In discussing the “new global ascription of risk,” in The Rise of the Risk Society, Ulrich Beck notes the inconsequentiality of individual agency as the threats that afflict us, “the toxins and pollutants” are now “interwoven with the natural basis and the elementary life processes of the industrial world.” As I discussed in one of my earlier blog posts, how much is risk society’s being “closed to decisions” (41) similar to Berlant’s image of the post-modern subject treading water in the impasse of the present?
I’m interested in Beck and Berlant since a Risk
Society and Crisis ordinariness or the impasse of the present seem to put forth
completely different temporalities. In recognizing risk we are simultaneously
pessimistic (“preventing the worst”) (49) and forward-thinking (“we become
active today in order to prevent the problems ..of tomorrow”) (48) placing risk
and the strategies to address risk decidedly in the future.
Are Berlant and Beck characterizing a double-bind in our contemporary situation, that of indulging in the circulation of the familiar within a present we believe is future-less while simultaneously being terrified of a future controlled by environmental, economic and social forces we are vulnerable to, responsible for, and incapable of preventing/controlling? I believe that both characterizations have credence, but what does circulating in cul de sac against a “social explosiveness of hazard” yield in the way we conduct our lives or how we act economically, politically and socially?
Are Berlant and Beck characterizing a double-bind in our contemporary situation, that of indulging in the circulation of the familiar within a present we believe is future-less while simultaneously being terrified of a future controlled by environmental, economic and social forces we are vulnerable to, responsible for, and incapable of preventing/controlling? I believe that both characterizations have credence, but what does circulating in cul de sac against a “social explosiveness of hazard” yield in the way we conduct our lives or how we act economically, politically and socially?
I’d
like to discuss the strategies that specifically our generation (Generation-Y)
employs to traffic through it as an increasingly risk-conscious and so
risk-averse demographic. In Turbulent
Passions, Thrift describes our general condition as ‘half-awake’ to the motivations
and causal relationships between ourselves and larger social forces, so that we
are “waiting to be turned on,” a characterization that is often leveled at
those that belong to Generation-Y. (240) It seems that early exposure to soft
risk (something like our economic recession) perpetuates a perceived need to coast
and cope so that we’re all ‘doing pretty well’ and things are ‘pretty good’ and
we’d like to maintain that.
Also
because of the current hyper-speed dissemination of news, the central division that
Beck identifies between those that are afflicted by risk and those that profit
from them also includes those who recognize and can identify risk within it’s
“relations of definitions..the legal, epistemological and cultural matrix in
which risk politics is conducted.” If the condition of Generation Y is enduring
soft-risk with an extreme and shared awareness of something like hard risk, what
is the relationship between risk-aversion (and the affects that it produces
such as disaffection or ironic posturing) and sustained but low-commitment
slactivism and political engagement?
Professor
Chun posed that “if we want action, we turn the world into an archive of what
could have been,” suggesting that uncertainty is perhaps a more effectual way
of provoking action. If precarity could produce something like risk-aversion,
which creates a stagnant social or political paralysis, I’d like to think
through precarity differently, as creating the moment in which “life in the impasse turns from threat
to aim.” (Berlant 70) Precarity is the tipping point before risky behavior. umping off the mobilizing potential of
group action that we discussed, there is a type of de-individuation that
takes place when we are acting within a group that allows us to become less
risk-averse or more willing to take risks. The sociology term is group
polarization, in which groups make decidedly more extreme decisions together
than the individual members would make on their own.
If
Risk-aversion but also Risk-taking can be products of group consensus, I’d like
my paper to figure out how the collective action of Generation Y, most likely
to be conducted via online networks, can be harnessed and sustained for
effective socio-political change or activist work.
No comments:
Post a Comment