Risk and Responsibility

Author(s): Anthony Giddens

Source: The Modern Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 1-10
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Modern Law Review
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1097071 .
Accessed: 02/07/2014 05:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Modern Law Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Modern Law Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

MODERN LAWREVIEW
Volume62

January1999

No 1

Risk and Responsibility

AnthonyGiddens*

I haveto beginwitha qualification.

I am nota lawyer,andmyknowledgeoflegal
limited.So I cannotguarantee
thatwhatI haveto say will
theoryis at beststrictly
even interest
mostof myaudience,let alone proveinstructive.
Much of whatI
want to talk about concernsrisk,which so far as I know does not figure
in legal writing.
I shall say less aboutresponsibility,
whichis much
prominently
closerto theusual concernsof thelaw. I shallattempt
to show,however,thatthe
ideas of riskand responsibility
are in factcloselylinked.
Let me beginby posinga question.Whatdo thefollowinghave in common:
red
BSE; thetroublesat Lloyds;theNickLeeson affair;globalwarming;
drinking
our
wine; decliningspermcounts?All reflecta vastswatheof changeaffecting
lives today.Much of thischangeis boundup withthe impactof science and
The
technologyon our everydayactivitiesand on the materialenvironment.
modernworld,of course,has long been shapedby theinfluence
of scienceand
As thepace ofinnovation
scientific
hotsup,however,
newtechnologies
discovery.
moreand moreto thecoreof ourlives;and moreand moreof whatwe
penetrate
feeland experiencecomesunderthescientific
spotlight.
The situation
does notleadto increasing
about,orsecurity
in,theworld
certainty
- in somewaystheoppositeis true.As KarlPopperabove all has shown,science
does not produceproofand can neverdo morethanapproximate
to truth.The
foundersof modernsciencebelievedit wouldproduceknowledgebuilton firm
foundations.
sands.
Poppersupposesby contrastthatscienceis builton shifting
advanceis thatevenone's mostcherished
The firstprincipleof scientific
theories
and beliefsare alwaysopen to revision.Science is thusan inherently
sceptical
revisionof claimsto knowledge.
endeavour,involvinga processof thatconstant
The sceptical,mutablenatureof sciencewas fora longtimeinsulatedfromthe
wider public domain- an insulationwhichpersistedso long as science and
in theireffectson everydaylife.Today,we
wererelatively
restricted
technology
contactwiththesetraitsof scientific
are all in regularand routine
innovation.
The
red wine,forexample,wereonce seen by
consequencesforhealthof drinking
More recentresearchindicatesthat,takenin
as basicallyharmful.
researchers
* London School of Economics and Political Science.
This is the textof the twenty-sixth
ChorleyLecture,deliveredat the London School of Economics and
Political Science on 27 May 1998. The articledraws upon materialfrom'Risk Society: the Contextof
BritishPolitics' in J.Franklin(ed), The Politics of Risk Society(Cambridge:PolityPress, 1998).
Publishedby BlackwellPublishers,
? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1999 (MLR 62:1, January).
108 Cowley Road,OxfordOX4 IJFand 350 Main Street,Malden,MA 02148, USA.

