166
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
risks (Tuathail 1999) or ‘dangers produced by civilization, which cannot be socially
delimited in either space or time’ (Beck 1996: 1). Risks are, to a large extent, the
side-effects of modernisation (Beck 1992; Bulkeley 2001). Industrialism and the
incessant accumulation of wealth produced by industrial processes are the main
sources of risks in modern society (Mythen and Walklate 2006; Meissner 2004).
Consequently, the new modernity era is not less risk prone than the pre-industrial
phase was. Through the process of capitalist modernisation, society has created a
series of volatile manufactured risks, or “side-effects”, of techno-economic development, which points to a movement away from a ‘regimented industrial society to
an unplanned and chaotic risk society’ (Mythen and Walklate 2006: 383), which is
often seemingly out of control.
This perspective conceptualises a risk as having a large negative impact on various
environmental and social systems, and that it has a small probability of occurring
(Björkman 1987). In this instance, Blowers (1997) identifies several nature-based
risks on a grand or global scale, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, desertification and ozone depletion. Temporal and spatial determinants are unable to delimit
these risks, but they have greater temporal and spatial mobility (Mythen and Walklate
2006) across the large land surfaces of the entire world. With respect to these ‘grand
risks’, we are living in an industrial and risk society. In other words, we are in a
transitional period between these two civilizations, with the society in which people
live having elements from both worlds (Beck and Ritter 1992; Ritzer 2000). Not only
that, risks pose a ‘greater potential for harm in the modern age with risks not only
spanning the globe, but also producing “irremediable effects”’. Modern technologies
that multiply the risks, instead of remediating them, create a ‘new Pandora’s box’
(Mythen and Walklate 2006: 384). There is another worrying dimension of a risk
society that is not located in an industrial society. Mythen and Walklate (2006: 384)
summarise this element by saying that:
…[T]he destructive energy of manufactured risks shatters existing principles of insurance.
In industrial society, hazards are predicted and managed through insurance policies, welfare
practices and legal constraints. By contrast, in the risk society, the ferocious force of “worst
imaginable accidents”…disempowers existing methods of institutional regulation. These
radical transformations in the nature of risk engender fundamental transformations in the
nature of politics and patterns of social distribution. In industrial society, the general public
pressed political parties to ensure adequate distribution of “goods”, such as income, health
and housing. Conversely, in the post-needs risk society, individuals become preoccupied
by protection against social “bads”, such as pollution, crime and terrorism. Since nobody
craves ownership of bads, the logic of the risk society is no longer based on possession but
avoidance….
Modernity is the reason why individuals and citizens are operating more independently, as society becomes more classless. Risks can either be reduced, redirected
or, as stated above, avoided. Safety is of the essence and, in this sense, citizens look
towards the defensive goal of an institution or structure that spares them from danger
(Cohen 1997; Ritzer 2000). The dream of a risk society is that everyone should be
secure from ‘poisoning’, and that the slogan ‘I am afraid’ should encapsulate the
driving force in the risk society (Beck 1992).
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
risks (Tuathail 1999) or ‘dangers produced by civilization, which cannot be socially
delimited in either space or time’ (Beck 1996: 1). Risks are, to a large extent, the
side-effects of modernisation (Beck 1992; Bulkeley 2001). Industrialism and the
incessant accumulation of wealth produced by industrial processes are the main
sources of risks in modern society (Mythen and Walklate 2006; Meissner 2004).
Consequently, the new modernity era is not less risk prone than the pre-industrial
phase was. Through the process of capitalist modernisation, society has created a
series of volatile manufactured risks, or “side-effects”, of techno-economic development, which points to a movement away from a ‘regimented industrial society to
an unplanned and chaotic risk society’ (Mythen and Walklate 2006: 383), which is
often seemingly out of control.
This perspective conceptualises a risk as having a large negative impact on various
environmental and social systems, and that it has a small probability of occurring
(Björkman 1987). In this instance, Blowers (1997) identifies several nature-based
risks on a grand or global scale, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, desertification and ozone depletion. Temporal and spatial determinants are unable to delimit
these risks, but they have greater temporal and spatial mobility (Mythen and Walklate
2006) across the large land surfaces of the entire world. With respect to these ‘grand
risks’, we are living in an industrial and risk society. In other words, we are in a
transitional period between these two civilizations, with the society in which people
live having elements from both worlds (Beck and Ritter 1992; Ritzer 2000). Not only
that, risks pose a ‘greater potential for harm in the modern age with risks not only
spanning the globe, but also producing “irremediable effects”’. Modern technologies
that multiply the risks, instead of remediating them, create a ‘new Pandora’s box’
(Mythen and Walklate 2006: 384). There is another worrying dimension of a risk
society that is not located in an industrial society. Mythen and Walklate (2006: 384)
summarise this element by saying that:
…[T]he destructive energy of manufactured risks shatters existing principles of insurance.
In industrial society, hazards are predicted and managed through insurance policies, welfare
practices and legal constraints. By contrast, in the risk society, the ferocious force of “worst
imaginable accidents”…disempowers existing methods of institutional regulation. These
radical transformations in the nature of risk engender fundamental transformations in the
nature of politics and patterns of social distribution. In industrial society, the general public
pressed political parties to ensure adequate distribution of “goods”, such as income, health
and housing. Conversely, in the post-needs risk society, individuals become preoccupied
by protection against social “bads”, such as pollution, crime and terrorism. Since nobody
craves ownership of bads, the logic of the risk society is no longer based on possession but
avoidance….
Modernity is the reason why individuals and citizens are operating more independently, as society becomes more classless. Risks can either be reduced, redirected
or, as stated above, avoided. Safety is of the essence and, in this sense, citizens look
towards the defensive goal of an institution or structure that spares them from danger
(Cohen 1997; Ritzer 2000). The dream of a risk society is that everyone should be
secure from ‘poisoning’, and that the slogan ‘I am afraid’ should encapsulate the
driving force in the risk society (Beck 1992).