Dealing with Environmental Risks in Reflexive Modernity

  • Joris Hogenboom
  • Arthur P. J. Mol
  • Gert Spaargaren


Since the early 1970s sociologists have been attempting to incorporate environmental questions into social theory. The main objective of these efforts has been to gain a better understanding of the birth and development of environmental issues in society and the way society changes in dealing with them. During the 1970s and early 1980s the debate between distinct schools of thought in what we would now label environmental sociology focused on the main institutional dimensions of modern society that should be held responsible for the environmental crisis. To some extent this phase of intellectual development can be interpreted as the environmental ‘application’ of a more general sociological debate dating back to the 1960s that concentrated on questions relating to whether industrialism, capitalism, or surveillance was the common denominator characterizing modern Western societies.1


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For a more extensive discussion of these theoretical issues in environmental sociology, see A. Mol, The Refinement of Production: Ecological Modernization Theory and the Chemical Industry ( Utrecht: Jan van Arkel/ International Books, 1995 )Google Scholar
  2. G. Spaargaren, The Ecological Modernization of Production and Consumption: Essays in Environmental Sociology ( Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University, 1997 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Giddens, Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U. Beck, Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity ( London: Sage, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    See, for example, B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, ‘Flow Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits,’ Policy Sciences, 9 (1978): 127–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. P. Slovic, ‘Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm,’ pp. 117–52 in S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds, Social Theories of Risk ( Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Krimsky and Golding, Social Theories of Risk; J. Brown, ed., Environmental Threats: Perception, Analysis, and Management ( London: Belhaven Press, 1989 );Google Scholar
  8. M. Douglas, Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences ( New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1985 );Google Scholar
  9. O. Renn and E. Swaton, ‘Psychological and Sociological Approaches to the Study of Risk Perception,’ Environment International, 10 (1984): 557–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 12.
    For a broad analysis of this issue see A. Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development ( London: Routledge, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    E. Van Hengel and B. Gremmen ‘Milieugebruiksruimte: Tussen Natuurwet en Conventie,’ Kennis en Methode, 11 (3) (1995): 277–303.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    U. Beck, Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    P. Dickens, Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation, and the Division of Labour ( London: Routledge, 1996 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    J. Hannigan, Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructivist Perspective ( London: Routledge, 1996 ).Google Scholar
  15. 23.
    M. Jänicke, Staatsversagen: Die Ohnmacht der Politik in der Industriegesellschaft ( Munich: Piper, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    M. Jänicke, ‘Ober ökologische and politische Modernisierungen,’ Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik and Umweltrecht 16(2) (1993): 159–75. See also Mol, The Refinement of Production and Spaargaren, The Ecological Modernization of Production and Consumption.Google Scholar
  17. 27.
    R. Paehlke and D. Torgerson, eds, Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State ( London: Belhaven, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  18. 28.
    K. LeBlansch, Mi.lieuzorg in bedrijven: Overheidssturing in het perspectief van de verinnerlijkingsbeleidslijn ( Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers, 1996 ).Google Scholar
  19. 29.
    A. Mol, V. Lauber, M. Enevoldsen, and J. Landman, Joint Environmental Policy-Making in Comparative Perspective, paper presented at the Greening of Industry Conference, Heidelberg, November 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 31.
    C. Bosso, ‘Transforming Adversaries into Collaborators: Interest Groups and the Regulation of Chemical Pesticides,’ Policy Sciences, 21 (1) (1988): 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Nownes, ‘Interest Groups and the Regulation of Pesticides: Congress, Coalitions, and Closure,’ Policy Sciences, 24 (1) (1991): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 32.
    A. Mol and G. Spaargaren, ‘Environment, Modernity, and the Risk Society: The Apocalyptic Horizon of Environmental Reform,’ International Sociology, 8 (4) (1993): 431–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 33.
    Beck, Risk Society and J. Huber, Die Regenbogengesellschaft: Ökologie und Sozialpolitik ( Frankfurt am Main: Fisher Verlag, 1985 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joris Hogenboom
  • Arthur P. J. Mol
  • Gert Spaargaren

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations