引用
現代性與風險社會
Modernity and Risk Society
作者：周桂田（Kuei-Tien Chou） | 首次發表於 2020-07-20 | 第 21 期 October 1998
DOI：https://dx.doi.org/10.6786/TJS.199810.0089
DOI：https://dx.doi.org/10.6786/TJS.199810.0089
論文資訊 | Article information
摘要 Abstract
本文主軸以典範轉移的角度－風險社會學－闡析現代性之正當性危機，特別是在高科技發展下，現代社會秩序和行動的危機。其分為下述五個討論重點：
首先為價值面向，討論從工業社會之線性（目的）理性邏輯至風險社會「反身性」邏輯之轉轍。其次為系統面向，指出由於政治、經濟系統獨大的支配，與在此機制下科技（學）系統盲目樂觀的發展，陡增當代社會行動者的「風險意識」。
第三為人與自然的關係面向，分析傳統「社會」與「自然」對立關係之解消，在風險結構下，（個）人、社會和自然三者被逼迫（建構）為直接而等同的生存體系。第四為制度的面向，批判科技官僚及科技代議權力之缺失，並以商議民主式的公民社會觀點，提出「科技公民權」的社會參與意義。第五為社會認同面向，討論社會行動者所面臨「風險自由」的抉擇難題。
關鍵字：風險社會、反身性現代化、社會系統、風險意識、科技權力的代議結構
首先為價值面向，討論從工業社會之線性（目的）理性邏輯至風險社會「反身性」邏輯之轉轍。其次為系統面向，指出由於政治、經濟系統獨大的支配，與在此機制下科技（學）系統盲目樂觀的發展，陡增當代社會行動者的「風險意識」。
第三為人與自然的關係面向，分析傳統「社會」與「自然」對立關係之解消，在風險結構下，（個）人、社會和自然三者被逼迫（建構）為直接而等同的生存體系。第四為制度的面向，批判科技官僚及科技代議權力之缺失，並以商議民主式的公民社會觀點，提出「科技公民權」的社會參與意義。第五為社會認同面向，討論社會行動者所面臨「風險自由」的抉擇難題。
關鍵字：風險社會、反身性現代化、社會系統、風險意識、科技權力的代議結構
This paper explores the legitimation crisis of modernity through the sociology of risk which challenges the paradigm of traditional sociology. Particularly, under the development of high-technology, the crisis of modern society and of social action are discussed in this context. They are explicated distributively in five dimensions:
First, the dimension of value discusses the switch from the logic of line-rationality (goal-rationality) of industrial society to the logic of “reflexivity” of risk society. Second. the dimension of system indicates the monopolistic mastery of political and economic systems by which the technological system develops optimistically and blindly. This results in a growth of ”risk consciousness” of social actors. Third, the dimension of relation between the human being and nature analyses the solution of the traditional contra-relation between ”society” and ”nature”. To the contrary, it also shows that from within the risk structure which itself is threatened by the crisis, the human being, society and nature are compellingly constructed as the same living system. Fourth, the institutional dimension critiques the disadvantage of technocracy and of the technological representative and emphasizes the meaning of social participation of the ”technological citizenship” according to the view of discursive civil society. Fifth, the dimension of social identity points out its own difficulty of decision-making for the social actors as they just confront ”risk freedom”.
Keywords: risk society, reflexive modernization, social system, risk consciousness, representative structure of technological power
First, the dimension of value discusses the switch from the logic of line-rationality (goal-rationality) of industrial society to the logic of “reflexivity” of risk society. Second. the dimension of system indicates the monopolistic mastery of political and economic systems by which the technological system develops optimistically and blindly. This results in a growth of ”risk consciousness” of social actors. Third, the dimension of relation between the human being and nature analyses the solution of the traditional contra-relation between ”society” and ”nature”. To the contrary, it also shows that from within the risk structure which itself is threatened by the crisis, the human being, society and nature are compellingly constructed as the same living system. Fourth, the institutional dimension critiques the disadvantage of technocracy and of the technological representative and emphasizes the meaning of social participation of the ”technological citizenship” according to the view of discursive civil society. Fifth, the dimension of social identity points out its own difficulty of decision-making for the social actors as they just confront ”risk freedom”.
Keywords: risk society, reflexive modernization, social system, risk consciousness, representative structure of technological power
