r51due

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- Baker and latour's research on risk theory，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了贝克和拉图尔对风险理论的研究。贝克通过对风险概念的重塑提出了一种新的客观性形式，从而为批判自然和文化的二元论框架开辟了一条新的道路。然而，由于贝克并没有意识到自然如同社会一样需要被风险所重组，因而他所创设的这种旨在跨越事实与价值二分的风险概念，并没有完成跨越的任务。拉图尔从本体论层面上彻底否定科学与政治之间二元的先验分离，进而，作为贝克风险概念核心的关联就从先验走向了生成，成为人类和非人类行动者之间的实践关联，风险也就等价于处于黑箱破裂状态的行动者网络。拉图尔对风险概念的本体化改造，终结了摇摆于绝对安全和毁灭性灾难两极间的实证主义风险观。

At the turn of the century, two of the most famous thinkers and philosophers of our time, Bruno latour, and ulrich beck, known for their work on the risk society, came together. Latour later recalled, "just before the fall of the Berlin wall, in the early days of science and technology... I was privileged to work with Ulrich Beck and his team, and I remain in close contact with him to this day." However, the significance of their dialogue has not attracted enough attention in academic circles until now.

Latour was invited to Munich in November 2000 to conduct a field study of the work of ulrich beck and his team. The comments. In this review, latour and intersection of baker thought is risk concept, latour by actor network theory to explain the risk, we see a risk and predecessors' understanding of today's concept, also enables us to beck's risk society, reflexive modernity, organized there is a new understanding of the terms such as irresponsible to explore the current risk problem provides a new enlightenment.

Scholars who are accustomed to studying social phenomena in a specific theoretical framework often struggle with what the word "risk" is in beck's theory of risk society, and cannot understand why beck is unwilling to define the word "risk" directly, but always answers by circumlocuting. In fact, answering what risk is means seeking an answer to the question of risk in the scope of epistemology, which is exactly what baker is trying to avoid. When the German version of risk society was translated into English as risky society, beck believed that this translation avoided confusion with the risk concept in noun form, but did not accurately convey his intention.

Perhaps, to penetrate the baker or latour, in his view, there are risks of innovation, the concept of "risk society" the baker commendable is that when the actors of change in the way of connection with others of a, this concept is not only to follow the possibility of this change, and transformed to explain the framework of sociology of risk. The implication is that "risk society" is not only a sociological concept, but also a philosophical ontological turn. Even only innovation value, discuss its sociology should be more focus on practice, and not just the predicted: "the term" risk ", in baker here does not mean that life will become more dangerous than before, but to the future risk of manufacturing will be the inner part of modern life, and, if we pretended to be able to control risk, it would be foolhardy ".

Perhaps the ontological turn is just latour's interpretation, but there is no denying that in baker's case, the shift in the concept of risk has not been widely noticed. To clarify this issue, it is necessary to make a brief review of "risk" before "risk society".

In modern society, people's pursuit of controllable risks is largely due to the way of thinking of external attribution of risks. The so-called external risk attribution refers to the explanation of risk attribution by empirical theory. It comes from the emergence of probability in the 17th century, which makes the event of encountering danger, which is not a cognitive category, be included in the epistemology. Positivism argues that probability delineates a cognitive space, so that risks outside the space are projected linearly into the space and become risks, which gives risks the image of computational rationality and the mission of conquering external risks.

Of course, it is not sufficient to use the science of probability as a single rational basis for risk. When scientists treat these "tamed contingencies" as an integral element of nature and society, risk perception is limited to issues of technological controllability and inevitably ignores the risks of linear perception itself. How to solve this reflexive problem of risk perception? People resort to nonlinear risk perception. According to harkin, risk perception can be traced back to Charles Sanders Peirce, a philosopher who made adverse selection in the age of probability: "chance first, law second, habit third." This leaves the door open for a sociological shift in risk research.

