Han: Koreans have become keenly aware of the true colors of risk society through the Sewol incident. There is a clamor for the renewal of the framework of how the country is run. President Park Geun-hye declared that she would reconstruct the state, and visited Jindo Island (near the site of the sinking) two times. I think there are two pathways through which such can be achieved. The first is by strengthening government control. By expanding disaster management organizations and amending current legislation, the government’s work discipline will be established and the people responsible for the accident will be punished. The other pathway is by citizens being observant of the signs of risk within their lives and voicing their opinions and participating for the safety of themselves and their families. The two tracks are a state-centered response and citizen participation.

Beck: In southern Germany there were many factory chimneys and the soot from those chimneys, along with other substances, was causing harm to nearby houses and buildings and legal action was taken. However, the court asked for evidence of which specific chimneys were responsible for the damage, since there were so many of them. There were definite harms, yet it was difficult to pinpoint who or what was responsible. This is the inherent problem in law with regard to organized irresponsibility.

The relationship today between those who create risk and those who are affected by it is riddled with conflict. It is when citizens who encounter risk voice their cries that the pathway to participatory risk management becomes open. Existing specialists as well as experts with opposing views participate together, and the actions of these specialists to defend the stance of the citizens becomes institutionalized. Times are changing, and governments and professionals are no longer one-sidedly regulating risk; on the contrary, citizens are personally intervening, relying on their own standards and judgment to cope with risk. Awareness of this type of civil intervention has reached all corners of scientific and legal systems. The voice of the victims, not just of the risk producers, also take part. If there are any groups that are suffering or being harmed, then businesses must be prepared to take responsibility.

Presider: Then what is the direction that you think Korea will take?

Han: I think it may be the reinforcement of nation-centered regulations. There will probably be a lot of big talk about punishing the people responsible and restructuring government organizations. However, I also think that there is a significant number of people who seek development of a risk management system that is participatory and democratic. It is from this perspective that I want to address in depth the meaning of ‘emancipatory catastrophism’, a concept that Professor Beck has asserted. The notion of freedom makes us feel that a society that is filled to the brim with risk can transition towards one that allows for a safer and more comfortable life. But is that really true?

Beck: What I mean by the concept of emancipatory catastrophism is one that requires historical self-examination. It is not the same as liberation from societal classes; rather, it is anchored in the uncertainty that penetrates risk societies. When scientific progress is made, we paradoxically realize our own ignorance. Climate change, global warming, global financial instability, international terrorism, genetically modified crops, new diseases – these are just some examples. Self-awareness of uncertainty is new to human beings, and it brings many benefits. On the other hand, it also facilitates an obsession with the need to control. In this situation, it is difficult for anyone to come up with an exact answer as to how we can manage risk introspectively. This is why the citizens, not just the government or other professionals, must also participate. Our knowledge may be limited, but through participation, we can gain new trust. We accommodate the risks that result from our decisions. This is where I think the full creative force of modern life lies.

“Even with an out-of-control society, authority groups won’t change their structures. Trying to strengthen control will never work – it will only exacerbate the cracks in the relationship between the state and its citizens.”

Han: Liberation is about obliterating blind faith in certainty. As modernization succeeds, our lives naturally become more complicated. Citizen participation does not guarantee alleviation of uncertainty. It only increases tolerance for unintended risks that result from decisions the citizens themselves have made. In that way, uncertainty assumes a very reflective nature. But before we require a sense of responsibility from the citizens, we must first ask how to create a risk management system wherein citizens can participate freely. Isn’t an introspective attitude a prerequisite?

Beck: It is. One example is the problem of social distribution of risk. There is a tendency for risk to be heavily concentrated on the weak who are more vulnerable to harms. This is the fault of social systems that both produce and manage risk. However, people often fail to see this connection.

Han: That is why before we discuss risk distribution, we most first recognize the importance of the presence of opportunities for citizens to participate and the process itself, since this is the only way for them to voice their opinions about unfair risk destruction. The most fundamental and significant problem is, who will regulate risk? Is it the government, or the specialists? Citizens are the ones who perceive risk in their day-to-day lives and are subjected to harm. Therefore, some questions must be raised about how prompt the response of the social system is to the citizens’ requests. Naturally, this presents an enormous challenge to the current system which disregards citizens’ safety in favor of economic growth and national security. This is still a task for continuous democratization.

Beck: We are all caught up in the contemporary myth that everything can be controlled. Likewise, Korea has also believed and assumed such in its rush to modernization, but it has unexpectedly come across a situation that is difficult to control. Living in a highly complex risk society is the threshold for moving towards second modernity. Authority groups, however, find it difficult to change their structure and as a result, they resort to methods of strengthening control by increasing the power of control organizations through law reform and expansion of the police force as well as by collecting and analyzing massive amounts of data for surveillance. Nevertheless, all of this is fruitless and inefficient. There are many cases of other countries wherein the widening gap between heightened risk sensitivity of citizens and control-centered governments actually brings about volatile and explosive conditions, not risk management.

Han: Political explosions are not merely expressions of discontent. They encompass hope for the future and demand for change. There is a problem because the state structure that treats people as tools or commodities that need to be controlled and the citizens who want to be treated with human dignity and respect are both moving towards extreme ends of the spectrum, further widening the existing divide. Moral outrage will soon transform into political energy that seeks structural reform.

Presider: That is a thought-provoking argument. We seek to clarify the power behind actions which lead emancipatory catastrophism.

Beck: Catastrophes signify a situation that is condensed with heightened tension and risk. When catastrophes happen, change becomes inevitable. On one hand, this causes a sense of foreboding, but it also becomes a compass for the future fabric of society. New standards and new issues are created. Citizens, specialists and politicians come together to proclaim the civil moral conscience that cries “enough is enough” about risk society. Emancipation is not just a normative philosophy but also a living energy.

Han: Seeing as how even the president is talking about reconstruction of the state, there is no doubt that the current situation is a catastrophe. However, whether it is an emancipatory catastrophe that eventually produces hope or ruinous one that strikes fear remains to be seen. There are many different forces at work here. One characteristic of Korean risk society is the strong capability of pushing people out. Anxiety, despair and fear are some examples. But the ability to pull them back in is just as important, and it is hereupon that politics intervenes. In the case of Korea, it is an optimistic sign that outrage and hope are being expressed rather than fear.

Beck: ‘Culture shock’ comes into action. It did so in the September 11 attacks, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the same holds for the Sewol ferry tragedy. When a crime or accident that threatens the universal value of respect for human life occurs, people push for movements and surpass nation-states to overcome the tragedy. This is the “enough is enough” morality. The brutality of the Holocaust changed Europe. The European Union may be considered a response to the Holocaust. Humanistic culture breeds new normative horizons.

Presider: In every change, there are supports but also groups that oppose and resist. What strategy should be taken?

Beck: I would say that two types of solidarity are needed. The first is the participation of awakened citizens and professionals. When the eurozone crisis broke out, individual nations were passive about crisis control. However, the European Central Bank publicly announced “we will take responsibility” amidst the looming crisis. Like this, public bodies with a clear sense of responsibility lead reformative politics. The second is the media. By responding critically and adhering to this, news media can facilitate political space. Scientists are also latent partners in propelling reformation.

Han: I want to bring attention to the role of the silent majority. Under normal circumstances, they remain quiet, but when conditions arise which seriously harm their sensibilities and expectations, these people actively come forward. They go to the streets clutching candles with their families. This moving action propels the incredible power of the masses, but they are unable to actually change the system, and to overcome this limitation, the role of political leaders with new visions and policymaking skills is important. Unfortunately this type of political leadership is still lacking in Korea.

Beck: Preparations of alternatives is also important. A good example of this would be the Fukushima nuclear disaster. After this disastrous encounter, there were many movements calling for denuclearization and the nation’s citizens were very supportive of this. However, the denuclearization policy did not push through. The lack of receptive leadership in Japanese politics is partly to blame, but more importantly, the alternative energy industry was too weak. In contrast, Germany boldly established a nuclear shutdown policy. When the Fukushima disaster happened, the German chancellor had favored nuclear energy, but after realizing the material and political risks that resulted from the accident, she changed her position.

Presider: I sincerely thank the both of you for your deep and meaningful insights. Professor Beck is scheduled to go to Korea in July for an academic conference, and we eagerly await your visit.



May 16, 2014
Translated by: Sae-Seul Park