‘Doing’ risk, ‘doing’ difference: towards an understanding of the intersections of risk, morality and taste

Abstract

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.

Risk and Social Theory: the legitimacy of risks and risk as a tool of legitimation

“…Whereas the core themes reviewed by Kemshall are ultimately rooted in Weberian recognitions of varying and alternative rationalities, or Bourdieusian ideas of varying logics of practice across social fields, while Olofsson and colleagues lean somewhat towards governmentality perspectives, the analysis presented by Montelius and Giritli Nygren (2014) is more underpinned by Douglas and related considerations of the moral function of risk. All three articles, however, are ultimately concerned with the varied practices and experiences of risk across a differentiated society.…”

“…All three articles, however, are ultimately concerned with the varied practices and experiences of risk across a differentiated society. Montelius and Giritli Nygren (2014) synthesise Douglas with the concepts of performativity of Bourdieu (1994) and especially Butler (see, for example, Butler, 1993) in developing an understanding of 'doing risk', further drawing heavily on intersectionality insights from gender studies.…”

“…Indeed, the underlying consideration for the issue, alongside quality informed by peer review, was to denote the diverse range of current approaches to theorising risk and uncertainty. But from theories of policy interventions aimed at risk (Kemshall, 2014), to intersectionality and the moral functions of risk (Montelius & Giritli Nygren, 2014), to the (re)mediation of risk as (re)configurations of matter, energy and information (van Loon, 2014), to the relationship between social risk insurance policies, social cohesion and trust (Hadis, 2014) -each of these articles draws upon and extends understandings of the linkages between risk and legitimacy, legitimacy and risk. Our discussion now moves to consider these articles in turn.…”

Special Issue: Theoretical Perspectives on Sociology of Professions in Germany

“…From this perspective, professions can be regarded as occupational and institutional arrangements that are equipped with specific roles for the challenges of dealing with the uncertainties of modern lives in at-risk societies. Professionals are extensively engaged in "doing risks" through their institutional entanglement and use of expert knowledge (Evetts, 2012;Montelius & Nygren, 2014;Nygren, Öhman, & Olofsson, 2015).…”

Monster Cows and the Doing of Modern Biotechnology in Sweden: An Intersectional Risk Analysis Confined Space

“…Media discourses can be seen as sets of interpretative packages that give meaning to an issue or event and that offer a number of different symbols that indicate a core frame and make it possible to expose the package as a whole (ibid). In this way, journalists and other actors with power to influence mass media output (re)produce norms regarding, for example, gender, origin, weight and centre versus periphery (Giritli-Nygren, Öhman and Olofsson 2016;Montelius and Giritli-Nygren 2014;Olofsson 2011). In other words, mediated discourses are interpreted and (re)produced, and when these discourses relate to risk and crises, they simultaneously 'do ' risk andgender, ethnicity, class, etc.…”