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The ModernLaw Review

[Vol. 62

thehealthbenefits
of red wineoutweighthedrawbacks.Whatwill
moderation,
researchshow?Will itperhapsrevealthatredwineis toxicafterall?
tomorrow's
We don't,and we can't,know- yetall of us, as consumers,
haveto respondin
somewayor anotherto thisunstableand complexframework
ofscientific
claims
and counterclaims.
Living in theUK, shouldone eat beef?Who can say? The
healthriskappearstobe slight.Yetthereis at leastthepossibility
ofan outbreak
of
BSE-relateddisease five, ten or twentyyears fromnow among the human
population.
We don't and can't know - the same applies to a diversityof new risk
situations.Take, forinstance,decliningspermcounts.Some scientificstudies
makeauthoritative
claimsaboutincreasingmale infertility,
and tracethisto the
action of environmental
toxins.Other scientists,however,dispute the very
existenceof thephenomenon,
letalonetheexplanations
offered
to accountforit.
Global warmingis acceptedas realbythemajority
of specialistsin thearea. Yet
thereis no shortageof expertswho eitherdenythatglobal warmingexistsor
ratherthan by the
climaticfluctuations
regardit as producedby long-term
effect.
greenhouse
The Lloyds insurancemarketseems for the momentto have got over the
disastrousfinancialtroubleswhichhave plaguedit overthelastfewyears.Such
troubleswere popularlyportrayed
as being bound up withclass - withthe
In fact,theyhad theirbasic
complacentoutlookof the'names'and theirbrokers.
of risk.Lloyds was hitby,amongotherthings,
originin thechangingcharacter
aboutthetoxicnatureof asbestosand by a seriesof naturaldisastersfindings
whichwerepossiblynot'natural'at all, butinfluenced
byglobalclimaticchange.
The numberof typhoons,
in
hurricanes
and otherclimaticdisturbances
happening
theworldeach yearhasclimbedoverthepastfifteen
yearsorso. Withitsmassive
future
institutions
commitments,
Lloyds- incommonwithotherlesserinsurance
could be financially
crippledat any time by as yetquite unforeseen
negative
or technological
consequencesof newscientific
findings
changes.
SimonSebag Montefiore
has written
an interesting
accountof theadventures
of Nick Leeson and BaringsBank.Sebag Montefiore
suggeststhatthereare two
in
which
different
what
at
can
(muchlike
ways
happened Barings be interpreted
the events at Lloyds). On the one hand, there is a class plus corruption
explanation.Accordingto thisview,BaringsBank collapsed because it had a
at odds withthedemandsof a dynamicglobal
crusty,upper-classmanagement
economicorder.
Sebag Montefiorecasts doubt on this explanation.He argues thatpeople
at theouteredgesofthefinancial
infutures
markets
working
system,
particularly
markets
where
deals
can
be
struck
over
movements
in
which
have
complex
prices
notyet,andmaynever,happen- arelikeastronauts.
Theyhavesteppedoutsidethe
realmof bankersand financialexperts- and theyhavesteppedoutsidewithout
a
lifeline.Nick Leeson drifted
away muchtoo farfromanysolidground,butmost
othersare able to keepthemselves
attachedto theirspace capsule.
has a veryarresting
He says
Sebag Montefiore
phraseto describethissituation.
Nick Leeson and otherpeoplelike him'operateat theouteredge of theordered
of moderntechnology'.
In otherwords,they
world,on thebarbaricfinalfrontier
are involvedwithsystemswhicheven theythemselvesdo not understand,
so
dramaticis theonrushofchangeinthenewelectronic
globaleconomy.I thinkthis
is right,
buttheargument
can be further
It is notjustpeoplelikeNick
generalised.
who live at thebarbaricouter
Leeson, notjust thenew financialentrepreneurs,
All of us now do - and I wouldtakethisto be the
edge of moderntechnology.
2

? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Riskand Responsibility

1999]
January

of whatUlrichBeck calls risksociety.A risksocietyis a

definingcharacteristic
where
we
society
increasinglylive on a high technologicalfrontierwhich
and whichgeneratesa diversityof
absolutelyno one completelyunderstands
possiblefutures.The originsof risksocietycan be tracedto two fundamental
whichare affecting
transformations
our lives today.Each is connectedto the
influence
ofscienceandtechnology,
notwhollydetermined
although
increasing
by
them.The firsttransformation
can be calledtheendofnature;and thesecondthe
end oftradition.
The end of naturedoes not meana worldin whichthe naturalenvironment
disappears.It meansthatthereare now fewif anyaspectsof thephysicalworld
untouched
The end of natureis relatively
recent.It isn't
by humanintervention.
of course,whichcan be preciselydated,but we can nevertheless
something,
came
roughly
plotwhentheendofnaturehappened.It happenedwhena transition
aboutfromthesortof anxietiespeopleused to have aboutnatureto a newsetof
ofyears,peopleworriedaboutwhatnaturecoulddo to us worries.Forhundreds
andso on. Ata certainpoint,somewhere
floods,
earthquakes,
plagues,bad harvests
overthepastfifty
or
we
so muchaboutwhatnature
so,
years
stoppedworrying
coulddo to us, and we started
moreaboutwhatwe havedoneto nature.
worrying
The transition
makesone majorpointofentryin risksociety.It is a societywhich
lives 'afternature'.
To live aftertheendof
However,it is also a societywhichlivesaftertradition.
is essentiallyto be in a worldwherelifeis no longerlivedas fate.For
tradition
manypeople - and thisis stilla sourceof class divisionin modemsocietiesdiverseaspectsof lifewereestablishedby tradition
as fate.It was thefateof a
womanto be involvedin a domesticmilieuformuchof herlife,to havechildren
andlookafterthehouse.Itwas thefateofmentogo outto work,toworkuntilthey
- essentially
retired
and then- quiteoftensoonafterretirement
to fadeaway.We
no longer live our lives as fate, in a process which Ulrich Beck calls
A societywhichlives afternatureand aftertradition
individualisation.
is really
different
from
the
form
earlier
of
industrial
the
basis
for the
very
society
of thecoreintellectual
traditions
of Westernculture.
development
To analysewhatrisksocietyis, one mustmakea seriesof distinctions.
Firstof
all, we mustseparateriskfromhazardor danger.Riskis not,as such,thesameas
hazardor danger.A risksocietyis notintrinsically
moredangerousor hazardous
thanpre-existing
formsof social order.It is instructive
in thiscontextto traceout
theoriginsoftheterm'risk'.LifeintheMiddleAgeswas hazardous;buttherewas
no notionof riskand theredoesn'tseem in factto be a notionof riskin any
culture.The reasonforthisis thatdangersare experiencedas given.
traditional
EithertheycomefromGod,ortheycomesimplyfroma worldwhichone takesfor
The idea ofriskis boundup withtheaspiration
to controlandparticularly
granted.
withtheidea of controlling
thefuture.
The observation
is important.
The idea of 'risksociety'mightsuggesta world
whichhas becomemorehazardous,butthisis notnecessarily
so. Rather,it is a
societyincreasingly
preoccupiedwiththe future(and also withsafety),which
was firstused by
generatesthe notionof risk.The idea of risk,interestingly,
Westernexplorerswhentheyventured
intonewwatersin theirtravelsacrossthe
world. From exploringgeographicalspace, it came to be transferred
to the
of time.The wordrefersto a worldwhichwe are bothexploringand
exploration
seeking to normaliseand control.Essentially,'risk' always has a negative
sinceitrefers
to thechanceofavoidingan unwanted
outcome.But it
connotation,
can quiteoftenbe seen ina positivelight,intermsofthetakingofboldinitiatives
? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheModernLaw Review

[Vol. 62

in thefaceof a problematic
in exploration,
future.
whether
Successfulrisk-takers,
in businessor in mountaineering,
are widelyadmired.
We shoulddistinguish
riskfromhazard,butwe mustalso makea distinction
betweentwo kindsof risk.The firsttwo hundredyears of the existenceof
industrial
societyweredominated
by whatone mightcall externalrisk.External
is riskofeventsthatmaystrikeindividuals
risk,expressedindown-to-earth
terms,
the
as
it
(from outside,
were)butthathappenregularly
unexpectedly
enoughand
and so
oftenenoughin a wholepopulationof people to be broadlypredictable,
insurable.Thereare twokindsof insurance
associatedwiththeriseof industrial
society:the privateinsurancecompany,and public insurance,which is the
concernof thewelfarestate.
predominant
The welfarestatebecametheleft'sprojectin thepost-1945period- it became
seenaboveall as a meansofachievingsocialjusticeandincomeredistribution.
By
as such.It developedas a security
and large,however,itdid notoriginate
state,a
was
wayof protecting
againstrisk,wherecollectiveratherthanprivateinsurance
of
on
Like
of
it
was
the
forms
built
insurance,
presumption
necessary.
early
private
wellcalculated- onecandrawup actuarial
risk.Externalriskcan be fairly
external
tables and decide on thatbasis how to insurepeople. Sickness,disablement,
weretreatedby the welfarestateas 'accidentsof fate',against
unemployment
shouldbe collectively
whichinsurance
provided.
is one markedbya
A worldwhichlivesafternatureandaftertheendoftradition
riskis risk
risk.Manufactured
fromexternal
to whatI call manufactured
transition
created by the very progressionof humandevelopment,especially by the
Manufactured
risk refersto new risk
progressionof science and technology.
forwhichhistory
environments
providesus withverylittlepreviousexperience.
We oftendon't reallyknowwhattherisksare, let alone how to calculatethem
tables.
accuratelyin termsof probability
risk is expandingin most dimensionsof humanlife. It is
Manufactured
of
whichthe earlytheorists
associatedwitha side of science and technology
create
as
and
and
did
not
foresee.
Science
industrial
technology
societyby
large
cannotbe 'solved' in
as theydispel- and theseuncertainties
manyuncertainties
scientificadvance. Manufactured
uncertainty
any simple way by yet further
intopersonaland social life- it isn'tconfinedto morecollective
intrudes
directly
to
settingsof risk.In a worldwhereone can no longersimplyrelyon tradition
active
have
to
a
more
take
establishwhattodo ina givenrangeofcontexts,
people
and involvements.
orientation
to theirrelationships
and risk-infused
The rise of risksocietyhas severalinteresting
consequences- whichshould
concernanyonewho has takenan interestin the BSE debate in Britainand
of
at thebeginning
continental
Europe,orinfactinanyoftheepisodesI mentioned
thisdiscussion.
As manufactured
riskexpands- or,ifyou like,as we live moreand morein a
risksocietyin UlrichBeck's terms- thereis a new riskinessto risk.In a social
ourlives,andan almost
orderin whichnewtechnologies
arechronically
affecting
endless revisionof taken-for-granted
of
ways doing thingsensues,the future
butat thesame timeopaque.Thereare fewdirect
becomesevermoreabsorbing,
linesto it,onlya plurality
of 'futurescenarios'.
of thenucleardisasterat theChernobyl
We recently
saw thetenthanniversary
- or millions- of peoplewho have
it is hundreds
plant.No one knowswhether
The long-term
beenaffected
fall-out.
effectswillin anycase be
bytheChernobyl
We arealtering
difficult
tochart,becauseiftheyexisttheyarelikelytobe diffuse.
andthepatterns
Even many
theenvironment,
of lifewe follow,almostconstantly.
4

? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Riskand Responsibility

1999]
January

risk
couldturnsour- just as, conversely,
benignhabitsor innovations
apparently
Take the example of smoking.Smokingwas
can oftenbe overestimated.
or so yearsago as a meansof relaxation.
encouragedbydoctorsup to somethirty
No one knewthetimebombwhichthepracticeof smokingwas stirring
up. The
BSE episodemighthavean oppositeoutcome.Perhapsitwillturnoutthathumans
ofthenewtypesofriskthatitis evendisputed
It is characteristic
are notaffected.
whether
theyexistat all.
In risksocietythereis a newmoralclimateof politics,one markedby a pushon theone handandofcover-ups
and-pullbetweenaccusationsofscaremongering
is nowaboutmanaging
risks
on theother.A gooddeal ofpoliticaldecision-making
- riskswhichdo notoriginatein thepoliticalsphere,yethave to be politically
official,scientific
expertor lay person- takes
managed.If anyone- government
he or she mustproclaimit.It mustbe widelypublicised
anygivenriskseriously,
becausepeoplemustbe persuadedthattheriskis real- a fussmustbe madeabout
those
it.However,ifa fussis indeedcreatedandtheriskturnsoutto be minimal,
involvedwillbe accusedof scaremongering.
decidethattheriskis notvery
Supposeon theotherhandthattheauthorities
British
did
in
of BSE. In this case, the
as
the
the
case
government
great,
here;thereisn'tmuchrisk,
says: we've gotthebackingof scientists
government
we can go on as we didbefore.Yet ifthingsturnoutotherwise,
thenofcoursethey
willbe accusedof a cover-up.
to reduceriskswe face- yetif
scaremongering
maybe necessary
Paradoxically,
it is 'successful'in thissense,itappearsas just that,scaremongering.
The case of
AIDS is an example.Supposegovernments
and expertsmake greatpublicplay
withthe risksassociatedwithunsafesex, to get people to changetheirsexual
and AIDS does notspreadnearlyas muchas originally
The
behaviour,
predicted.
responseis likelyto be: whywereyou scaringeveryonelike that?This sortof
politicaldilemmabecomesroutinein risksociety,butthereis no easilyavailable
it.Foras I mentioned
thereareanyrisks
earlier,evenwhether
wayofconfronting
We just cannotknowbeforehand
whenwe are
at all is likelyto be controversial.
and
when
we
are
not.
actually'scaremongering'
The emergence
ofa risksocietyis notwhollyabouttheavoidanceofhazards,for
Risk society,lookedat positively,
reasonsalso givenpreviously.
is one in which
thereis an expansionofchoice.Now obviouslychoiceis differentially
distributed
release theirhold,for
accordingto class and income.As natureand tradition
infertile
someotherwise
womencan payto havechildren
theuse
instance,
through
cannot.
We
in
whereas
others
know
that
of new reproductive
technologies,
socialsettings
somewomenliveinpoverty
afterdivorce,whereas
detraditionalised
others achieve a more rewardinglife than they could have done before.
Technologicalinnovationusuallyexpandsthe domainof choice; as does the
disappearanceof tradition.As customaryways of doing things become
people mustchoose in manyareas whichused to be governedby
problematic,
norms.Eatingis an example:thereare no traditional
dietsany
taken-for-granted
more.
The adventof risksocietyhas strongimplications
forrethinking
thepolitical
risk
agenda in this countryand elsewhere.The emergenceof manufactured
a
a
new
because
it
reorientation
of
values
and
the
presumes
politics
presumes
relevantto pursuing
them.Thereis no riskwhichcan evenbe described
strategies
reference
to a value.Thatvaluemaybe simplythepreservation
ofhuman
without
life,althoughit is usuallymorecomplex.Whenthereis a clash of thedifferent
politicalsetof questions.
typesof risk,thereis a clashof valuesand a directly
? The Modern Law Review Limited 1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The ModernLaw Review

