The Risk Conflicts Perspective

Abstract

Starting from a perspective of democratic politics, this essay argues that the problem lies not in any "unjustified" politicization of risk controversies; quite to the contrary, it lies in their depoliticization or their capture in a postpolitical consensus. To this end, the prevailing storylines in public discourse on risk controversies are shown to be based on invalid assumptions regarding nature and science and on exclusionary mechanisms. In response, the risk conflicts perspective is put forward as an analytical framework, which allows us to evaluate mediated public discourse on the extent to which democratic debate and citizenship are facilitated. For the fields of science and environment communication, this entails a shift in emphasis from a focus on the epistemic level to the level of the political. We conclude by discussing the potential transformative impacts of this perspective for academic research, public discourse, as well as the directly involved social actors, in relation to the controversies in question.

Hydropower in the Himalayan Hazardscape: Strategic Ignorance and the Production of Unequal Risk

“…Equivalent arguments by political ecologists speak about the capture of environmental discourse and risk controversies in a "post-political consensus", concealing that what really is at stake in environmental politics is a democratic-ideological struggle between different socio-environmental futures [99,100].…”

Reflexivity and Negotiation in Collaborative Journalism on air Quality

“…Our data not only show how the journalists struggled to find a "critical voice" in their collaboration with the government agency and university, but also how one of the scientists uses his metapragmatic awareness of what news language looks like to forefront the scientific issues behind the air quality criteria, rather than the political tensions. These kinds of negotiations display parallels with a typical push-and-pull process of (de-)politicization in which scientific issues are either politicized by emphasizing uncertainty of scientific evidence (Bolsen & Druckman, 2015) or depoliticized by emphasizing consensus and using science as discursive tool (Maeseele, 2015). Here, this push-and-pull process did not lead to clear-cut (de-)politicized news items, but to articles that on the one hand emphasize the uncertainty inherent in scientific evidence (see Popper's work (1959) for more on the nature of scientific discovery) and use accurate and nuanced language, but on the other hand steer clear of addressing political tension that might be important to understand the full scope of the issue.…”

Climate‐driven ‘species‐on‐the‐move’ provide tangible anchors to engage the public on climate change

“…This research shows that neither the provision of scientific information on climate change, nor attempts to appeal to the objective authority of science, are effective methods of public engagement (Corner & Groves, 2014; Wynne, 2006). Instead, advocates of social adaptation to climate change are looking to more conversational (Nettlefold & Pecl, 2020) and participatory modes of communication (Maeseele, 2015; Pearce et al, 2015; Whitmarsh et al, 2011). This large body of research highlights three fundamental features of social life that are pivotal to inclusive engagement across diverse segments of global society: human values, trust networks and place attachment (Box 1).…”

“…Instead, advocates of social adaptation to climate change are looking to more conversational (Nettlefold & Pecl, 2020) and participatory modes of communication (Maeseele, 2015;Pearce et al, 2015;Whitmarsh et al, 2011). This large body of research highlights three fundamental features of social life that are pivotal to inclusive engagement across diverse segments of global society: human values, trust networks and place attachment (Box 1).…”