Risk assessment and management and their progeny risk perception and communication, pervade social dialogue and policy formulation in much of social, particularly environmental, action today. Following an introduction to the current context, the article critically examines the nature of risk relative to the policy domain. The critique suggests that the objective positivist notion of risk that dominates current dialogue has obscured the full set of concerns of the parties involved and has led to breakdowns common in risk dialogues. An alternative construction of risk based on speech act theory and social construction, particularly as adapted by Habermas, is offered along with consequent reinterpre tations of risk. The reconstruction shows a fundamental difference between the social process of assessing environmental hazards, such as chemicals and incinerators, and the individual act of assessing risk prior to taking an action. The article concludes with suggestions for improved processes to deal with "risky" propositions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. London: Sage.
3.
Berger, P.L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
4.
Bradbury, J.A. (1989). The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14, 380-399.
5.
Calhoun, C. (Ed.). (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development. (1993). Dimensions of managing chlorine in the environment . Unpublished report, Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
7.
Clarke, L. (1988). Explaining choices among technical risks. Social Problems, 35, 22-35.
8.
Covello, V.T., Kawamura, K., Boroush, M., Ikeda, S., Lunes, P.F., & Minor, M.S. (1988). Cooperation versus confrontation: A comparison of approaches to environmental risk management in Japan and the United States . Risk Analysis, 8, 247-260.
9.
Craig, E. (1989). Hazardous waste treatment facility siting: Explaining the communicative breakdown and creating future possibilities. Unpublished master's thesis, Technology and Policy Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
10.
Dietz, T., Stern, R.C., & Rycroft, R.W. (1989). Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk. Sociological Forum , 4, 47-70.
11.
Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences . New York: Russell Sage.
12.
Pouglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley : University of California Press.
13.
Eder, K. (1985). The "new social movements": Moral crusades, political pressure groups, or social movements? Social Research, 52, 869-890.
14.
Ehrenfeld, J.R., Craig, E., & Nash, J. (1988). Waste incineration: Confronting the sources of disagreement. Unpublished report, MIT Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development.
15.
Ember, L. (1994, January 24). Health risk assessment, Chemical & Engineering News, pp. 6-7.
16.
Forester, J. (1985a). Critical theory and planning practice. In J. Forester (Ed.), Critical theory and public life (pp. 202-227). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Forester, J. (Ed.). (1985b). Critical theory and public life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Ciddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.
20.
Graham, J.D. (1994). Time for Congress to embrace risk analysis? Risk Analysis, 14, 139-142.
21.
Greenberg, M., & Anderson, R. (1984). Hazardous waste sites: The credibility gap. Working paper, Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University .
22.
Gregory, R., & Lichtenstein, S. (1994). Ahint of risk: Tradeoffs between quantitative and qualitative risk factors. Risk Analysis , 14, 199-206.
23.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.
24.
Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis. Boston : Beacon.
25.
Habermas, J. (1979). What is universal pragmatics? In T. McCarthy (Trans.), Communication and the evolution of society (pp. 1-68). Boston: Beacon.
26.
Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon.
27.
Habermas, J. (1982). Reply to my critics. In J. B. Thompson & D. Held (Eds.), Habermas: Critical debates (pp. 219-283). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston : Beacon.
29.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformtion of the public sphere . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
Hadden, S. (1991). Public perception of hazardous waste. Risk Analysis, 11, 1.
31.
Hatcher, A. (1991). The megawatt dilemma: Electric utilities and the least cost planning collaboration. Unpublished master's thesis, Technology and Policy Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
32.
Heidegger, M. (1959). An introduction to metaphysics. New York: Doubleday.
33.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper & Row.
34.
Hileman, B. (1993, May 31). Chlorine industry groups make moves to ease concerns about their products. Chemical & Engineering News, pp. 19-20.
35.
Ingram, D. (1990). Critical theory and philosophy. New York: Paragon House.
36.
Jasanoff, S. (1983). Negotiation or cost-benefit analysis. Environmental Forum, 2(3), 37-43.
37.
Konkel, R.S. (1987). Risk management in the United States: Dioxin emissions and trash-to-energy plants in New York City. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 7, 7-55.
38.
Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1988). Environmental hazards: Communicating risks as a social process. Dover, MA: Auburn House.
39.
Larsen, E.R. (1993, November 8). A world without chlorine. Chemical & Engineering News, p. 2.
40.
Maturana, H.R. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity, or the quest for a compelling argument. Unpublished manuscript, University of Santiago, Chile.
41.
Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. (1988). The tree of knowledge. Boston : New Science Library.
42.
Molotch, H. (1970). Oil in Santa Barbara and power in America. Sociological Inquiry, 40, 133-144.
43.
Morgenstern, R., & Sessions, S. (1988). EPA's unfinished business. Environment , 30(6), 15-39.
44.
National Research Council. (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45.
National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46.
National Research Council. (1994). Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
47.
O'Hare, M., Bacow, L., & Sanderson, D. (1983). Facility siting and public opposition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
48.
Otway, H. (1987). Experts, risk communication, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 7, 125-129.
49.
Otway, H., & Wynne, B. (1989). Risk communication: Paradigm and paradox. Risk Analysis, 9,141-144.
50.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies . New York: Basic Books.
51.
Rayner, S., & Cantor, R. (1987). How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technological choice. Risk Analysis, 7, 3-9.
52.
Reilly, W.K. (1991). Why I propose a national debate on risk. EPA Journal, 17, 2-5.
53.
Renn, O. (1992). Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 465-519.
54.
Ruckelshaus, W. (1983). Science, risk, and public policy. Science, 221, 1026-1028.
55.
Russell, M., & Gruber, M. (1986). Risk assessment in environmental policy-making . Science, 237, 286-290.
56.
Schroyer, T. (1973). The critique of domination: The origins and development of critical theory. New York: George Braziller.
57.
Science Advisory Board. (1990). Reducing risk: Setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection . Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
58.
Searle, J. (1989). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
59.
Sharlin, H.S. (1989). Risk perception: Changing the terms of the debate . Journal of Hazardous Materials, 21, 261-272.
60.
Short, J.F. (1984). The social fabric of risk: Toward the social transformation of risk. American Sociological Review, 49, 711-725.
61.
Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165, 1232-1238.
62.
Stone, R. (1994). Environmental estrogens stir debate. Science, 265, 308-310.
63.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agensy. (1987 ). Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental problems. Washington, DC: Author .
64.
White, S.K. (1988). The recent work of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65.
Wildavsky, A. (1979). No risk is the highest risk of all. American Scientist, 6732-37.
66.
Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41-60.
67.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
