Abstract
Rather than there being a single theory of risk and `the risk society', there are two lines of thought proposing distinct conceptions of risk. These make quite different assumptions about risk's origins, and about any nexus between risk, class and capitalism. Consequently, many of Rigakos and Hadden's criticisms are wide of the mark. Likewise, this article challenges their assertions that a single genealogy of risk can be traced to origins in the 17th century, and that this is evidence of risks' class foundations and its place in a `same olde modernity'. However, Rigakos and Hadden's emphasis on a need to examine the longer-term genealogy of risk is supported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
