Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers

by Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky

Can we know the risks we face, now or in the future? No, we cannot; but yes, we must act as if we do. Some dangers are unknown; others are known, but not by us because no one person can know everything. Most people cannot be aware of most dangers at most times. Hence, no one can calculate precisely the total risk to be faced. How, then, do people decide which risks to take and which to ignore? On what basis are certain dangers guarded against and others relegated to secondary status?  This book explores how we decide what risks to take and which to ignore, both as individuals and as a culture.

Genres: Anthropology, Nonfiction, Sociology, Philosophy, Environment, Science, 20th Century

232 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1982

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting work on culturally selected fears, but dated. This was originally published in 1982 so many of the example make the work seem more than a little out of step with current fears (justified or not). Still, the core argument remains valid.

However, I would not recommend this work because of its dated examples and argument.

[Steve Dewey · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are not many reviews of this, so I'll add some thoughts. I didn't find it an easy read, it felt quite dense and knotty in places. Douglas's seminal work in the 60s was about cultural ideas of moral pollution and taboos. I was aware of that as I read this, and thought I might have gained more from this book if I'd read her earlier works. This book examines attitudes to risk associated with pollution and health issues, and the social structures associated with, let's say, the concerned and unconcerned, with what Douglas calls hierarchy, market and border. It is therefore a very anthropological, very sociological examination of the culture of risk. It tells you little about risk, and reaches no conclusions about what to do about specific types of pollution. Nonetheless I found the examination of attitude to risk interesting. The book is 40 years old now, so the kind of structuralist approach used might be theoretically outmoded - but I've never had much truck with modishness, and this has interest as is. However, I underlined a lot in this book that I will have to return to at a later date, so I again reiterate that I don't think this was an easy read.

Just as an aside, it reminded me in some ways of an essay that once impressed me by Hans Magnus Enzensberger, A Critique of Political Ecology in that it came to environmental problems from an unexpected direction.

[Cold · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some nice critiques of the possibility of objective risk management.

[Ron Cruz · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't remember this one either. But I do remember that I did not enjoy reading it.

[Ole · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is... not what i expected it to be.

It`s not to badly written, interesting, and informative. It has some good points. But it feels outdated. Maybe because it is.

Still, I think that good science is timeless - this one isn`t.

Pluss, some of the ideas are narrow - to spesific to have a practical use - maybe... Great book, good writing, some gems hidden in between - a good read.

[Denis]

good staff