[Vol. 62

Britain
as, forexample,TonyBlairusestheterm,meansbringing
Modernisation
within
theLabourParty;
moderniser
up todate.TonyBlairhasbeenthearchetypal
he wants to moderniseBritish institutionsbut more fundamentally,
in thiscountrythatBritainlags behind
modernisation
the
connotation
carrying
otherindustrial
societiesin variouskeyrespects.Now thisis a bit like thefirst
forthecollapse of BaringsBank mentions
explanationthatSebag Montefiore
which
institutions
have
lost
their
to themodernworld.
old
relevance
crusty
intheprojectof modernisation,
thusunderstood,
can be
Thatthereis something
seen by anyonewho sets footin theHouse of Lords.In risksociety,however,
Risksocietyis industrial
meanssomething
different.
modernisation
societywhich
wherethoselimitations
taketheformof
has come up againstitsown limitations,
in thissense,cannotsimplybe 'moreof the
risk.Modernisation
manufactured
same'.
herebetweensimpleandreflexive
We shoulddistinguish
Simple
modernisation.
reflexivemodernisation,
is old-typeunilinearmodernisation;
modernisation
by
ofthemodern
contrast,
impliescomingto termswiththelimitsandcontradictions
order.These are obviousin newdomainsof politicsassociatedwithvarioussorts
in animalrights
of social movements.
They are obviousin motorway
protests,
and in many food scares. Second-phase modernisation
demonstrations
- will not look like first-phase
as reflexivemodernisation
modernisation
I think,
Thereis an opportunity,
forpoliticaldebateinthiscountry
modernisation.
in thisrespectandI wouldliketo
to leap aheadof manyotherEuropeancountries
is byno means
likeriskmoregenerally,
see thishappen.Reflexivemodernisation,
whollya negativeprospectand offersmanypossibilitiesforpositivepolitical
engagement.
fromthat
Our relationshipto science and technologytoday is different
characteristic
of early industrialsociety.In Westernsociety,for some two
Scientificknowledgewas
as a sortof tradition.
centuries,science functioned
became
a
to
overcome
tradition
but
authority
actually
taken-for-granted
supposed
whichmostpeoplerespected,
butwas external
to
in itsownright.It was something
theirlives. Lay people 'took' opinionsfromtheexperts.The morescienceand
holds.Mostof
intrude
intoourlives,theless thisexternalperspective
technology
authorities
and politicians- have,and haveto have,a
us - including
government
withscienceandtechnology
thanused
muchmoredialogicorengagedrelationship
to be thecase. We cannotsimply'accept'thefindings
whichscientists
produce,if
in
onlybecause scientistsso frequently
disagreewithone another,particularly
risk.And everyonenow recognizesthe essentially
situationsof manufactured
of sciencedescribedearlier.Wheneversomeonedecideswhat
scepticalcharacter
whetherto drinkdecaffeinated
or ordinary
to eat, whatto have forbreakfast,
in
of
that
takes
a
decision
the
context
coffee,
conflicting,
changeable
person
and technological
information.
scientific
- we are all caughtup in it,even if we
Thereis no way out of thissituation
Politicsmustgivesomeinstitutional
formto
choosetoproceed'as ifinignorance'.
itconcernsonlyspecialinterest
becauseat themoment
thisdialogicalengagement,
groups,who mostlystruggleoutsidethe main politicaldomain.We do not
whichallowus to monitor
technological
currently
change.We
possessinstitutions
mighthave preventedthe BSE debacle if a publicdialogue had alreadybeen
establishedabouttechnological
changeand itsproblematic
consequences.Enoch
thatnothing
affects
ourlivesas muchas technological
Powellapparently
remarked
outsidethedemocratic
changeand he was right- yetsuchchangeis completely
wouldn'tdo
system.Morepublicmeansofengagingwithscienceand technology
6

O The Modern Law Review Limited 1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Riskand Responsibility

