At the end of March 2020, international media present Swedish management of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic as soft and irresponsible. Thus, Sweden, which is usually regarded as exceptionally risk averse and cautious, has chosen an unexpected risk management approach. The aim of this article is to reflect on how the Swedish government has managed the Covid-19 pandemic until early April 2020 from two theoretical perspectives, the risk society thesis and governmentality theory. We make a brief review of how previous pandemics have been managed compared to Covid-19 and try to understand the consequences of the Swedish handling of present pandemic with a particular focus on the governance of the pandemic and the exercise of power rather than definite risk management strategies during the pandemic.

No abstract

This article examines the conceptual importance of integrating risk and intersectionality theory for the study of how risk and various forms of inequality intersect and are mutually constitutive. We argue that an intersectional perspective can advance risk research by incorporating more effectively the role of such social categories as gender and race into the analysis of 'risk' as an empirical phenomenon. In doing so, it articulates more clearly the connection between the social construction of risk with, on the one hand, the reproduction of new and complex social inequalities and, on the other, intersections of social class, gender, ethnicity, and other social categorizations. The article traces the intellectual division between risk and feminist-inspired intersectionality research, showing how these approaches can be aligned to study, for example, risk-based welfare and social policy. This case is used to illustrate how an intersectional perspective can reveal the ways in which new governance strategies create new divisions and reproduce existing forms of social inequality. The article concludes with a call for a new research agenda to integrate intersectional frameworks with 2 risk theory in order to provide a more nuanced analysis of the relationship between social inequality and risk. IntroductionFraming social problems in terms of risk has become a common strategy for managing complex social changes at national and international levels. As a consequence, the actions of social institutions that, for instance, deal with social challenges through welfare interventions or social inclusion initiatives are being transformed by the use of risk discourse and risk management practices. Thus, 'social problems', often associated with particular categories of 'vulnerable' people, are redefined, reframed, and-ultimately-managed as 'risks'.

In this article, we propose a perspective on risk that stresses its moral character and normalising functions. By focusing on the 'doing' of risk, we explore the ways that risk discourses are entangled with the 'doing' of class and gender, opening up an analysis of the power dimension in risk. Taking the example of food risk as a starting point, we argue that, while previous research has shown that what we eat is a way of positioning ourselves in relation to others, in a time when risk has come to represent different values and beliefs -it as such is a site where power relations are mobilised and enacted. Risk clearly plays an important role in disassociating particular interests from their specific locations, leaving them to all appearances universal and neutral. The challenge, however, is not merely to demystify such processes, but also to find ways of using them to take theory and research methods in challenging directions. We therefore propose an analysis of the performativities of risk, with a focus on the ways that the 'doing' and 'undoing' of risk may be used as a means of distinction in a symbolic struggle over value and moral worth.

This paper develops the concepts of 'doing' and 'undoing' risk, a new approach to risk research that echoes the 'doing gender' of gender studies. In this way, we combine intersectional and risk theory and apply the new perspective to empirical material. To better explore the doing and undoing, or the performance, of risk, we will refer to practices that simultaneously (re)produce and hide sociopolitical norms and positions, played out in contemporary, hierarchical relations of power and knowledge. The aim is to develop a theoretical understanding of doing and undoing risk. The study makes use of transcripts from five focus group interviews with men and women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of different ages living in Sweden to develop a theory of 'doing risk'. The doing of risk of our informants takes place within the frame of a hegemonic heteronormativity. The way that risks are perceived and done in everyday life therefore always needs to be read within a frame of prevailing structures of power. This counts for all of us as we are all part of the hegemonic power structures and thereby are both subject to the intersecting doings of risk and performatively reproducing these power structures in practice.