| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立暨南國際大學 === 公共行政與政策學系 === 101 === Since the late 20th century, the self-description of modern society has transformed into a risk society. Today people get more used to live with risk, but do not reflect on the sociology of risk and clarify the question of “How could it be?” Based on second-order observation, this study examines the differences among Luhmann’s , Beck’s and Gidden’s sociologies of risk, and tries to answer “How could it be?”. Therefore, the purport of this study is to construct the observation forms of Luhmann’s, Beck’s and Gidden’s sociologies of risk, and to display the role and functions of observation forms through theoretical dialogue. In my opinion, Beck used the distinction of "normal / abnormal", and then marked modern society as an abnormal risk society. Beck’s risk of sociology is an imagination concerning normal society, also an sociology on an ideal type society. According to the "certainty / uncertainty" observation form, Giddens thinks the modern society is a reflexive modernization, and its nature is uncertainty. However, Giddens was always attached to the certainty which modernity brought to. On the basic of the paradox of the “controllable / uncontrollable” of the future, Luhmann marked modern society as a risk society. However, Luhmann always concerns about how the society talks about the risk rather than provides specific improvement measures. Based on these observation forms, this study does a case study on the 3rd stage of Central Taiwan Science Park (CTSP), and exhibits that different theoretical perspectives will have different interpretation consequences. Beck and Giddens focused on the criticism of the scientific rationality and experts’ decision. Otherwise, Luhrmann more profoundly displayed the contingency of risk communication, and describes the operational processes of self-organized systems and how the risk decisions could be made. In conclusion, in the context of the second-order observation, the world’s eigenvalue is contingency, as well as the paradox is the basic form of cognition.
|
|---|
