3.4 Analysis
167
The creation and accumulation of wealth is producing risks in modern society
(Ritzer 2000; Beck 2009), which implies that there are those producing risk, those
who are affected by it (Beck 2015) and those who enjoy the benefits of it, but who
do not have to bear the costs (Beck 2009). This creation of wealth fosters a culture of
increased economic affluence, the disregard of natural resources, which are seen as
economic assets, and it has negative consequences for the environment (Selin 1987).
Speaking of wealth and its distribution, a connection exists between risk and class,
with risks being associated with class patterns, although not in the way that we think.
Wealth is the norm at the top of the class structure, while risks are the standard at the
bottom. With poverty come risks. However, the wealthy (in terms of their income,
power or education) have the means at their disposal to purchase safety and freedom
from risk (Beck and Ritter 1992; Ritzer 2000; Beck 2015) in the form of insurance
and assurances, with money being a cushion against risk.
This implies that two types of risk exist, namely, individual and collective. Individuals face risks when they are exposed to the probability of ‘getting hurt’ or dying.
I would go so far as to argue that humans do not feel individual risks on such a grand
scale as the risks that Blowers (1997) speaks of, but that they are more localised in
their nature and extent, since such risks have an individual nature, as opposed to one
that is collective. Collective risks touch more than one individual and do not spare
large communities, states and even humanity (Selin 1987). At the time of writing,
the global coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a good example of
a collective risk.
As mentioned earlier, the source of risk alleviation is contained in modernity itself.
The risks produced by modernisation also have the capacity to provide the reflexivity
that is needed to think about modernity and its created risks. People are the main
reflexive agents, especially those affected by risks. They observe their environment
and gather information on the risks and their effects. Through observation, citizens
become experts on risks. In this sense they critically look at the pace of modernity
and the danger that it holds for society (Ritzer 2000). Individuals can also solve
environmental problems and address the collective risks produced by modern society
through functional and rational discourse (Eder 2000).
In certain instances, the advancement of knowledge is taking place outside government structures, not by standing in opposition to it, but by ignoring it (Beck and Ritter
1992). This has led to an erosion of the state and its governing apparatus, as well as
its main power base, which is called the ‘unbinding of politics’ (Beck 1995; Bulkeley
2001), with discourse playing a central role in this unravelling process. This means
that politics is no longer only the government’s responsibility; rather, individuals,
industry, interest groups, the wider epistemic community, NGOs, rural communities
and other private sector institutions also have a responsible role in politics (Meissner
2004). This does not mean that the state and its governing apparatus have lost all political power (Beck 1995; Bulkeley 2001), but it is dispersed by a range of individuals
and collective actors across numerous social structures.
Green and ecological infrastructures through the risk society lens
Table 3.6 elaborates on the risks that were identified during the interviews. The first
167
The creation and accumulation of wealth is producing risks in modern society
(Ritzer 2000; Beck 2009), which implies that there are those producing risk, those
who are affected by it (Beck 2015) and those who enjoy the benefits of it, but who
do not have to bear the costs (Beck 2009). This creation of wealth fosters a culture of
increased economic affluence, the disregard of natural resources, which are seen as
economic assets, and it has negative consequences for the environment (Selin 1987).
Speaking of wealth and its distribution, a connection exists between risk and class,
with risks being associated with class patterns, although not in the way that we think.
Wealth is the norm at the top of the class structure, while risks are the standard at the
bottom. With poverty come risks. However, the wealthy (in terms of their income,
power or education) have the means at their disposal to purchase safety and freedom
from risk (Beck and Ritter 1992; Ritzer 2000; Beck 2015) in the form of insurance
and assurances, with money being a cushion against risk.
This implies that two types of risk exist, namely, individual and collective. Individuals face risks when they are exposed to the probability of ‘getting hurt’ or dying.
I would go so far as to argue that humans do not feel individual risks on such a grand
scale as the risks that Blowers (1997) speaks of, but that they are more localised in
their nature and extent, since such risks have an individual nature, as opposed to one
that is collective. Collective risks touch more than one individual and do not spare
large communities, states and even humanity (Selin 1987). At the time of writing,
the global coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a good example of
a collective risk.
As mentioned earlier, the source of risk alleviation is contained in modernity itself.
The risks produced by modernisation also have the capacity to provide the reflexivity
that is needed to think about modernity and its created risks. People are the main
reflexive agents, especially those affected by risks. They observe their environment
and gather information on the risks and their effects. Through observation, citizens
become experts on risks. In this sense they critically look at the pace of modernity
and the danger that it holds for society (Ritzer 2000). Individuals can also solve
environmental problems and address the collective risks produced by modern society
through functional and rational discourse (Eder 2000).
In certain instances, the advancement of knowledge is taking place outside government structures, not by standing in opposition to it, but by ignoring it (Beck and Ritter
1992). This has led to an erosion of the state and its governing apparatus, as well as
its main power base, which is called the ‘unbinding of politics’ (Beck 1995; Bulkeley
2001), with discourse playing a central role in this unravelling process. This means
that politics is no longer only the government’s responsibility; rather, individuals,
industry, interest groups, the wider epistemic community, NGOs, rural communities
and other private sector institutions also have a responsible role in politics (Meissner
2004). This does not mean that the state and its governing apparatus have lost all political power (Beck 1995; Bulkeley 2001), but it is dispersed by a range of individuals
and collective actors across numerous social structures.
Green and ecological infrastructures through the risk society lens
Table 3.6 elaborates on the risks that were identified during the interviews. The first