ĤT@
|
|
]ItPIt
Beck, Ulrich (1992), "On the Logic of Wealth Distribution and Risk Distribution", in Risk Society. London: Sage. Pp19-50.
bog`, BeckոbŪ|(class society)]ItpܦI|(risk society)ItCItƦ۹{NʪϬ, iHNIwq@ӨtΩʪ覡hBzѲ{NʥҤoMIMTwʡCI, MHҪMIP, O{NƺRʤOqMyhêG CBeck ҹD: IoFVɪtΩʡBiMg`Oifˮ`C]{NƪILkMӥͲ~Ҧt}, ]OCӤHѻPM@, Pɥ]MMC@ӤHıoSdۦXCM,ﭷIıݿ|wqPغcU]G, jCBǻPk߱M~, |̾ڥL̪߳, bijwqPwӪIC
Beck{ǩM|zʥb@_, ۤW, HܩI|WPȧP_, ӹI|QשMıSǪԡCBeck Si@Bj, I|[jŪ|Y, ]aHg٪pHoIѪO, ۸UOzժCbyثפW̴`o˪, MI~N|CuꪺĤT@ɰa, ]oǰaVOò氧jhaPۥDʡCOIXĪG(boomerang effect) N|PɦMδIPjvH̩MaCBeck ]ߴu~|Iʤ]|ѥ|, ǤH|qDIM`HWQ, Ҧp, ´I(ǻPs)MǼH(jC)C̫, FvDqŪ|zİL, ܦI|MDw顨 (ΨS)`̡C Beck bog`dU\h, I|Fv顨(political vacuum)ʪi, γ\Lg, I|]OR۵J{MTwa!
ڭ̹ջPBeck , Qפ@UbŪ|PI|, |ܾEΦPOqCڭ̤ޥΤFt@ͺAJDqJames OConnorbo:Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism [I, γ\iHڭ̫@UBeck :
1. DzζŹBʪܪObꥻͲP` (putM), s|BʫhOEJbͲW, s|BʪijDObSwHsPSwaW, ӥBVFŪɽuC
2. ﰨJӨ, vOMȹ{vCӬOĹ諸QqHzWۤovOvCo˪v[γ\NO\hѩ̳̫ܦ̪Dn]C
3. OConnor ڵMʪz, L{qBuzBۥѩMDbP|PNq, Pɤ]QSw|cΪ|ΦP|sHP覡ӸC
4. bJ䪺zפ, FƩMͺAܾEͲҦܪvT, Lzפ]FX@]O@إͲOC
5. HҰʤOäuO̴`vOMȪkhӲ´, ]̴`ƳWdMӲ´, ӤƳWdM]|]|ҰʤOΦӧܡC
ڭ̦biHXO Connor
|FvʪݪkP BeckܤjP, Läݤ@ӴMʪ|ʨӰlDMʪ(Ū|MD),
άOw(I|MD), LN|FvDbC@ӯSwaPSwHshҡCL]XFDzΥŰMI,
ôXbahv[Cγ\oNOOConnorSBeck ŹBʪLPJ{w]a!
Review(3/11/1999)
Beck, Ulrich (1992), "On the Logic of Wealth Distribution and Risk Distribution", in Risk Society. London: Sage. Pp19-50.
In this article Beck tries to explain how the logic of wealth distribution in class society changes to the logic of risk distribution in risk society. The concept of risk evolved from the reflection of modernity may be defined as a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself. Risks, as opposed to older dangers, are consequences which relate to the threatening force of modernization and to its globalization of doubt.(p.21) Beck agues that risks induce systematic, invisible and often irreversible harm which crosses the borders of nations. Because modernization risks can not be isolated from the complex system of the industrial mode of production, there is a general complicity (by everyone), and it is matched by a general lack of responsibility (for everyone). However, the perception of risk depends on the causal interpretations that are open to social definition and construction, so the mass media and the scientific and legal professions are in a contestable sphere to define and predict future risk according to their positions.
Beck thinks that scientific and social rationality are so interwoven and interdependent that the scientific concern with risks relies on social expectations and value judgement, and the social discussion and perception of risks depends on scientific arguments. Moreover, risks seem to strengthen the class society, because the economic condition and accessibility to risk knowledge of the poor are comparably weak. Following this logic in a global scale, hazardous industries will transfer to the low-wage countries of the Third World because these countries are struggling against hunger and for autonomy from the First World countries. But the boomerang effect of risks diffusion will influences the rich and powerful people or countries as well. Beck also mentions that the double face of risks in late industrial society can provide market opportunities and some people can profit from these afflicted by risks, for example, the people to structure risk knowledge (science and research) and disseminate it (mass media). Lastly, the political subject changes from the proletariat struggling for the ideal of equality in class society, to the victimization of all (or none?) seeking for safety in risk society. However, Beck still leaves many questions about the ability to action of this political vacuum for readers (or himself?) to think. Maybe he was also full of anxiety when he wrote this article just like my anxiety in reading it.
Critics:
In order to dialogue with
the author, I think that we can discuss the questions about the form and
force of social change in class society and in risk society. Here I cite
some viewpoints from OConnor, James (1997) Natural Causes: Essays in
Ecological Marxism. New York: Guillford. Maybe these viewpoints can help
us to answer the questions Beck raises.
1. Traditional class movement struggles focus on production and circulation of capital (workplace and markets), new social movement focus on conditions of production. The issue is of site specificity/people specificity and across class lines (p12).
2. For Marx, history is not the history of the progressive realization of universal ideals. It is rather the history of struggles for power fought by antagonistic interests in the name of such (felt) ideals, which is perhaps the main reason why so many liberators turn into oppressors (p34).
3. Rejecting universal ideals, OConnor thinks that justice and truth and freedom and democracy have different practical meanings in different social structures and also are interpreted in different ways by different social groups in particular social structures or social formation (p34).
4. In Marxist theory, there are no positions of cultural and ecological changes in the transition from one mode and another, and it also ignored cooperation as a productive force (p38).
5. Human labor is organized not only by class
power and the law of value, but also by cultural norms and practices, which
in turn are shaped by forms of social labor (p39).
W@g ^ĤT@ɭ ^g@pЭ U@g