在這篇章節中, Beck嘗試解釋在階級社會(class society)中財富分配的邏輯如何轉變成風險社會(risk society)中風險分配的邏輯。風險的概念演化自對現代性的反省, 可以將風險定義為”一個系統性的方式去處理由現代性本身所引發的危險和不確定性。風險, 和以往所知的危險不同, 它是現代化摧毀性力量和全球性懷疑的結果” 。Beck 論證道: 風險引發了跨越國界的系統性、不可見和經常是不可逆的傷害。因為現代化的風險無法和整個生產的產業模式的複雜體系分離開來, 因此它是每個人都參與的普遍的共謀, 同時它也和普遍的每一個人都覺得沒有責任相扣合。然而,對風險的察覺端賴於社會定義與建構下的因果詮釋, 大眾媒體、科學與法律專業者, 會依據他們的立場, 在爭議中定義與預期未來的風險。

    Beck認為科學和社會理性交纏在一起, 相互獨立, 以至於對於風險的科學關切仰賴於社會上的期望與價值判斷, 而對於風險的社會討論和覺察又仰賴於科學的論戰。Beck 又進一步強調, 風險會加強階級社會的關係, 因為窮人的經濟狀況以及獲得風險知識的能力, 相較下是弱勢的。在全球的尺度上依循這樣的邏輯, 危險的產業將會移轉到低工資的第三世界國家, 因為這些國家正努力掙脫飢餓貧窮與爭取自主性。但是風險擴散的倒轉效果(boomerang effect) 將會同時危及富有與強權的人們和國家。Beck 也提到晚期工業社會中風險的雙面性也會提供市場機會, 有些人會從遭受風險危害的人身上獲利, 例如, 組織風險知識(科學與研究)和傳播的人(大眾媒體)。最後, 政治主體從階級社會中為平等理念奮鬥的無產階級, 轉變成為風險社會中尋求安全的”全體” (或沒有)受害者。 Beck 在這篇章節中留下許多質疑, 關於風險社會中”政治虛體”(political vacuum)行動的可能性, 或許當他撰寫本文時, 對於風險社會也是充滿著焦慮和不確定吧!

    讓我們嘗試與Beck 對話, 討論一下關於在階級社會與風險社會中, 社會變遷的形式與力量。我們引用了另一位生態馬克思主義者James O’Connor的在這本書:”Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism” 的觀點, 或許可以讓我們思索一下Beck 的質疑:

1. 傳統階級運動的抗爭是集中在資本的生產與循環 (如工廠和市場), 新的社會運動則是聚焦在生產的條件上, 新的社會運動的議題是在特定的人群與特定的基地上, 而且跨越了階級的界線。

2. 對馬克思而言, 歷史不是普遍價值實現的歷史。而是敵對的利益以此理念為名相互鬥爭取得權力的歷史。這樣的史觀或許就是為何許多的左派解放者最後變成壓迫者的主要原因。

3. O’Connor 拒絕普遍性的理念, 他認為正義、真理、自由和民主在不同的社會中有不同的實踐意義, 同時也被特定社會結構或社會形成中的不同社會群體以不同方式來詮釋。

4. 在馬克思的理論中, 忽略了文化和生態變遷對於生產模式的轉變的影響, 他的理論也忽略了合作也是一種生產力。

5. 人類勞動力並不只是依循階級權力和價值法則而組織, 它也依循文化規範和實踐而組織, 而文化規範和實踐也會因社會勞動力的形式而改變。

    我們在此可以比較出O’ Connor 對於社會政治行動的看法與 Beck有很大的不同, 他並不期待一個普遍性的社會行動來追求普遍性的平等(階級社會中的尋求), 或是安全(風險社會中的尋求), 他將社會政治實踐的問題放在每一個特定的基地與特定的人群中去思考。他也指出了傳統左派階級鬥爭實踐的危險, 並提出更為在地多元的歷史實踐觀。或許這就是為何O’Connor沒有像Beck 對於階級運動的式微感到焦慮不安的原因吧!
 

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 O’Connor, 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, O’Connor 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).