1999]
January

versuscover-ups,
butitmightallowus
awaywiththequandaryofscaremongering
to mutesomeof itsmoredamagingconsequences.
thewelfarestate.The welfare
are relevantto rethinking
These considerations
statewas foundedagainstthebackdropof a societywherenaturewas stillnature
This is obvious,for example,in the gender
and traditionwas still tradition.
provisionsin the post-1945 welfarestate, which completelypresumedthe
of the 'traditional
family'.It is obviousin termsof thegrowthof the
continuity
NationalHealthService,whichwas set up as a responsemechanismto illness
as externalrisk.
understood
In a worldofmoreactiveengagement
withhealth,withthebody,withmarriage,
withgender,withwork- in an era of manufactured
risk- thewelfarestatecannot
continueon in theformin whichit developedin thepost-1945settlement.
The
crisisofthewelfarestateis notpurelyfiscal,it is a crisisof riskmanagement
ina
societydominated
bya newtypeof risk.
These observations
are relevantto class division.J. K. Galbraith'sso-called
'cultureof contentment'
was a bit of a shootingstar- thereis no cultureof
contentment.
One reasonwhymanymiddle-classand professional
groupshave
out
of
welfare
schemes
is
bound
with
a
certain
attitude
towardsrisk
opted
public
up
risk
In
the
middle
classes
detach
themselves
frompublic
management.
society,
in
and
a
certain
sense
are
to
do
so
because
that
provision
they right
provisionwas
andsituation
ofrisk.Whenpeoplehavea more
gearedto a different
interpretation
activeorientation
to theirlives,theyalso haveto havea moreactiveorientation
to
riskmanagement,
so itis notsurprising
thatthosewhocan afford
ittendto optout
of existingwelfaresystems.
Ecological questionspreciselyreflecta worldlivingafternatureand after
tradition.
in the
Manyformsof lifestyle
politicsdevelopwhichhaveno precedent
earliertypeof industrial
some whileago made a greatdeal of
society.Protesters
fuss about veal calves being transported
to the continentin constrainedand
Theircriticscalled themsentimental.
artificial
conditions.
Yet in thelightof the
The protests
experienceof BSE, everyonecan see thatthiswasn'tjust sentiment.
reflecteda sense of whatcan happenwhen the industrial
of food
production
becomesdistancedfromnature- or whatused to be nature.A moralcommitment
to animal rightsis, in a certainsense, a hard-edgedpolitics- afterall, even
measuredin narroweconomic terms,the BSE crisis has been a disaster.
Calculationsput the cost of theBritisheconomyat ?6 billionor perhapseven
more.
Risk societyis notthesame as postmodernism.
see
interpretations
Postmodern
withthepassing
politicsas at an end- politicalpowersimplylosesitssignificance
of modernity.
Yet modernity
does notdisappearwiththearrivalof manufactured
whichcontinues,
takeson newmeaningsandsubtleties.
modernisation,
risk;rather
and
Reflexivemodernisaton
presumes
generatesa politics.That politicscannot
domain. Social movementsand
unfoldcompletelyoutside the parliamentary
special interestgroupscannotsupplywhatparliamentary
politicsoffers- the
different
interests
withone another,and also a balanceof
meansof reconciling
different
risksin relationto one another.
The issuesI havediscusseddemandtobe
broughtmore directlyinto the politicalarena. A partyable to addressthem
thatwill unfold
cogentlywouldbe in a primepositionin thepoliticalencounters
overthecomingfewyears.
Risk is always relatedto securityand safety.It is also alwaysconnectedto
It isn't surprising
therefore
thatas we move towardsa world
responsibility.
dominatedby manufactured
ratherthanexternaluncertainty,
thereis a renewed
C The Modern Law Review Limited 1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The ModernLaw Review

