Risk, Control and Gender: Reconciling Production and Reproduction in the Risk Society

Abstract

In the risk society, managing health risks underlines a social tension between a logic of rationalization and a logic of subjectivation. In the former, techno-scientific thought dominates and induces a certain form of dependence on scientific experts while, in the latter, the individuals tend to be seen to make independent choices to protect their health. This article examines the logics of the actors in the risk management process from a constructivist perspective. According to Dubet's sociology of experience, social experience is structured around three logics: the logic of integration, i.e. the social world seen through the membership group, role and social relations; the strategic logic, i.e. the social world seen as a market; and the logic of subjectivation, i.e. the ability to be a subject, to distance oneself from the surrounding world and to give meaning to one's actions and decisions. Our qualitative research involved the analysis of the discourse of workers and employers in relation to the risk for pregnancy of work activities. The study was conducted in Quebec (Canada), where employers are legally obliged to protect the health of pregnant workers and the latter have the right to safe working conditions without prejudice. The results show that scientific experts do not have a determining impact on organizational changes and the representations of risk held by employers and women workers. Scientific controversies about work risks for pregnancy are used by employers to maintain the status quo while, for workers, the climate of employment and economic insecurity plays a significant role in how they deal with work-related health risks. Based on the theory of the risk society, the results bring out the complex interplay between scientific rationality and social rationality whereby risk is defined according to the interests of the actors involved. But, not consistent with certain tenets of the risk society thesis, they also reveal one's ability to be critical of institutionalized risk.

Managing risks through ISO 31000: A critical analysis

“…According to Perret et al (2005) , reality provides a subtle and complex mixture of clues, signs, information, correlations and partial evidence that do not fi t easily into the classical defi nition of risk. There is thus always an element of subjectivity in the defi nition of risk ( Malenfant, 2009 ), leading Short (1984) to speak in terms of risks to the social fabric. Douglas and Widalvsky (1982) similarly argue that the concept of risk is strongly infl uenced by culture and distinguished four cultural types, each with a different attitude toward risk: the hierarchical type (risk-averse), the individualist type (risk-taking), the sectarian type (risks as object of social causes) and the marginal type (distrustful attitude).…”

Managing the Maternal Body: A Comprehensive Review and Transdisciplinary Analysis

“…Whether pregnant women are more likely to be absent from work than non‐pregnant women is uncertain. However, it is apparent from socio‐cultural and management literatures (especially within feminist research), that the pregnant body itself acutely differentiates employed women from their non‐pregnant (male and female) colleagues (Buzzanell and Liu 2007; Gatrell 2007a; Haynes 2008a,b; Longhurst 2001, 2008; Malenfant 2009; Tyler 2000). The review now demonstrates how, despite years of legislation intended to protect pregnant women and new mothers from discrimination, the employed maternal body is often treated as unwelcome at work.…”

“…The UK EOC has found that employers connect pregnancy with illness, unreliability, poor performance and workplace absence (EOC 2005), a finding which is substantiated across disciplines: for example gender (Acker 2003), sociology (Warren and Brewis 2004) and law (James 2007). Surprisingly, however, given the strength of employers' assumptions (Malenfant 2009), management research gives scant attention to what ‘evidence’ exists regarding the health status and reliability of pregnant employees. In order to introduce to management studies the debates on health, pregnancy and employment, two studies which examine whether employed pregnant women are more or less likely than other groups to take sick leave are now analysed (Bonde et al .…”

“…2001). However, while attitudes and beliefs about pregnancy, health and employment are widely debated across disciplines (Acker 2003; Collinson 2000; EOC 2005; Haynes 2008a; Malenfant 2009; Mullin 2005; Warren and Brewis 2004) few studies examine the health status of pregnant employees in comparison with that of non‐pregnant women. Where studies do attempt to evaluate sickness levels among pregnant women in comparison with other groups, they conclude that pregnancy‐related sickness rates are hard to measure.…”

Si le bruit rend sourd, rend-il nécessairement sourde ?

“…La Loi québécoise sur la santé et la sécurité du travail de 1979 innovait en incluant le retrait préventif de la travailleuse enceinte ou qui allaite et qui est exposée à un risque pour elle, son foetus ou l'enfant allaité (Malenfant, 1996 ;Lippel et coll., 1996 ;Malenfant, 2009). Cette loi a permis de diminuer les risques pour les suites de grossesses (Croteau et coll., 2006).…”