In the 1960s and 1970s, sociology intervened in risk research, and Dame Mary Douglas' theory of risk culture became mainstream, which advocated putting social risk perception at the center of the theory. This is due to its early famous taboo - risk model. In a nutshell, social boundaries are security criteria. That is, something is not rejected outside the social boundary because it is objectively dangerous, but on the contrary, it is considered dangerous because it can be rejected by the social community. Douglas believed that the so-called risk is the specific danger we choose to pay attention to at a certain moment, the key is not how much danger and what kind of danger in the external world, but why we choose this particular danger to pay attention to at this moment. This choice is determined not by reason but by different types of social lifestyles, each with its specific risk portfolio. In reality, the emergence of risks is not due to the increase of risks, but just the diversity of the cultural boundaries of the community, which makes it impossible to focus on concerns in the community to reduce confusion.

The problem with the risk view of cultural relativism lies in: it completely denies that the danger in nature is the source of risk, denies the rationality of risk cognition, and then goes to the other extreme, thus eliminating the scientific dimension of risk definition. At the same time, cultural relativism ascribes risks only to theoretical society, forgetting that the explanatory power of "society" lies not in the abstract sociological theory, but in the defensiveness provided by political consultation as its practical mechanism. As a result, the cultural theory of risk could not cope with its own reflexivity, which beck later criticized as a sociological egocentrism of "nothing but society".

Douglas focused on the single social mechanism of risk attribution, while foucault focused on the multiple mechanism of risk attribution. In foucault's theoretical system, risk belongs to the category of strategy, that is, a series of interlinked intermediary relations between different power Spaces. The power here should be understood from the perspective of its attribution mechanism. This means that the risk is not in some independent attribution space, but on the boundary.

Foucault examines the understanding of the concept of risk in legal psychiatry from a historical perspective and reveals how the concept of risk is generated through mutual interaction between the knowledge of medicine, psychology and anthropology and the judicial system. Risk is exposed switch among them. Therefore, the risk is not generated by the judicial system itself, nor is it the result of the unilateral transformation of the judicial system by rational knowledge. Risk as a strategy not only correlates different attributional Spaces but also distorts them.

In conclusion, Douglas and foucault dispelled the border of risk cognition and perception, which laid a foundation for our understanding of risk, but they also seem to be just is to understand the aim, Douglas cultural incommensurability, stop at the risk and foucault stop risk attribution model of incommensurability, borrow latour's words, the end of the risk for external attribution is meaningless. The point is that they seem to forget that risk does not exist in the pure theoretical world, but in the real life world, which is the starting point of beck's theory of risk society.

Returning to the real world, baker no longer struggled with the rationality of external attribution of risk, but turned to social practice. He believed that the past practice of "externalizing dangerous situations" was no longer possible in the current reality. In other words, the problem is that there is no adequate justification for this pattern of attribution at the level of social practice.

Since kantism, in the dichotomy between politics and science, there has been an asymmetry in the ways of achieving legitimacy. The legitimacy reached through negotiation is regarded as the characteristic of one pole of public power; Science, on the other hand, believes in its progressive value and has the ability to deal with errors and omissions internally, so it does not have to be negotiated.

If, as the dichotomy design shows, the post-action of science is confined to the interior of the scientific space, then it is reasonable to consider only the one-way risk attribution from the outside to the inside in the scientific cognition. However, science is not a private affair in Dewey's sense after all. According to baker, the development of techno-scientific has been accompanied by the modernization process, and its public nature cannot be denied. The defense of treating risk as a temporary side effect has failed. This requires people to look at risk on the basis of both scientific and political legitimacy. However, the reality is extremely unbalanced. Political decision making is overly subordinated to scientific disciplinary frameworks, consultations are replaced by rigid procedural norms, and the consequences are borne by the political system. Baker describes the situation as "methodical irresponsibility" in which science creates risk without being held accountable, and political systems lose control of risk without being held accountable for its consequences. In latour's words, nature short-circuited politics.