[Vol. 62

discussionofthenatureofresponsibility.
use of 'responsibility'
is also
Widespread
recent.
the
word
much
is
older,
Although
quite
'responsible'
only
'responsibility'
seemsto havecome intotheEnglishlanguagein thelateeighteenth
It is
century.
withtheriseofmodernity.
As itis usedtoday,
againa notionassociatedoriginally
is an interestingly
term.In one sense,
'responsibility'
ambiguousor multi-layered
foran eventcan be said to be theauthorofthatevent.
someonewhois responsible
This is theoriginalsenseof 'responsible',
whichlinksitwithcausalityoragency.
is wherewe speakofsomeonebeingresponsible
Another
meaningofresponsibility
ifhe or she acts in an ethicalor accountablemanner.
also however
Responsibility
or liability,
meansobligation,
and thisis themostinteresting
senseto counterpose
withrisk.
The relationbetweenriskand responsibility
can be easilystated,at leaston an
abstractlevel.Risksonlyexistwhenthereare decisionsto be taken,forreasons
also presumes
decisions.Whatbringsinto
givenearlier.The idea ofresponsibility
is that someone takes a decision having
play the notionof responsibility
discernable
consequences.
riskis bringing
The transition
fromexternalto manufactured
abouta crisisof
and decisions
because
the
connections
between
risk,
responsibility
responsibility,
withnegativeand positivefeatures,
alter.This is a crisisof responsibility
roughly
to thenegativeand positiveaspectsof risk.Giventheinherently
corresponding
risk,and the inherent
ambiguousnatureof most situationsof manufactured
can neithereasilybe attributed
nor
of thesesituations,
reflexivity
responsibility
means limitingrisk (as in
assumed. This applies both where responsibility
(financial
ecologicalrisks,orhealthrisks)andwhereriskis an energising
principle
markets).
Severalconsequencesfollow:
1. The emergenceof whatBeck calls 'organisedirresponsibility'.
By thishe
meansthatthereare a diversity
of humanly
createdrisksforwhichpeople
and organisations
are certainly'responsible'in a sense thattheyare its
authorsbut where no one is held specificallyaccountable.Various
howharmful
products
questionsthencometothefore.Whois todetermine
are, whatside effectsare producedby them,and whatlevel of riskis
in a worldfullof
proof'be determined
acceptable?How can 'sufficient
If thereare damagesto be
contestedknowledgeclaimsand probabilities?
made, who is to decide about compensationand
paid, or reparations
forms
for
future
controlor regulation?
appropriate
Muchof the'social interrogation'
of riskand responsibility
takesplace
the
risk
of
external
and
This
modernisation.
is true,
through prism
simple
for example,of anyonewho expects an actuaryto predictrisk,and
therefore
assessresponsibility,
on thebasisofpasttrends;
orofanyonewho
supposesthatone can simplyturnto expertsto providesolutions.Coping
withsituations
is likelyto becomemoreand
of organisedirresponsibility
moreimportant
inthefieldsoflaw,insurance
andpolitics,butthiswon'tbe
character
of most
easy to do preciselybecauseof theratherimponderable
circumstances
risk. The dilemmaof scaremongering
of manufactured
versuscover-upsis a directindicationof the deep seated natureof the
problemsinvolvedhere.
2. Some saythatthemosteffective
waytocope withtheriseofmanufactured
riskis to limitresponsibility
byadoptingthe'precautionary
principle'.The
notionof the precautionary
principleseems to have firstemergedin
8

? The Modern Law Review Limited 1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Risk and Responsibility

January1999]

Germanyin the 1980s,in thecontextof theecologicaldebatesthatwere

carriedon there.At itssimplest,it proposesthatactionon environmental
issues(and by inference
otherformsof risk)shouldbe takeneventhough
thereis scientific
aboutthem.Thus in the 1980s,in several
uncertainty
Continentalcountries,programmes
were initiatedto counteracid rain,
whereas in Britainlack of conclusiveevidence was used to justify
on thisand otherpollutionproblemstoo. Yet theprecautionary
inactivity
isn't
alwayshelpfulorevenapplicableas a meansofcopingwith
principle
of
The preceptof 'stayingclose to nature',or of
problems responsibility.
innovation
rather
thanembracingit, can't always apply. The
limiting
reason is thatthe balance of benefitsand dangersfromscientificand
advance,and otherformsof social change,is imponderable.
technological
We may need quite oftento be bold ratherthancautiousin supporting
scientific
innovation
or otherformsof change.
This havingbeen said, variationson the precautionary
principlecan
nevertheless
be a significant
of
One
way
reintroducing
responsibility.
variantof theprinciple,
forexample,is thatfirmsproducing
should
goods
thewholeproduct
thinkthrough
cyclebeforethosegoodsarereleasedonto
themarketor relevanttechnicalprocessesutilised.Thusin theBrentSpar
in thefirstplace had not
episode,thecompanyputting
up theoil platform
to thefinalpointof effective
and reasonably
adequatelythought
through
safedisposal.
3. Situationsof manufactured
riskshifttherelationbetweencollectiveand
individualresponsibility
in many risk situations.Althoughin many
individualscannotbe held culpable,thisis not the same
circumstances
in conditions
as non-culpability
of organisedirresponsibility.
In thelatter
case, this resultsfromviewingresponsibilities
throughthe lenses of
externalor passiverisk.Consider,forinstance,healthrisks.Manypeople
no faultoftheirown.Buta largeproportion
of illnessesare
getill through
relatedbothto lifestyle
and
to
wider
conditions
of
the 'created
practises
It doesn'tmakeanysenseto supposethatliabilityin these
environment'.
can remainwhollywiththe collectivity,
circumstances
whetherthisbe
or an insurance
of responsigovernment
company.The activeassumption
to reducelevelsofsmoking,
becomespartofthevery
bility,as in attempts
of risksituations
and therefore
definition
theattribution
of responsibility.
similar
to
our
towardsfuture
Somethingquite
applies
responsibilities
When
most
risk
was
such
was relaexternal,
generations.
responsibility
limited:
nature
was
intact.
Our
to future
tively
largely
responsibilities
now
are
with
infused
decisions
we
have
to take
generations
thoroughly
fromourtransformation
of nature.
resulting
4. Theseconsiderations
arerelevant
toone ofthemajorpoliticalissuesofour
of thewelfarestate.The history
of thewelfarestatein all
times,thefuture
countriesis a tangledone. The welfarestateemergedin some partas a
meansofholdingbacktheaspirations
ofthepoorandofcontrolling
themit had some of itsrootsin thepoliticalright.In recentyears,however,as
describedearlier,the lefthas appropriated
the welfarestateas its own
concentrated
toa
project.The debatearoundthewelfarestatehas therefore
orreducinginequality.
considerable
Butthe
degreeuponitsrolein limiting
welfare state is more correctlyseen as a form of collective risk
The idea thatthe welfarestateshouldbe understood
as a
management.
inthewritings
'safety'or 'provident'statehas beenraisedmostforcefully
O The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[Vol. 62

TheModernLaw Review

FrancoisEwald. The welfarestateis tied intothe

of the Frenchthinker
of modernity
- thatsecurity
comesfromtheevermore
basic suppositions
effectivecontrol by human beings of their material and social
environments.
as a fiscalone. If the
Thecrisisofthewelfarestateis usuallyrepresented
itis becausepeoplewon'tpaythetaxesneededto
welfare
stateis introuble,
Thereis somevalidityto this,butitis more
fundwelfaresystems
properly.
to see the crisis of the welfarestate as a crisis of risk
illuminating
or
ofexternal
statewasbuiltuponthepresumption
Thewelfare
management.
lose
disabled
or
risk.
If
become
fall
become
ill,
unemployed,
you
passive
must
statewillstepintoprotect
you.Welfaresystems
yourhome,thewelfare
the
relation
between
areas
of
manufactured
nowconfront
risk,
shifting
large
thatthereis nowa greatdealoftalk
It isn'tsurprising
riskandresponsibility.
Unconditional
withresponsibilities.
abouttheneedto connectrights
rights
fortherisks
bearno responsibility
whenindividuals
mightseemappropriate
risk.
of manufactured
theyface,butsuchis notthecase in situations
5. Wherea societyhasn't got effectivemeans of dealingwithorganised
theresultisn'talwaysthatno one is heldculpable.On the
irresponsibility,
is probablyclosely
the
uncertainty
contrary, price of manufactured
associated with the emergenceof the 'litiginous'society.Where a
has brokendown, culpabilitycan
common'contractof responsibility'
has effectively
been separatedfrom
Here indemnity
appeareverywhere.
forexample,if someoneis hurt
causality.I mightbe held responsible,
slippingon mygardenpath.
through
witha concernforthetwo
has to be integrated
6. The themeofresponsibility
sidesofrisk.The negativeandpositivesidesofriskarestilloftendiscussed
as thoughtheywere separatefromone another.This translatesinto a
It is a remarkable
factthat
divisionbetweentwolargebodiesof literature.
at all
riskmakeno reference
mostofthosewhowriteaboutenvironmental
on financialor entrepreneurial
to theliterature
risk,or vice versa.Two of
aboutriskoverthepastten
booksto havebeenwritten
themostinfluential
Beck
andAgainsttheGods
are
Risk
Ulrich
for
Societyby
years, example,
make
reference
at all to one
Bernstein.
Yet
these
no
written
Peter
books
by
another.
The fact thatrisk is oftena positiveor energisingphenomenonis
discussedabove,
relevant
to mostofthesituations
ofriskandresponsibility
welfarestate,itis
notjustto economicrisk.Thustocreatea moreeffective
andmaterially
thatinsomesituations
important
peoplearepsychologically
able to takerisksalbeitin a 'responsible'way.It isn'ta good outcomefor
or
theindividualor thewidersocietywherea personis stuckon benefits
unwillingto taketheriskof plungingintothe labourmarket.The same
or violentrelationship.
appliesto someonecaughtup in a dysfunctional
Risk is not only closely associatedwithresponsibility,
but also with
whichtakesus
initiative
and theexploration
of newhorizons- something
back to our starting
pointwhenthe notionwas firstdevelopedin postmedievalEurope.
andculpability
haveobviouslyalwaysbeenofinterest
The themesofresponsibility
as to whylegal theorists
to lawyers.I hopeI have givenat leastsome indication
withtheidea andreality
andpractitioners
shouldalso concernthemselves
ofriskas
well.
10

? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1999

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:42:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions