From Public Perception of Risk to Cultural Theory of Technology

  • Brian Wynne
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 4)


Among the various approaches to analyzing people’s attitudes to risks, technologies, and their managing institutions, one can see two fundamentally different metaphysics from which nearly all approaches originate. By metaphysics I mean a closed loop—a cosmology—of taken-for-granted views of human nature, social interaction, public life, rationality, values, and ways of observing which confirm our founding assumptions and faiths.


Political Culture Cultural Bias Symbolic Action Apply System Analysis Social Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S.B. Barnes and S.A. Shapin (eds.). Natural Order. London, Sage. 1979.Google Scholar
  2. M. Douglas. Implicit Meanings. London, Routledge. 1975.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    M. Thompson. “The cultural construction of nature and the natural destruction of culture.” paper to International Conference on Nature. Culture. Technology. Stockholm. Sweden. September 1983. Mimeo copy. IIASA. Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    I have tried to make this connection through a detailed case study, B. Wynne. Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain, British Society for the History of Science, Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    B. Wynne, “Redefining the Issues of Risk and Social Acceptance: The Social Viability of Technology,” Futures, 15 (1983), 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 5.
    As offered, for example, by much mainstream risk perception literature. For a critique of this literature, see H. J. Otway and K. Thomas. “Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy.” Risk Analysis, Vol. 2, 2 (1982), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Another psychologist has observed that in risk analysis, “we psychologists are a bit trapped by our own proficiency at being good experimentalists. We realize the importance of control and so we are drawn to those tasks in which we can exercise control. Hence our preoccupation with simple, static lotteries” (which are used as if they were real-life risk decisions), L. Lola, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 9 (1983). 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Also. Douglas MacLean. “Is Rationality Extensional?”, mimeo, University of Maryland. Dept. of Philosophy and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    As indeed in the long-standing, excellent journal of that name, and in classical works in economic history, such as Carlo Cipolla. Clocks and Culture 1500–1700, London, Collins. 1967Google Scholar
  10. Lynn White Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    David Edge. “Technological Metaphor.” in N. Wolfe and D.O. Edge (eds.). Meaning and Control. Essays in the Social Aspects of Science and Technology. London, Tavistock Publications. 1973, pp. 31–64.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    M. Douglas, Social Factors in the Perception of Risk, Report to the Russell Sage Foundation, New York. 1983Google Scholar
  13. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture, London. University of California Press. 1982Google Scholar
  14. M. Thompson. “Among the energy tribes.” IIASA Working Paper. Laxenburg. Austria. WP-82–59.Google Scholar
  15. 9.
    Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Also: G. Mars, Cheats at Work: An Anthropology of Workplace Crime, George Allen & Unwin. 1981Google Scholar
  16. S. Henry (ed.). Can I have it in Cash: A Study of Informal Institutions and Unorthodox Ways of Doing Things. London. Astragal Books. 1981Google Scholar
  17. M. Douglas (ed.). Essays in the Sociology of Perception, London. Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1981Google Scholar
  18. S. Rayner. The Classification and Dynamics of Sectarian Organisations: Grid/Group Perspective On the Far Left in Britain, Ph.D. Thesis, University College London. Dept. of Social Anthropology, 1979Google Scholar
  19. M. Thompson, Rubbish Theory, Oxford University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. 10.
    See e.g., Douglas, ref. 8, and Thompson’s postscript to H. Kunreuther and J. Linnerooth (eds.). Risk Analysis and Decision Processes: The Siting of LEG Facilities in Four Countries, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 11.
    See e.g., Douglas, ref. 8, and Thompson’s postscript to H. Kunreuther and J. Linnerooth (eds.). Risk Analysis and Decision Processes: The Siting of LEG Facilities in Four Countries, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1983.Google Scholar
  22. 12.
    NIMBY, the “Not In My Back Yard” theory of social protest, would have it that people only take interest in an issue when their immediate local interests such as property are threatened.Google Scholar
  23. 13.
    And the similar issue of political communication. See. for example, the discussions of “Communicative competence,” in P. Connerton (ed.). Critical Sociology, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books. 1978.Google Scholar
  24. 14.
    Wynne, op. cit., ref. 3.Google Scholar
  25. 15.
    For the concept of symbolic action, see, e.g., M. Edelman, Politics as Symbolic Action, London, Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. 16.
    See, e.g., Douglas and Wildavsky, Risk and Culture, op. cit., ref. 8. P. Lowe and J. Goyder, Environmental Groups in Politics, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1983, describes the strategic tensions for activist group leaders. I can also testify to this process from personal experience of such a (short-lived, but intense) role.Google Scholar
  27. 17.
    R. Unger, Law in Modern Society. London, Collier MacMillan. 1976.Google Scholar
  28. 18.
    The standard critiques of modern technocracy, e.g. J. Ellul. The Technological Society, New York, Vintage Books. 1964Google Scholar
  29. H. Marcuse, One Dimensional Man. New York, Beacon Press, 1966, tend to encourage such an exclusively monolithic view.Google Scholar
  30. 19.
    K.T. Erickson, Everything in its Path: The Destruction of Community in the Buffulo Creek Flood, New York, Simon & Schuster. 1976.Google Scholar
  31. 20.
    See also R.J. Lifton, The Broken Connection, New York, Simon & Schuster. 1979. for a psychiatric perspective adapting Freud’s original concept of instincts and defense or “blocking” mechanisms toward a more central role for images of life and death as explanatory factors for human attitudes and behavior.Google Scholar
  32. 21.
    Erickson. op. cit., ref. 19. p. 258.Google Scholar
  33. 22.
    Taken from The Financial Times, London. Supplement on Atomic Power. October 1956.Google Scholar
  34. 23.
    R. Daly. “The Specters of Technicism.” Psychiatry. 33(4). 1970, pp. 417–431 (quote p. 417, 421). For some earlier signs, see e.g. Roger Bastide, Sociologie et Psychoanalyse, Paris, Puf, 1950, describing the dreams of Indian tribes of automobiles breaking down; these are interpreted as a technical metaphor for sexual failure and derangement.Google Scholar
  35. 24.
    B. Bettelheim, “Joey: A Mechanical Boy,” Scientific American, March 1959, pp. 2–9. See also Edge’s discussion, op. cit., ref. 7, pp. 50–52.Google Scholar
  36. 25.
    H.J. Otway and D. von Winterfeldt, “Beyond Acceptable Risk,” Policy Sciences 14 (1982). 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 26.
    B. Wynne. “Institutional mythologies and dual societies in the management of risk”, E. Ley and H. Kunreuther (eds.), The Risk Analysis Controversy, Springer Verlag, Berlin. 1982, pp. 127–143.Google Scholar
  38. 27.
    Nor, of course, do the system’s “managers;” but they too create elaborate but different myths to fill in the rest in a way consistent with their managerial position. It is just that these myths are different, even if they are more elaborate because they have more money and time spent on their articulation.Google Scholar
  39. 28.
    John McDermott, “Technology: Opiate of the Intellectuals” in A.H. Teich (ed.). Technology and Man’s Future, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  40. 29.
    L. Winner, Autonomous Technology, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1978, pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
  41. 30.
    L. Winner, Autonomous Technology, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1978, p. 34.Google Scholar
  42. 31.
    M. Crozier, “Les Developpements Futurs de la Bureaucratie,” Courier du Personnel, Commission of the European Communities, 416, 29 July 1980, pp. 13–20.Google Scholar
  43. 32.
    See Wynne, op. cit., ref. 3.Google Scholar
  44. 33.
    See, for example, the work of E. Wenk, Jr., reported in Futures, 15(1), 1983, pp. 87–90, and discussed at a seminar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, September 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 34.
    S. Turkle, “Computers as Rohrschach: Subjectivity and Social Responsibility;” Bo Sundin (ed.). Is the Computer a Tool?, Stockholm. Almquist and Wiksell, 1981, pp. 81–99.Google Scholar
  46. 35.
    During the research for a doctoral dissertation of Ian Welsh, to whom I am grateful for discussions concerning this point.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Wynne
    • 1
  1. 1.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations