28

RISKY/RISKING BODIES
Mike Brown

Introduction to risk
It is widely suggested that contemporary Western society has become obsessed with reducing
unnecessary risks (Caplan, 2000; Lupton 1999; Lupton and Tulloch, 2002a), yet the popularity
of recreational activities involving voluntary risk-taking, gives credence to Donnelly’s (2004:
30) assertion that society has a ‘curiously ambivalent attitude’ toward risk-taking. Given media
coverage of risks over which people have little control, such as antibiotic resistant ‘superbugs’,
global warming and terrorism, it has been argued that individuals now focus attention on alle-
viating danger and risks in events over which they have some control in their everyday lives
(Hope, 2005). To this end Furedi (2002: 8) has claimed that in contemporary society safety has
become a fundamental value governed by what he has termed the ‘precautionary principle’.
The premise of this principle is that one should not take a risk unless the outcome is known
in advance. Furedi (ibid.) suggests that this new moral etiquette, based on a heightened level of
risk consciousness, ‘is a prescriptive and intrusive morality. It demands that individuals subject
themselves to the core value of safety. It encourages behaviour to be cautious and self-limiting.
At the same time, it condemns those who put others at risk’ (ibid.: 148).
Debates about risks and risk-taking have become openly politicized and embedded in
government, professional and public discourses (Booth and Thorpe, 2007; Douglas 1992;
Furedi, 2002). The desire to eliminate or control risks has seen the rise of risk management
consultants, official standards, and policies. Technical definitions of risk (e.g. the probability of
an event multiplied by the magnitude of the consequences) have been critiqued for being too
narrow in focus and for failing to acknowledge the social and political contexts from which
understandings of risk are generated (Kasperson et al., 2000; Slovic, 2000). Factors such as social
background, gender, level of choice, prior experience, motivation, and the potential outcome
shape individual and collective responses to risk (Kasperson et al., 2000; Slovic, 2000; Thorpe,
2007). Larana (2001: 25) has suggested that the disenchantment with experts’ explanations of
risk has led to ‘the emergence of a new risk consciousness’. With expert knowledge problema-
tized, what is viewed as risky is now seen as culturally constructed, highly contextualized,
individualized and differentiated across time, places and cultures (Booth and Thorpe, 2007;
Hope and Oliver, 2005; Lupton and Tulloch, 2002b). As Brown and Penney (2014: 270) have
pointed out, what is defined as risky is ‘both a political and a moral statement. The positioning

277
 Mike Brown

of risk as a negative or positive is itself a reflection of the shifting value statements of a society
at any given time.’
In the context of physical cultural studies (PCS), Booth and Thorpe (2007) have pointed
out that for participants in extreme sports there is no universal standard by which to objectively
assess risks; participants are required to constantly define and re-evaluate shifting perceptions of
what they view as acceptable risk. Others are adopting anthropological approaches to risk in
sport (Palmer, 2002), philosophical justifications of the value of dangerous sport (Russell, 2005),
and auto-ethnographic examinations of gender, risk and responsibility (Laurendeau, 2011).
Arguably, it is here, at the intersection of socio-cultural, embodied, philosophical, historical and
psychological ways of knowing, that PCS’s inter- and trans-disciplinary approach has much
potential to shed new insights into voluntary risk-taking as ‘materially based and culturally
mediated’ practices (Atkinson, 2011: 139).

Voluntary risk-taking in physical culture(s)

Notions of a risk-averse society – where safety and the desire for predictability guide action –
stand in contrast to the rise of voluntary risk-taking in both sport and recreational contexts.
Lyng’s (1990) identification of the contradiction between Western society’s efforts to reduce
communal risks and individuals’ participation in activities courting danger (e.g. physical contact
sports, mountaineering, BASE jumping etc.) raises interesting issues for those interested in
physical cultural studies. For as Donnelly has pointed out,

We frequently admire individuals who appear to put ‘life and limb’ on the line for
what, in the greater scheme of things, may be only a symbolic reward (e.g. a record
of some kind); but may criticize those same individuals when things go wrong.
(Donnelly, 2004: 30)

Donnelly’s comment illustrates the tension faced by sportspeople and adventurers in contem-
porary society (e.g. when injured rugby players stay on the field, or commentary on the movie
Touching the Void). When risk is seen primarily in terms of negative outcomes (e.g. disease,
injury, financial hardship, death) it is less likely that voluntary risk-taking will be viewed in a
favourable light. Furedi (2002: 4) commented that ‘when safety is worshipped and risks are seen
as intrinsically bad, society is making a clear statement about the values that ought to guide life
… to ignore safety advice is to transgress the new moral consensus’. In this environment volun-
tary risk-taking might be considered ‘as foolhardy, careless, irresponsible, and even “deviant”,
evidence of an individual’s ignorance or lack of ability to regulate the self ’ (Lupton 1999: 148).
However, as with definitions of risk, individuals’ decisions concerning risk-taking are
complex and multifaceted, depending on previous experience, motivation, cultural values and
the consequences of one’s actions (or inaction). Individuals’ responses to, or desire for risk has
been studied from a number of perspectives (e.g. physiology, anthropology, sociology and
psychology). Mythen (2007) has pointed out that while it is tempting to see risks as bad, in
some areas of life – such as medicine, finance and leisure – the taking of risks can be reward-
ing (and rewarded). He argues that a focus on the negative aspect of risk-taking ‘encourages us
towards the erroneous view that human beings are innately risk averse’ (ibid.: 801). Lupton and
Tulloch (2002b) discuss the potential positives of participation in activities involving risk as a
means to reveal an alternative version of the social actor. Rather than being inhibited by risk,
a person may see the opportunity for personal gain, self-actualization, or simply the value in
living an exciting life. For some people, appropriate risk-taking appears to be worth pursuing

278
 Risky/risking bodies

as it may lead to positive outcomes. For example, Howe’s (2008) exploration of risk sports in
remote locations led her to assert that risk ‘contributes to the clarification of who we are, what
we value, and what we are willing to do about it. It is a valuable element in developing a
knowledge of one’s self ’ (ibid.: 13).
Lyng’s (1990) study of skydivers also sheds light on the productive aspects of voluntary risk-
taking. Lyng used the term edgework to describe the participants’ experiences. Edgework
involves negotiations at ‘the edge’ of cultural boundaries: such as those between life and death,
consciousness and unconsciousness, sanity and insanity, and ‘an ordered sense of self and envi-
ronment versus a disordered sense of self and environment’ (ibid.: 857). He considered
edgework as a positive aspect of human behaviour, highlighting that those who engage in edge-
work are not typically interested in thrill seeking or gambling. Lyng reported that participants
in edgework refrained from placing themselves in situations involving circumstances over
which they had no control (e.g. an adventure tourist operation). What participants sought was
‘the chance to exercise skill in negotiating a challenge rather than turn their fate over to the
roll of a dice’ (ibid.: 863). So while to the casual observer skydiving might be deemed risky, for
the dedicated participant it provides the opportunity to experience a sense of self-actualization,
self-realization, or self-determination. As Lyng concluded,

It is certainly strange that people voluntarily place themselves at risk even as public
organizations endeavor to reduce the risks of living in modern society. It is even more
startling to realize that these people value risk taking because it is the only means they
have for achieving self-determination and authenticity. The same society that offers
so much in the way of material ‘quality of life’ also propels many of us to the limits
of our mortal existence in search of ourselves and our humanity.
(Lyng, 1990: 883)

While not denying that activities such as skydiving contain an element of risk (the effect of
gravity is undeniable), the attraction of voluntary risk-taking does not reside in luck, nor is it
viewed as a foolhardy endeavour by practitioners (Lyng, 1990). Rather risk-taking is associated
with ‘the reflexive project of the self in terms of achieving personal “growth”’ (Lupton, 1999:
154). The attraction of voluntary risk-taking as a constituent component in the experiences of
adherents to a range of sporting and recreational activities is of interest to scholars of PCS as
these participants are both shaped by, and have the ability to reshape, broader understandings of
risk in contemporary society. Thus from a PCS perspective we might ask questions such as:

• Who has the power to define a risk or risk-taking behaviour, and how does this influence
participation?
• What pedagogical/political forces or strategies are at play and how do they shape experi-
ences and perceptions?
• Who is able to participate in risk-taking practices, and how is participation enabled or
constrained?
• Whose voices and experiences of risk are marginalized and how is power and authority
negotiated?

A case study: politics, morality and power in voluntary risk-taking

As Lyng noted, individuals who voluntarily participate in what are loosely defined as risky
recreational activities (e.g. BASE jumping, sky diving, mountaineering, ocean sailing, etc.) do

279
 Mike Brown

so in order to exercise control and enhance their quality of life. Thus the notion that practi-
tioners in such endeavours engage in ‘risky practices’ is contentious. The expert or experienced
practitioner draws on judgement and experience to minimize risks and maximize self-aware-
ness. This is in contrast to the perspective of regulatory bodies or the casual observer who
question the desirability of exposing oneself to unnecessary risks. In a recent study Brown and
Penney (2014) examined public responses to a proposed solo sailing circumnavigation by the
16-year-old Australian ‘schoolgirl’1 Jessica Watson. This study highlights some of the central
issues relating to voluntary risk-taking and how a physical cultural studies perspective can shed
light on the nuanced and complex ways in which discourses of risk are used to maintain or
disrupt ideological positions and challenge existing power relations.
Jessica Watson departed Sydney Harbour in October 2009 and returned in May 2010, three
days before her seventeenth birthday. During this period she completed a solo sailing circum-
navigation by way of the three Great Capes (Hope, Africa; Leeuwin, Australia; Horn, South
America). On completion of her voyage she laid claim to the unofficial record for the youngest
circumnavigator.2 Prior to beginning the voyage Watson and her family were the focus of
intense media attention and many public figures entered the debate (e.g. the Premier of
Queensland, Anna Bligh; Former MotoGP world champion, Mick Doohan; Australian Family
Association, John Morrissey). Few of the commentaries focused on the ‘actual risks’ associated
with such a voyage, nor was there substantial commentary on the seaworthiness of the vessel,
recent advances in communication and safety technology, or the documented experience of the
skipper. Media reporting and associated blog postings focused on Watson’s age and sex as key
touchstones to portray the riskiness of such an undertaking. From a PCS perspective, we are
able to analyse how Jessica Watson is positioned as being at risk through being discursively posi-
tioned as a young girl.

Inhibiting narratives of risk

The following comments posted in response to Kellett’s (2009) newspaper article ‘Schoolgirl’s
Solo Sail “Irresponsible”’,3 illustrate the positioning of Watson as being at risk.

What a load of garbage. The kid should be given a clip over the ear, told to get into
her room and do her homework and the parents should be told to get a responsible
attitude or they will be taken to task by authorities. This is a disgrace. The kid will
never be seen or heard of again …
(Phil, Brisbane Times website, 14 May 2009, 8:19 a.m.)

This girl isn’t even old enough to drive a car, let alone sail a boat 40,000 kilometres
around the world. An admirable goal, but not a very bright idea on the part of the
parents to get behind this.
(JackSparrow, Brisbane Times website, 14 May 2009, 9:43 a.m.)

The use of terms such as ‘a girl’ or ‘a kid’ served to position Watson as incapable of making
informed ‘adult’ decisions. Jackson and Scott (1999: 19) have argued that, ‘Risks to children are
represented as inherently more grave than risks to adults: it is almost beyond debate that we
should “protect” children, that any potential risk to children should be taken very seriously’.
Thus it goes without saying that reasonable caring adults should object to such a risky endeav-
our. Positioning Watson as under the legal driving age, as a means to indicate a lack of maturity,
‘draws on the legislative model that tries to neatly define life stages and capabilities by age’

280
 Risky/risking bodies

(Brown and Penney, 2014: 272). By positioning Watson as ‘a girl’ or ‘a kid’ opponents of the
voyage make claims about the ability and right of young people to make independent deci-
sions.

A boy sailing around the world can do it, but a young lady is very vulnerable indeed.
She had better tie herself to something or else she will be overboard in no time. She
should have someone else with her.
(Lyn, Brisbane Times website, 14 May 2009, 7:46 p.m.)

Lyn’s post reflects a gendered discourse of vulnerability, portraying young women as ‘passive
victims of risk’ (Batchelor, 2007: 205). Laurendeau (2008: 296) has noted that seeking out and
accepting risk ‘is an integral part of the versions of masculinity that occupy hegemonic posi-
tions in sport’. In contrast, for women risk-taking has historically been something to be avoided
or managed so as not to challenge conceptions of femininity or jeopardize the potential for
motherhood (ibid.). In an earlier paper Palmer argued that discourses of extremity have been
highly gendered. She contended that, ‘where women are involved in dangerous pursuits, all
sorts of cultural definitions and limitations are placed on their behavior’ (Palmer, 2002: 333).
Donnelly (2004) has provided an excellent commentary on the differing reactions to the deaths
of mountaineers Alison Hargreaves and Rob Hall that illustrates how the morality of risk-
taking has been played out on gender lines. However, Thorpe’s (2007) research suggests that
contemporary young women are increasingly likely to engage in risky behaviours across a
range of activities including sports. She describes how many female extreme sports participants
have not only accepted but normalized male value systems, such that visible scars are worn as
‘badges of honor’ much like their male peers (ibid.: 105). It is clear that what represents a risk
is a complex amalgam of factors and that gendered representations have both historically, and
contemporaneously, featured in definitions of what constitutes a responsible individual.

Counter narratives: empowering narratives of risk

The following four posts indicate that risk-taking can also be seen to offer opportunities for
growth and development.

It’s only been in recent decades that 15 year olds and younger haven’t been expected
to earn their keep, and it’s already been done by someone else her age. What makes
the kids of today any less capable of doing that which the kids of the past used to? …
If you treat kids like precious little snowflakes, they will expect that for the rest of
their lives.
(Arhu #23, Stuff website, 15 May 2009, 12:07 p.m.)

Adopting a historical perspective, Arhu remembers the productive roles and responsibilities that
young people have previously occupied in society. Arhu views young people as competent
social actors and cites the achievement of ‘someone else her age’ as evidence of capability. This
challenges the conception of young people as inherently incompetent or ‘at risk’.

Hooray for this girl … All you sad, negative doomsdayers would have been yelling at
Christopher Columbus that the world was flat if you were alive in his day. The girl
has a dream. Better to die trying to achieve it than to live a long and unfulfilled life.
(Patsy, Brisbane Times website, 14 May 2009, 9:05 a.m.)

281
 Mike Brown

Patsy points out Watson’s right to take risks rather than to ‘live a long and unfulfilled life’. Patsy
challenges restrictive conceptions of femininity that exclude women from embracing risk.

Why didn’t people kick up a fuss when Jesse Martin (a boy from Melbourne) did the
same thing in the late 1990s? (I think it would have been about 1997 from memory.)
Was it because he was a 16 year old guy rather than a 16 year old girl?
(Helen, Brisbane Times website, 14 May 2009, 11:34 a.m.)

Helen, who clearly has knowledge of previous circumnavigations pointed out the obviously
gendered natured of much of the criticism levelled at Watson. This posting shows that oppor-
tunities exist to challenge gendered discourses of risk.
The final posting reveals an understanding of the value of informed risk-taking as a means
to achieving personal growth (Lupton, 1999). Embracing opportunity and living life to the full,
through pushing the boundaries of culturally accepted norms, is viewed as a positive endeav-
our that indicates a pathway to maturity.

Part of growing up is taking responsibility for taking the decisions that can get us
killed. She’s chosen to do this, her parents have agreed as they obviously think she’s
capable. Therefore she shouldn’t be held back by people who want to blanket her and
hold her back from showing other young people what they can do.
(PD, Brisbane Times website, 14 May 2009, 9:03 a.m.)

The contested nature of risk-taking

Commentary on Watson’s voyage highlights the importance of the politics of risk definition
(Adam and van Loon, 2000) and reveals the contested nature of definitions of risk and the way
in which risk-taking behaviour is portrayed. Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) contend that indi-
viduals and interest groups selectively attend to certain risks that reflect particular worldviews
(e.g. condemnation by the Australian Family Association). As a young woman, Jessica Watson
embodies intersecting discourses of vulnerability and being in need of protection. Her teenage
‘at risk’ body is, as Shilling (1993: 204) highlights, ‘centrally implicated in questions of self iden-
tity, the construction and maintenance of social inequalities, and the construction and
development of societies’. It is clear that discourses of risk-taking and risk aversion are inher-
ently tied to representations of embodiment that in turn shape how individuals are positioned,
and how they should act in society. Brown and Penney (2014: 280) noted that ‘People down-
play certain risks and emphasize others as a means of maintaining and exercising control and
power.’ They suggested that the debates around Watson’s voyage might best be understood by
considering how the promotion of risk-taking or warnings to avoid unnecessary risks served
‘as moral acts that sustain or undermine social, cultural or political positions’ (ibid.). The data
presented above illustrates how discourses of risk can be used to constrain young people and
maintain hierarchical power structures while the counter narrative positions risk as a means of
enablement – young people are capable and inspirational.
It is clear that Jessica Watson attracted attention because she challenged normative frame-
works that sit comfortably with some groups in Western societies (e.g. family groups, older male
sailors). By voluntarily embracing risk she disrupted society’s positioning of women as passive
victims of risk (e.g. sexual assault) rather than as proactive risk-takers (Lupton, 1999). Her
proposed voyage drew substantial commentary from politicians, prominent sportspeople, special
interest groups and members of the public revealing the importance of physical culture as ‘a

282
 Risky/risking bodies

place where social forces, discourses, institutions, and processes congregate, congeal, and are
contested in a manner which contributes to the shaping of human relations, experiences, and
subjectivities’ (Andrews, 2008: 56).
The blog postings related to Watson’s proposed voyage support Laurendeau’s (2008)
contention that the pressures that female edgeworkers experience within the sport and recre-
ation context mirror the pressures that are also brought to bear on them in their daily lives. The
postings demonstrate that there are multiple perspectives on risk, the role of young people
within society, and a level of resistance to accepting established gender stereotypes. For exam-
ple Olstead (2011: 91) has described how women edgeworkers actively resisted ‘the gendered
idea that harm is a fixed reality for women, and that women are “always already” at risk’. The
participants in her study took risks as ‘a creative way for these women to dispute the social
limits of their gendered performances’ (ibid.: 91). As a young woman who challenged estab-
lished limitations, Watson represented a threat to those (typically older and in positions of
authority) who sought to determine what was or was not possible for a teenage girl.
Through reference to the case study on Jessica Watson, I have briefly illustrated the diver-
sity of opinions and perceptions of voluntary risk-taking in a recreational pursuit in
contemporary society. Far from representing a homogeneous position of society as risk averse,
these postings reveal the contested and contradictory perspectives that individuals and interest
groups hold. These support Donnelly’s (2004: 54) assertion that voluntary risk-taking in sport
and recreation reflects society’s ambivalence to risk – in that ‘it continues to celebrate risk while
also being troubled by it’.
Watson’s voyage could be viewed from a number of theoretical perspectives and different
traditions of scholarship may provide contrasting or complementary insights. Positioning Watson
through the use of age and gender categories illustrates the ‘embodied nature of power relations’
(Friedman and Van Ingen, 2011: 86) that were played out on the public stage. The initial news-
paper article (Kellett, 2009) and the ensuing blog postings revealed complex, contradictory and
diverse views on risk-taking, young people, young women and the role of parents and state agen-
cies in contemporary Western society. In keeping with the ethos of PCS, the findings revealed
the complexity of social relations, the way in which social power is fluid, contested and thwarted
(e.g. calls made for maritime authorities to intervene were discussed but rejected) and the muta-
bility of existing conceptual frameworks (e.g. Beck’s risk society thesis).

Discussion
Twenty-five years ago Frey (1991: 144) suggested that ‘the concept of risk can be a sensitizing,
organizing concept for sports sociologists to employ when building models and explanations of
human behaviour and social arrangements in the context of sport’. Given that discourses of risk
permeate our everyday lives (e.g. risks from certain foods, germs if we fail to use hand sanitizer,
or cardiovascular disease if we don’t exercise regularly), Frey’s call remains relevant today and is
worthy of further attention (Giulianotti, 2009). In the absence of established authority (e.g.
church or state) and contestation of scientific expertise (e.g. politicization of the causes and effects
of global warming) examination of discourses of risk provides a means to study the physical
cultural practices of both individuals and groups as they negotiate risk as the new moral etiquette
(Furedi, 2002). The politicization of risk, the connection of risk discourses with the process of
globalization (Douglas, 1992), the intersection of risk and gender – Laurendeau’s ‘gendered risk
regimes’ (2008: 300) – and the rise of alternative/extreme/lifestyle sports celebrating the
risky/risking body (combined with the rise of digital media enabling new forms of production
and consumption), provides fertile ground for furthering the developing genre of PCS.

283
 Mike Brown

Critical examination of conceptualizations of risk, risk-taking, and the positioning of indi-

viduals and groups as ‘recipients’ of risk, as active agents in seeking risk, or as perpetrators of
power and authority through the categorization of the ‘other’ as being at risk, requires critical
examination of existing structures and discourses combined with the ability to recognize and
engage with emerging and fluid shifts in how risk is being constantly renegotiated.
Various expressions of active embodiment (Andrews and Silk, 2015) situate participants (as
embodied beings) in complex relationships with risk discourses that enable or constrain access,
levels of participation and continuity of involvement (e.g. women-only gyms, aqua jogging for
‘seniors’). Thinking of risk in terms of moral and political discourses opens up opportunities
for political debate and social action (Furedi, 2002), a project that lies at the heart of PCS. As
briefly indicated in the case study above, analysis of risk discourses can challenge, confront and
indicate alternative ‘realities’. As Beck (1992: 24) has noted, reframing risk can lead to ‘a
reorganisation of power and authority’. Both positive and negative blog postings ‘indicate that
there is no fixed status quo and that “dominant” social, cultural and political values and beliefs
can be challenged and changed, otherwise there would be no need to try and uphold them’
(Brown and Penney, 2014: 284). The analysis of how participants in the complex field of phys-
ical culture negotiate discourses of risk has the potential to liberate and empower those, who
like Watson, are subject to constraints that potentially limit both their aspirations and actions
(Furedi, 2002). As Atkinson (2011: 137) suggests, the merit and future value of PCS lies in its
collective call to committed praxis. Watson’s voluntary risk-taking provides PCS scholars not
only with fruitful avenues to examine constructions of risk and gender but to also reflexively
engage with the value of transgression as we seek to cross disciplinary boundaries and produc-
tively extend our own fields of practice.

Notes
1 Watson was referred to as a ‘schoolgirl’ in a newspaper headline that led to the posts that are discussed
here. This article was published before her departure.
2 Official records for the oldest and youngest circumnavigator stopped being recorded in 1999.
3 This article was published in September 2009, prior to Watson embarking on her voyage. Kellet’s
(2009) article appeared in the Brisbane Times and on Fairfax media’s website in New Zealand
(http://stuff.co.nz/).

References
Adam, B. and van Loon, J. 2000. Introduction: Repositioning risk; the challenge for social theory. In B.
Adam, U. Beck, and J. van Loon (eds), The Risk Society and Beyond. London: Sage, 1–31.
Andrews, D. 2008. Kinesiology’s inconvenient truth and the physical cultural studies imperative. Quest,
60(1), 45–62.
Andrews, D. and Silk, M. 2015. Physical cultural studies on sport. In R. Giulianotti, ed. The Routledge
Handbook of Sociology of Sport. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 83–93.
Atkinson, M. 2011. Physical cultural studies [Redux]. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28, 135–144.
Batchelor, S. 2007. ‘Getting mad wi’ it’: Risk-seeking by young women. In K. Hannah-Moffat and P.
O’Malley (eds), Gendered Risks. Abingdon, UK: Routledge-Cavendish, 205–227.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Booth, D. and Thorpe, H. 2007. Meaning of extreme, the. In D. Booth and H. Thorpe (eds), Berkshire
Encyclopedia of Extreme Sports. Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire, 181–197.
Brown, M. and Penney, D. 2014. Solo sailing: An ‘ordinary girl’, voluntary risk-taking and (ir)responsibil-
ity. Sociology of Sport Journal, 31(3), 267–286. doi: 10.1123/ssj.2013-0121
Caplan, P. 2000. Introduction: Risk revisited. In P. Caplan, ed. Risk Revisited. London: Pluto Press, 1–28.
Donnelly, P. 2004. Sport and risk culture. In K. Young, ed. Sporting Bodies, Damaged Selves: Sociological Studies
of Sports-Related Injuries. Oxford: Elsevier, 29–57.

284
 Risky/risking bodies

Douglas, M. 1992. Risk and Blame. London: Routledge.

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Frey, J. 1991. Social risk and the meaning of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 136–145.
Friedman, M. and Van Ingen, C. 2011. Bodies in space: Spatializing physical cultural studies. Sociology of
Sport Journal, 28, 85–105.
Furedi, F. 2002. Culture of Fear. London: Continuum.
Giulianotti, R. 2009. Risk and sport: An analysis of sociological theories and research agendas. Sociology of
Sport Journal, 26, 540–556.
Hope, A. 2005. Risk, education and culture; Interpreting danger as a dynamic, culturally situated process.
In A. Hope and P. Oliver (eds), Risk, Education and Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 3–20.
Hope, A. and Oliver, P. 2005. Preface. In A. Hope and P. Oliver (eds), Risk, Education and Culture. Aldershot:
Ashgate, ix–xii.
Howe, L. 2008. Remote sport: Risk and self-knowledge in wilder spaces. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,
15, 1–16.
Jackson, S., and Scott, S. 1999. Risk anxiety and the social construction of childhood. In D. Lupton (ed.),
Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
86–107.
Kasperson, R. et al. 2000. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. In P. Slovic (ed.), The
Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan, 232–245.
Kellett, C. 2009. Schoolgirl’s solo sail ‘irresponsible’. Available from www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/
2411813/Schoolgirls-solo-sail-irresponsible (accessed 9 December 2010).
Larana, E. 2001. Reflexivity, risk and collective action over waste management: A constructive proposal.
Current Sociology, 49(1), 23–48. doi: 10.1177/0011392101049001003
Laurendeau, J. 2008. ‘Gendered risk regimes’: A theoretical consideration of edgework and gender.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 25, 293–309.
Laurendeau, J. 2011. ‘If you’re reading this, it’s because I’ve died’: Masculinity and relational risk in BASE
jumping. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28, 404–420.
Lupton, D. 1999. Risk. London: Routledge.
Lupton, D. and Tulloch, J. 2002a. ‘Life would be pretty dull without risk’: Voluntary risk-taking and its
pleasures. Health Risk and Society, 4(2), 113–124. doi: 10.1080/13698570220137015
Lupton, D. and Tulloch, J. 2002b. ‘Risk is part of your life’: Risk epistemologies among a group of
Australians. Sociology, 36(2), 317–334. doi: 10.1177/0038038502036002005
Lyng, S. 1990. Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking. American Journal of
Sociology, 95(4), 851–886. doi: 10.1086/229379
Mythen, G. 2007. Reappraising the risk society thesis: Telescopic sight or myopic vision? Current Sociology,
55(6), 793–813.
Olstead, R. 2011. Gender, space and fear: A study of women’s edgework. Emotion, Space and Society, 4, 86–
94. doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.2010.12.004
Palmer, C. 2002. ‘Shit happens’: The selling of risk in extreme sport. The Australian Journal of Anthropology,
13(3), 323–336.
Russell, J. 2005. The value of dangerous sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 32(1), 1–19. doi:
10.1080/00948705.2005.9714667
Shilling, C. 1993. The Body and Social Theory. London: Sage.
Slovic, P. 2000. Perception of risk. In P. Slovic (ed.), The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan, 220–231.
Thorpe, H. 2007. Gender. In D. Booth and H. Thorpe (eds), Berkshire Encyclopedia of Extreme Sports. Great
Barrington, MA: Berkshire, 103–111.

285