Advertisement

Manufactured Risk, Complexity and Non-traditional Security: From World Risk Society to a Networked Risk Model

  • Anthony J. MasysEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications book series (ASTSA)

Abstract

Within the context of non-traditional security, this chapter reflects upon Beck’s (1992, 2009) claim that we inhabit a Risk Society. With the advent of global climate change, extreme weather, transnational crime, NATECH’s (natural disaster triggered technological disasters), and terrorism, Beck’s notion of ‘manufactured risks’ resonates with the non-traditional security domain that includes: economic security, energy security, environmental security, health security and food security. This is all about complexity framing. Beck (1992) risk discourse regarding manufactured risks and effects that are both temporally and spatially displaced resonates with the complexity notion of nonlinearity. Hence the inherent interdependencies and interconnectivity that characterizes the risk space leads to a network model. The notion of hyper-risks (Helbing 2013; Masys et al. 2014) captures well the interconnectivity and complexity of the security threats. The complexity lens thereby becomes prominent in examining security. A networked risk model emerges as a construct that links Becks risk discourse to non-traditional security challenges.

Keywords

Non-traditional security Risk society Terrorism Human security Networks 

References

  1. Aradau C, van Munster R (2007) Governing terrorism through risk: taking precautions, (un)knowing the future. Eur J Int Relat 13(1):89–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabasi A-L (2003) Linked. Plume, Penguin Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabasi A-L (2013) Network science. Phil Trans R Soc A 371:20120375. Published 18 Feb 2013. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/371/1987/20120375.full.pdf
  4. Barnett J (2013) Environmental security. In: Collins A (ed) Contemporary security studies, 3rd edn. Oxford Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck U (2002) The terrorist threat: world risk society revisited. Theory Cult Soc 19(4):39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck U (2003) The silence of words: on war and terror. Secur Dialogue 34(3):255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck U (2009) World at risk. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Capra F, Luisi PL (2014) The systems view of life: a unifying vision. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coaffee J, Wood DM (2006) Security is coming home: rethinking scale and constructing resilience in the global urban response to terrorist risk. Int Relat 20(4):503–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dekker S, Cilliers P, Hofmeyr J-H (2011) The complexity of failure: implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Saf Sci 49:939–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DIET Report Executive Summary (2013) https://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf
  13. Ekberg M (2007) The parameters of the risk society. Curr Sociol 55(3):343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emmers R (2013) Securitization. In: Collins A (ed) Contemporary security studies, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris AJL, Gurioli L, Hughes EE, Lagreulet S (2012) Impact of the Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud: a newspaper perspective. J Geophys Res 117(B00C08):1–35Google Scholar
  16. Helbing D (2013) Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497:51–59CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson CW (2008) Understanding failures in international safety infrastructure: a comparison of European and North American power failures. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on system safety, Vancouver, BC, 25–29 Aug 2008Google Scholar
  18. Kalra S, Kelkar D, Galwankar SC, Papadimos TJ, Stawicki SP, Arquilla B, Hoey BA, Sharpe RP, Sabol D, Jahre JA (2014) The emergence of Ebola as a global health security threat: from ‘Lessons Learned’ to coordinated multilateral containment efforts. J Glob Infect Dis 6(4):164–177. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265832/?report=classic
  19. Kroger W, Zio E (2011) Vulnerable systems. Springer Publishing, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masys AJ (2010) Opening the black box of human error: revealing the complex aetiology of fratricide. VDM Publishing, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  21. Masys AJ (2012a) The emergent nature of risk as a product of ‘heterogeneous engineering—a relational analysis of the Oil and gas industry safety culture. In: Bennett S (ed) Innovative thinking in risk, crisis and disaster management. Gower Publishing, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Masys AJ (2012b) Black swans to grey swans—revealing the uncertainty. Int J Disaster Prev Manage 21(3):320–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masys AJ (2013) Human security—a view through the lens of complexity. In: Gilbert T, Kirkilionis M, Nicolis G (eds) Proceedings of the European conference on complex systems 2012. Springer Proceedings in Complexity, pp 325–335Google Scholar
  24. Masys AJ (2014) From crisis management to complexity management: HA/DR by design. In: 12th Japan-Canada security symposium for peace and security cooperation, Tokyo, Japan, 9–10 June 2014Google Scholar
  25. Masys AJ, Ray-Bennett N, Shiroshita H, Jackson P (2014) High impact/low Frequency extreme events: enabling reflection and resilience in a hyper-connected world. In: 4th International conference on building resilience, 8–11 Sept 2014, Salford Quays, United Kingdom (Proc Econ Finance 18:772–779)Google Scholar
  26. Masys AJ (2015) Promoting the network mindset to support humanitarian crisis management: towards prediction, prevention and resilience. In: Proceedings of the international conference on resilience, research and innovation, 26–28 Oct 2015, Djibouti. http://www.rri.dj/
  27. Mythen G (2007) Reappraising the risk society thesis: telescopic sight or myopic vision. Curr Sociol 55(6):793–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mythen G, Walklate S (2006) Communicating the terrorist risk: harnessing a culture of fear? Crime Media Cult 2(2):123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mythen G, Walklate S (2008) Terrorism, risk and international security: the perils of asking what if? Secur Dialogue 39(2–3):221–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raphael S, Stokes D (2013) Energy security. In: Collins A (ed) Contemporary security studies, 3rd edn. Oxford Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Rasmussen M (2001) Reflexive security: NATO and international risk society. Millennium 30(2):285–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Renn O, Klinke A., van Asselt M (2011) Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. AMBIO, 40: 231–246Google Scholar
  33. Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Century Business, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Statement for the Record Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community Senate Armed Services Committee (2015) http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Unclassified_2015_ATA_SFR_-_SASC_FINAL.pdf
  35. Urry J (2002) ‘The Global Complexities of September 11th’ Theory, Culture and Society 19(4): 57–69Google Scholar
  36. Vespignani A (2009) Predicting the behavior of techno-social systems. Science 325:425–428CrossRefADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Vespignani A (2010) The fragility of interdependency. Nature 464:984–985CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  38. Washington Post (2015) 3 ways the Fukushima nuclear disaster is still having an impact today (March 12). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/12/3-ways-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-is-still-having-an-impact-today/
  39. Wattie J, Masys AJ (2014) Enabling resilience: an examination of high reliability organizations and safety culture through the lens of appreciative inquiry. In: Masys AJ (ed) Disaster management—enabling resilience. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. WEF (2015) Global Risks 2015, 10th edn, insight reportGoogle Scholar
  41. Xu T, Masys AJ (2015) Critical infrastructure vulnerabilities: embracing a network mindset. In: Masys AJ (ed) Exploring the security landscape: non traditional security challenges. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations