Advertisement

‘Outsiders Just Don’t Understand’: Personalization of Risk and the Boundary Between Modernity and Postmodernity

  • Michael R. Edelstein
Chapter

Abstract

Contamination became a widely recognized facet of modern reality in the 1970s after such events as the discovery of buried hazardous wastes at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York and the spread of dioxin following an explosion at a pharmaceutical plant in Seveso, Italy. In these instances, reflecting chronic and acute cases of contamination, residents were relocated and permanent ‘dead zones’ were created on the landscape. Based upon such events, contamination emerged as the prototypical ‘new species of trouble,’ challenging modernity and forcing the transition toward a new postmodern society.1 Here it is argued that an understanding of this transition can be drawn from the experience of pollution’s victims. Using observations derived from empirical studies of the contamination experience, it is possible to confirm the largely European sociological representation of postmodernity, as depicted by Ulrich Beck’s theory of the ‘risk society.’2 At the same time, limits to the risk-society formulation also become apparent.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    K. Erikson, A New Species of Trouble: Explorations in Disaster, Trauma, and Community ( New York: W. W. Norton, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity ( London: Sage, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Edelstein, Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Gibbs, Love Canal: My Story ( Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982 );Google Scholar
  5. A. Levine, Love Canal: Science, Politics and People ( Lexington, MA: Lexington Press, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See S. Couch and J. S. Kroll-Smith, ‘The Chronic Technical Disaster: Toward a Social Scientific Perspective,’ Social Science Quarterly, 66 (4) (1985): 564–75.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    This approach has been termed ‘local’ or ‘popular’ epidemiology. See P. Brown and E. Mikkelsen, No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    M. Edelstein, ‘Psycho-social Impacts on Trial: The Case of Hazardous Waste Disposal,’ pp. 153–76 in D. Peck, ed., Psycho-social Effects of Hazardous Toxic Waste Disposal on Communities ( Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, 1989 )Google Scholar
  9. M. Edelstein, ‘When the Honeymoon is Over: Environmental Stigma and Distrust in the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility in Niagara Falls, New York,’ Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 5 (1) (1993): 75–96.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    M. Edelstein and A. Wandersman, ‘Community Dynamics in Coping with Toxic Exposure,’ pp. 69–112 in I. Altman and A. Wandersman, eds, Neighborhood and Community Environments (New York: Plenum Press, 1987) and Edelstein, Contaminated Communities.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    M. Fowlkes and P. Miller, Love Canal: The Social Construction of Disaster ( Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    M. Edelstein, ‘Disabling Communities: The Impact of Regulatory Proceedings,’ Journal of Environmental Systems 16(2) (1986/87): 87–110;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. A. Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development ( London: Routledge, 1995 );Google Scholar
  14. R. Sclove, Democracy and Technology ( London: Guildford Press, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Gibbs, ‘Psychological Dysfunction as a Consequence of Exposure to Toxics,’ pp. 47–70 in A. Lebovitz, A. Baum, and J. Singer, eds, Health Consequences of Exposure to Toxins ( Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  16. See also L. Palinkas, J. Petterson, J. Russell, and M. Downs, ‘Community Patterns of Psychiatric Disorders After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 150 (10) (1993): 1517–23;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. J. S. Picou, D. Gill, C. Dyer, and E. Curry, ‘Disruption and Stress in an Alaskan Fishing Community: Initial and Continuing Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,’ Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 6 (1992): 235–57.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    See K. Erikson, Everything in Its Path (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976 );Google Scholar
  19. J. S. Kroll-Smith and S. Couch, The Real Disaster is Above Ground: A Mine Fire and Social Conflict ( Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1990 );Google Scholar
  20. A. Shkilnyk, A Poison Stronger than Love ( New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985 );Google Scholar
  21. W. Freudenburg and T. Jones, ‘Attitudes and Stress in the Presence of a Technological Risk: A Test of the Supreme Court Hypothesis,’ Social Forces, 69 (4) (1991): 1143–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 17.
    See also C. Dyer, D. Gill, and J. S. Picou, ‘Social Disruption and the Valdez Oil Spill: Alaskan Natives in a Natural Resource Community,’ Sociological Spectrum 12(2) (1992): 105–26; Palinkas et al., ‘Social, Cultural, and Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill’; and Picou et al., ‘Disruption and Stress in an Alaskan Fishing Community.’CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 18.
    See, for example, N. Weinstein, ‘Optimistic Biases About Personal Risks,’ Science, 246 (1989): 1232–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 20.
    See, for example, S. Berman and A. Wandersman, ‘Fear of Cancer and Knowledge of Cancer: A Review and Proposed Relevance to Hazardous Waste Siters,’ Social Science and Medicine, 31 (1) (1990): 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 21.
    H. Vyner, Invisible Trauma: The Psycho-social Effects of Invisible Environmental Contaminants ( Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  26. 22.
    See also A. Baum, R. Flemming, and J. Singer, ‘Coping with Victimization by Technological Disaster,’ Journal of Social Issues, 39 (3) (1983): 117–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 23.
    Edelstein, Contaminated Communities. See also B. McKibben, The End of Nature ( New York: Anchor Books, 1989 );Google Scholar
  28. M. Olsen, D. Lodwick, and R. Dunlap, Viewing the World Ecologically ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992 );Google Scholar
  29. L. Milbrath, Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society ( Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  30. 24.
    M. Edelstein, ‘Toxic Exposure and the Inversion of Home,’ Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 3 (1986): 237–51Google Scholar
  31. J. Fitchen, ‘When Toxic Chemicals Pollute Residential Environments: The Cultural Meanings of Home and Homeownership,’ Human Organization, 48 (4) (1989): 313–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 25.
    See also W. Freudenburg, ‘Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions,’ Social Forces, 71 (4) (1993): 909–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 27.
    See, for example, R. Bullard, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    M. Edelstein, ‘Public and Private Perceptions of Risk,’ pp. 60–4 in T. Burke, N. Tran, J. Roemer, and C. Henry, eds, Regulating Risk: The Science and Politics of Risk ( Washington, DC: The International Life Systems Institute Press, 1993 ).Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    M. Edelstein, ‘The Psychological Basis for the “NIMBY” Response,’ pp. 271–8 in J. Andrews, L. Askew, J. Bucsela, D. Hoffman, B. Johnson, and C. Xintaras, eds, Proceedings of the Fourth National Environmental Health Conference: Environmental Issues — Today’s Challenge for the Future ( Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, November, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    M. Edelstein and W. Makofske, Radon’s Deadly Daughters: Science, Environmental Policy, and the Politics of Risk ( Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael R. Edelstein

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations