Skip to main content

Risk and Soft Impacts

  • Reference work entry
Handbook of Risk Theory

Abstract

Policy and technology actors seem to focus “naturally” on risk rather than on technology’s social and ethical impacts that typically constitute an important focus of concern for philosophers of technology, as well as for the broader public. There is nothing natural about this bias. It is the result of the way discourses on technology and policy are structured in technological, liberal, pluralistic societies. Risks qualify as “hard” (i.e., objective, rational, neutral, factual), other impacts as “soft” (i.e., subjective, emotional, partisan, value-laden) and are therefore dismissable. To help redress this bias, it is necessary to understand how this distinction between hard and soft impacts is construed – in practice and in theory. How are expected (desired, feared) impacts of technology played out in expert-citizen/consumer interactions? We first discuss online patient deliberations on a future pill for celiac disease (“gluten intolerance”) promising to replace patients’ lifelong diet. By “rejecting” this pill, patients displayed concerns about how the new technology would affect their identity, and the values incorporated in the way they had learned to handle their disease. Secondly, we analyze how experts construct a consumers’ concern with “naturalness” of food: as a private – and invalid – preference that requires no further debate. The point of the analysis is to make available for discussion and reflection currently dominant ways to demarcate public and private issues in relation to emerging technologies, including the accompanying distributions of tasks and responsibilities over experts and laypersons. However, the actors themselves cannot simply alter these demarcations and distributions at will. Their manoeuvring room is co-shaped by discursive structures at work in modern, technological, pluralist, liberal societies. In the third section, we therefore identify these structures, as they provide the hegemonic answers to the three key questions with regard to the possible impacts of emerging technologies: how are impacts evaluated; how are they estimated; and how are they caused? We conclude with some suggestions for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achterhuis H (ed) (2001) American philosophy of technology: the empirical turn. Indiana University Press, Bloomington/Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich M (1992) The description of technical objects. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology, building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Boenink M, Swierstra T, Stemerding D (2010) Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Stud Ethics Law Technol 4(2): article 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards D (1997) Discourse and cognition. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J, Raymond G (2005) The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Soc Psychol Q 68(1):15–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson-West P (2007) ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organized resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociol Health Illn 29(2):198–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idhe D (1993) Postphenomenology. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger CJ, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T (2001) Risk, uncertainty, and rational action. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson G (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH (ed) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp 13–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamerichs J, te Molder H (2011, frth) Reflecting on your own talk: the discursive action method at work. In: Antaki C (ed) Applied conversation analysis. Intervention and change in institutional talk. Pallgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses? In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) The sociology of the new mundane artefacts. Shaping technology, building society. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris C (2001) Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep 21(7):545–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middendorp S, te Molder H, van Woerkum C (in prep.) Responsible innovation in the food sector: what impacts of food technology may enter the public debate? Wageningen University, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1859) On liberty. Oxford University, Oxford, pp 21–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter J (1996) Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz JR (1975) …et augebitur scientia. In: Harré R (ed) Problems of scientific revolution. Progress and obstacles to progress in the sciences. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 42–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, vol 2. Battelle, Columbus, pp 327–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesser S (ed) (2010) Emotions and risky technologies. Springer, Dordrecht/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra T (2002) Moral vocabularies and public debate: the cases of cloning and new reproductive technologies. In: Keulartz J, Korthals JM, Schermer M, Swierstra T (eds) Pragmatist ethics for atechnological culture. Kluwer Academic, Deventer, pp 223–240

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra T, Waelbers K (2010) Designing a good life: the matrix for the technological mediation of morality. Eng Ethics (Online First, 30 Nov 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra T, Stemerding D, Boenink M (2009) Exploring techno-moral change. The case of the obesity pill. In: Solllie P, Duwell M (eds) Evaluating new technologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119–138

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • te Molder H (2008) Discursive psychology. In: Donsbach W (ed) The international encyclopedia of communication, vol IV. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK/Malden, pp 1370–1372

    Google Scholar 

  • te Molder H, Potter J (eds) (2005) Conversation and cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • te Molder H, Bovenhoff M, Gremmen B, van Woerkum C (submitted) Talking future technologies: how celiac disease patients neither accept nor reject a ‘simple pill’

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenner E (1996) Why things bite back. Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. Knopf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkle S (2010) Alone together. Why we expect more from technology and less from another. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Pot JHJ (1985) Die Bewertung des technischen Fortschritts. Eine systematische Uebersicht der Theorien. Van Gorcum, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • Veen M, Gremmen B, te Molder H, van Woerkum C (2010) Emergent technologies against the background of everyday life: discursive psychology as a technology assessment tool. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662510364202. Prepublished 13 Apr 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek PP (2005) What things do. Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State U.P, Pennsylvania, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelbers K (2011) Doing good with things–taking responsibility for the social role of technologies. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings. Social identities and public uptake of science. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(4):446–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9:211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsjalling Swierstra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry

Swierstra, T., te Molder, H. (2012). Risk and Soft Impacts. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_42

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1432-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1433-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics