Abstract
How to think about constraint and choice is a basic problem in social theory.1 Convincing explanations of behavior usually reference how power operates, why people think what they do, and how and why people relate to each other. Social life inherently involves someone constraining the options of someone else. It inherently involves some options being considered more possible than others. And it inherently involves the myriad connections that people find themselves in, connections that people use as resources to get through the day and as reference points for moral direction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a different use of these same concepts see B. Mintz and M. Schwartz, Power Structure of American Business ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985 ).
C. Starr, ‘Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk,’ Science, 165 (1969): 1232–8.
See, for example, H. Nowotny, ‘Scientific Purity and Nuclear Danger,’ pp. 243–64 in E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart, and R. Whitely, eds, The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge ( Boston, MA: D. Reidel, 1977 );
S. Rayner and R. Cantor, ‘How Fair is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Social Technology Choice,’ Risk Analysis, 7 (1) (1987): 3–9;
R. Kasperson, O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. Brown, J. Emel, and R. Goble, J. Kasperson, and S. Ratick, ‘The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,’ Risk Analysis, 8 (2) (1988): 177–87;
W. Freudenburg and S. Pastor, ‘Public Responses to Technological Risks: Toward a Sociological Perspective,’ Sociological Quarterly, 33 (3) (1992): 389–412.
B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, ‘How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits,’ Policy Sciences, 9 (1978): 127–52;
C. Perrow, Normal Accidents ( New York: Basic Books, 1984 ).
L. Clarke, ‘Explaining Choices Among Technological Risks,’ Social Problems, 35 (1) (1988): 501–14.
J. Gusfield, The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981 );
T. Pinch, J. Trevor, and W. Bijker, ‘The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or, How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other,’ Social Studies of Science, 18 (2) (1988): 147–67;
R. Stallings, ‘Media Discourse and the Social Construction of Risk,’ Social Problems, 37 (1) (1990): 80–95;
S. Hilgartner, ‘The Social Construction of Risk Objects: Or, How to Pry Open Networks of Risk,’ pp. 39–53 in J. Short and L. Clarke, eds, Organizations, Uncertainties, and Risk ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989 ).
W. Freudenburg, ‘Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions,’ Social Forces, 71 (4) (1993): 909–32.
G. Yago, The Decline of Transit: Urban Transportation in German and US Cities, 1900–1970 ( New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984 ).
J. Jasper, ‘The Political Life Cycle of Technological Controversies,’ Social Forces, 68 (2) (1988): 357–77.
P. Rothe, Beyond Traffic Safety ( New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994 ).
We borrow this term from A. Stinchcombe, ‘Social Structure and Organizations,’ pp. 142–93 in J. March, Handbook of Organizations ( Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965 ).
K. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1985 ), pp. 159.
S. Lichtenstein and P. Slovic, ‘Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89 (1) (1971): 46–55;
P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, ‘Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective,’ American Economic Review, 72 (4) (1983): 596–605;
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,’ Science, 211 (1981): 453–8.
See, for instance, A. Mazur, ‘Disputes Between Experts,’ Minerva, 11 (2) (1973): 243–62
C. Helmer, ‘Social Structure, Psychology, and the Estimation of Risk,’ Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (1988): 491–519.
S. Pious, ‘Biases in the Assimilation of Technological Breakdowns: Do Accidents Make Us Safer’?’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 (13) (1991): 1058–82.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2000 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Purcell, K., Clarke, L., Renzulli, L. (2000). Menus of Choice: the Social Embeddedness of Decisions. In: Cohen, M.J. (eds) Risk in the Modern Age. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62201-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62201-6_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-62203-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-62201-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)