Beyond World Risk Society? A Critique of Ulrich Beck's World Risk Society Thesis as a Framework for Understanding Risk Associated with Human Activity in Outer Space
Available accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2013
Beyond World Risk Society? A Critique of Ulrich Beck's World Risk Society Thesis as a Framework for Understanding Risk Associated with Human Activity in Outer Space
This paper examines the risks generated by human activity in outer space, exploring the possibility of extending Ulrich Beck's ‘world risk society’ thesis beyond the globe. Through the use of three case studies looking at (1) the use of nuclear power in space missions, (2) the proliferation of space debris, and (3) proposed space solutions to environmental problems, it argues for the usefulness of some of Beck's concepts whilst providing a critique of some of his central theoretical assumptions. In particular, the inadequacies of Beck's accounts of economic power and subjectivity are highlighted throughout the paper, and used to suggest that Beck's optimism about the emergence of a cosmopolitan public sphere is misplaced. The paper finishes by arguing that Beck's understanding of a ‘reinvention of politics’ based on the intrusion of risk into everyday life cannot cope with the kinds of risk discussed in the paper. It concludes that it is only through greater recognition of the depth of the economic and psychic structures at work that the politics of risk in outer space can be challenged.
AngelR, 2006, “Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1)”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America10317184–17189
2.
AradauCVan MunsterR, 2007, “Governing terrorism through risk”European Journal of International Relations13(1) 89–115
3.
BeckU, 1986Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Suhrkamp, Berlin)
BenkoMSchroglK-U, 1997a, “Space debris in the United Nations”Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Space Debris 17–19 March, Darmstadt, Germany
14.
BenkoMSchroglK-U, 1997b, “History and impact of the 1996 UN declaration on ‘space benefits’”Space Policy13139–143
15.
BirchP, 1993, “How to move a planet”Journal of the British Interplanetary Society46314–316
16.
BourgenP D, 2003, “Catastrophe risk”Economy and Society32253–274
17.
BrearleyA, 2005, “Faster than a speeding bullet: Orbital debris”Astropolitics31–34
18.
CaldicottH, 2002The New Nuclear Danger (The New Press, London)
19.
ChangK, 2012, “Scientists seek broom to attack space mess”The New York Times 26 February, pages 1 and 4
20.
CollisC, 2009, “The geostationary orbit”, in Space Travel and Culture Eds BellDParkerM (Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA) pp 47–65
21.
CosgroveD, 1994, “Contested global visions”Annals of the Association of American Geographers84270–294
22.
de GoedeMRandallsS, 2009, “Precaution, preemption: Arts and technologies of the actionable future”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27859–878
23.
DickensP, 2001, “Changing nature, changing ourselves”Journal of Critical Realism49–18
24.
DickensPOrmrodJ S, 2009 [2007] Cosmic Society (Routledge, London)
25.
DolmanE, 2002Astropolitik (Frank Cass, London)
26.
DonzelotJ, 1988, “The promotion of the social”Economy and Society17395–427
27.
DouglasM, 1992Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory (Routledge, London)
28.
EhrenfeldD, 1981The Arrogance of Humanism (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
29.
EhrickeK A, 1972, “In-depth exploration of the solar system and its utilization for the benefit of Earth”Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences187427–456
30.
ElliottA, 2002, “Beck's sociology of risk”Sociology36293–315
StuartJ, 2009, “Unbundling sovereignty, territory and the state in outer space”, in Securing Outer Space Eds BormannNSheehanM (Routledge, London) pp 8–23
66.
SwyngedouwE, 2007, “Impossible ‘sustainability’ and the post-colonial condition”, in The Sustainable Development Paradox Eds KruegerRGibbsD (Guilford Press, New York) pp 13–40
67.
TurnerF J, 1989, “Life on Mars”Harper's Magazine August, 33–40