How to solve this problem, postmodernists' approach is to completely dissolve the boundary between science and politics, claiming that responsibility does not need to be clarified, and the legitimacy of behavior can be ignored. This is something beck cannot agree with. He argued that science, space and social space should be both separation, and in the form of a variety of complex crisscross connected together, this association is dominion, risk is essentially to the close your separate factors "thinking" the characterization of power, rather than the results, namely the link will be formed in the category of cognitive characterization of causality. As a result, it establishes a real connection between things that are split in time and space by dualism, such as science and politics, nature and society.

Compared with foucault, it is not difficult to see that the two men have similarities in the metaphysical construction of risk. As a sociologist, baker was not fully expounded the philosophical meaning of this association, but in baker's view, the association itself is prior to their legitimacy, is the starting point of understanding risk and risk society's mission is to the association itself to rebuild its institutional legitimacy, to make it to "a more complexity and contingency and fracture morphology change", we can understand from the following points:

Although relevance does away with necessity, it means perception. However, different from Douglas, in the theory of risk society, the role of perception is not to directly and linearly choose what kind of risk is worth considering; Perception brings about the thinking and action of reshaping society, and then generates the "public" in the sense of habermas, while the latter realizes the function of the political pole in the original dichotomy, that is, "provides the opportunity to exercise the joint or vicarious supervision". This avoids interpreting risk in terms of real society.

As a correlation, risk itself is independent of cognition at the beginning. Beck repeatedly stressed that risk originates from the unconscious, which is an inherently generated state prior to causal logic. Beck used the word "dangerous situation" to describe this state. To become a risk in the usual sense, it needs to be mediated by mass media and visualization technology, so that the dangerous situation can be expressed as an imaginary and self-considered causal relationship.

By designing this system, baker aims to bring risk negotiation into the process of building various expertise, and to carve out a space for micro-political manipulation among the various fields of expertise, in which different views can reach temporary agreement through mutual criticism and negotiation. And it is in the interaction with uncertainty and insecurity that people will establish an institutional learning process, so that science and technology will no longer blindly pursue progress, and then realize the establishment of multiple connections between the internality of society and the internality of nature, which baker calls sub-politics. What baker hopes to express through the concept of subpolitics is that in today's world where the relationship between technology and daily life is highly complex, any professional activity without resorting to risk means that there is no legitimacy.

The process of defining risks also means that the public attempts to demarcate in the field of science. This demarcation is not unique, but diverse and divergent, which is significantly different from the risk space defined by probability or social culture mentioned above. To use baker's example, parents of children with pseudoasthma, who establish a link between coughing and pollution, collect their own data and counter the rebuttal of experts, and thus create a risk space that comes with skepticism. Questioning brings controversy, and the most important task of science, from silencing public controversy, becomes making it possible. According to baker, the demarcation with questioning indicates that risk is defined both internally and externally, and this internalization of externality means that baker successfully replaces the logic of alms-ors in dualism with the logic of double-ands. As analyzed above, the logic of "this or that" can be traced back to foucault's idea of "switching switch", but foucault only pointed out the possibility of changing the boundary of original attribution space through such heterogeneous correlation, while beck completed the method and institutional design of how to change. In this sense, beck achieves the transcendence of foucault.

In short, "risk crosses the distinction between theory and practice, the boundary between profession and discipline, the authority and institutional responsibility of various professions, and the dichotomy between fact and value". What's more, beck appeals to an association concept with ontological metaphor, which lays a foundation for latour to bring the risk concept to ontology. So it is not an exaggeration to say that baker was the forerunner of the shift of risk concept to ontology. But it should also be noted that what he is pursuing is an attempt to transcend dualism rather than repudiate it altogether, a leap that, in latour's words, "straddles the cracks of dualism." The concomitant practical problem is that the transcendental binary opposition between scientists and the public, scientific progress and risk is only bridged but not eliminated, and latour will completely deny the transcendentality of this duality from the ontological level.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供北美作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。