes. The rational expectations are the outcomes of rational behaviour. For instance, driving fast because we don’t want to be late for a meeting. Question 38. Discuss the statement “Science and moral progress go together” The advance’s in science need to move in conjunction with moral progress, because new scientific inventions lead to new ethical problems. For instance the developments in artificial intelligence has raised the questions of what computers should be and not be allowed to make decisions on. Question 39. Describe and elaborate Max Weber’s distinction between value-freedom and value-relevance. Weber’s concept of value-freedom emphasizes the need for objectivity and neutrality in sociological research, while value-relevance acknowledges the role of subjective values in the social world. The distinction recognizes the complexity of social phenomena, where both objective analysis and an understanding of subjective meanings are essential for a comprehensive sociological approach. | Question 36: How is it possible to explain and understand co-operation? Answer 36: By combining homo sociologicus and homo economicus, analyzing social action as instrumentally rational within established rules. Leeway within norms and personal considerations shape individuals’ responses, emphasizing the intertwining of individual rationality and social structures. |
| Lecture 11 Risk and Ethics Strand et al. +++ | Question 40. What kinds of risks are associated with “otherness”? ”Otherness” is associated with a wide range of risks and challenges that can impact the well-being and rights of individuals or groups. These risks encompass social exclusion, discrimination, cultural identity preservation, psychological well-being, physical safety, legal protections, economic opportunities, and more. Question 41. Discuss why we often fear “the other” and compare how risk linked to otherness concurs with the understanding of risk in the techno-scientific perspective. The techno-scientific perspective on risk often takes a more objective and quantifiable approach to risk assessment. It seeks to measure, analyze, and communicate risks based on scientific data and evidence. However, this perspective acknowledges that risk perceptions can be distorted or biased through social and cultural frameworks, aligning with the concept of fearing “the other”. Question 42. Elaborate the “concept of edgework” and how it is linked to risk-taking. Edgework is a form of voluntary risk-taking that individuals engage in to experience intense and adrenaline-inducing activities. It is distinct from many other forms of risk-taking in that it is motivated by personal fulfilment, the pursuit of excitement, and a desire to break free from the routine of everyday life. Participants in edgework often manage and mitigate risks as part of their quest for thrilling experiences. Question 43. Discuss how risk-taking differs between men and women. Risk-taking behaviour can differ between men and women due to a combination of societal norms, expectations, and individual personality traits. | 40: ”Otherness” is associated with a wide range of risks and challenges that can impact the well-being and rights of individuals or groups. These risks encompass social exclusion, discrimination, cultural identity preservation, psychological well-being, physical safety, legal protections, economic opportunities, and more. 41: The techno-scientific perspective on risk often takes a more objective and quantifiable approach to risk assessment. It seeks to measure, analyze, and communicate risks based on scientific data and evidence. However, this perspective acknowledges that risk perceptions can be distorted or biased through social and cultural frameworks, aligning with the concept of fearing “the other”. 42: Edgework is a form of voluntary risk-taking that individuals engage in to experience intense and adrenaline-inducing activities. It is distinct from many other forms of risk-taking in that it is motivated by personal fulfilment, the pursuit of excitement, and a desire to break free from the routine of everyday life. Participants in edgework often manage and mitigate risks as part of their quest for thrilling experiences. 43: Risk-taking behaviour can differ between men and women due to a combination of societal norms, expectations, and individual personality traits. |
| Lecture 12 Science: society, risk, safety and security Rationality and relativism Covello and Mumpower +++ Hollis 11, 12 | 44. Elaborate how different scientific foundations are linked to societal safety and security. Different scientific foundations can help us define, view and understand risks related to societal safety and security. As discussed in ‘The matrix’ we can explain social action from an individualistic or holistic approach. We can study the influence of security and safety risk on and from the perspective of individuals, the society as a whole and the interaction of these two. Another scientific foundation could be by differentiating between a realist and a constructivist view upon societal safety and security risks. Whereby the realist focuses on the objective study of risks, and the constructivist on the subjective experience of risk. Question 45. Discuss how individualism and holism is related to safety and security. Individualism and holism can be seen as different points of view, or lenses trough which safety and security risks can be determined and understood. Question 46. Discuss how rationality relates to safety and security. What is rational in relation to safety and security risks varies greatly from person to person because of perception, culture, character and past experiences. Question 47. Discuss how relativism relates to the risk subject and to the understanding of societal safety and security. see above | 44: Different scientific foundations can help us define, view and understand risks related to societal safety and security. As discussed in ‘The matrix’ we can explain social action from an individualistic or holistic approach. We can study the influence of security and safety risk on and from the perspective of individuals, the society as a whole and the interaction of these two. Another scientific foundation could be by differentiating between a realist and a constructivist view upon societal safety and security risks. Whereby the realist focuses on the objective study of risks, and the constructivist on the subjective experience of risk. 45: Individualism and holism can be seen as different points of view, or lenses trough which safety and security risks can be determined and understood. 46: What is rational in relation to safety and security risks varies greatly from person to person because of perception, culture, character and past experiences. 47: What is rational in relation to safety and security risks varies greatly from person to person because of perception, culture, character and past experiences. |
Leave a Reply