Risk-reflexive determinants of adaptation under threats: An empirical study

Abstract

The article considers the specifics and role of risk reflections in the adaptation to new threats and dangers in the contemporary realities. The authors argue that traditional risk-analysis strategies partially reflect the qualitative changes in the impact of the perception of threats by risk consumers, risk producers, risk beneficiaries and risk outsiders on their behavior. The authors emphasize the importance of analyzing the ‘dominant narrative’ of risks for assessing their social acceptability/ unacceptability for various interest groups. The initial methodological provisions of the article are the distinction between “positive and negative privilege” proposed by M. Weber, theoretical and practical explications of the contemporary concepts of choosing reflexive strategies for adapting to threats as a criterion for success or failure in life, and promising strategies for the formation of a positive or negative ‘risk’ identity. The empirical section of the article presents the results of the applied research conducted by the authors on the equipment of the Resource Center of the Science Park of the Saint Petersburg State University “Sociological and Internet Studies” (all-Russian telephone survey and focus groups). The authors conducted qualitative analysis to identify factors affecting the attitudes towards main threats and their influence on the ability to control and prevent risks and on the processes of adaptation and self-preservation. The article stresses the importance of P. Sztompka research program of trust as a means of reducing uncertainty and neutralizing risks (grounds for classifying reflexive strategies for avoiding uncertainty, influence of individual social-demographic characteristics of risk consumers on their choice). The analysis of the empirical data showed that the spread of one or another model of behavior in the risk society is a mobilization resource for strengthening political positions. Therefore, ‘failures’ in risk management determine a special type of social stratification - relationship of risk beneficiaries and risk outsiders, who have specific interests, opportunities and limitations of their adaptation strategies in a situation of threat.

About the authors

D. A. Abgadzhava

Saint-Petersburg State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: d.abgadzhava@spbu.ru
Universitetskaya Nab., 7-9, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 199034

A. V. Aleinikov

Saint-Petersburg State University

Email: a.alejnikov@spbu.ru
Universitetskaya Nab., 7-9, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 199034

A. G. Pinkevich

Saint-Petersburg State University

Email: a.pinkevich@spbu.ru
Universitetskaya Nab., 7-9, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 199034

References

  1. Aleinikov A.V., Artemov G.P., Pinkevich A.G. Risk-refleksii kak faktor vybora form politicheskogo uchastija (po itogam vserossijskogo oprosa) [Risk reflections as a factor for choosing forms of political participation (results of the all-Russian survey)]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2020; 20 (4). (In Russ.).
  2. Aleinikov A.V., Strebkov A.I., Miletsky V.P. Konfliktny potentsial risk-refleksij: kontseptualnye postroenija i issledovatelskie problemy sovremennoj analitiki [Risk-reflections’ conflict potential: Conceptual models and research issues of the contemporary analytics]. Bulletin of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies. 2023; 39 (3). (In Russ.).
  3. Beck U. Obshchestvo riska. Na puti k drugomu modernu [Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity]. Moscow; 2000. (In Russ.).
  4. Gavrilov K.A. Sotsiologiya vospriyatiya riska: opyt rekonstruktsii klyuchevyh podkhodov [Sociology of Risk Perception: A Reconstruction of Key Approaches]. Moscow; 2009. (In Russ.).
  5. Ilyin M.V. Slova i smysly. Opyt opisanija kljuchevyh politicheskih ponjatij [Words and Meanings. A Description of Key Political Concepts]. Moscow; 1997. (In Russ.).
  6. Coser L. Funktsii sotsialnogo konflikta [The Functions of Social Conflict]. Moscow; 2000. (In Russ.).
  7. Korel L.V. Sotsiologija adaptatsij: Voprosy teorii, metodologii i metodiki [Sociology of Adaptation: Issues of Theory, Methodology and Techniques]. Novosibirsk; 2005. (In Russ.).
  8. Luhmann N. Sotsialnye sistemy. Ocherk obshhej teorii [Social Systems. Outline of the General Theory]. Saint Petersburg; 2007. (In Russ.).
  9. Modeli upravlenija konfliktami i riskami [Models of Conflict and Risk Management]. Voronezh; 2008. (In Russ.).
  10. Mozgovaya A.V. Strategii adaptatsii k razlichnym tipam riskov [Adaptive strategies for different kinds of risk]. Sotsiologicheskaja Nauka i Sotsialnaja Praktika. 2020; 8 (3). (In Russ.).
  11. Mozgovaya A.V., Shlykova E.V. Znachimost sub`ektivnyh octsanok bezopasnosti v optimizatsii protsessov adaptatsii k riskogennoj srede [Significance of the safety subjective estimates for the optimization of adaptation to risk environment]. Rossija reformiruyushchajasja: Ezhegodnik. 2022; 20. (In Russ.).
  12. Obshchestvo neravnyh vozmozhnostej: sotsialnaja struktura sovremennoj Rossii [Society of Unequal Opportunities: Social Structure of Contemporary Russia]. Moscow; 2022. (In Russ.).
  13. Ryagin Yu.I. Formula riska [Risk Formula]. Ekaterinburg; 2012. (In Russ.).
  14. Thévenot L. Kreativnye konfiguratsii v gumanitarnyh naukah i figuratsii sotsialnoj obshhnosti [Creative configurations in humanities and social community figurations]. NLO. 2006; 77. (In Russ.).
  15. Trotsuk I. Spravedlivost v sotsiologicheskom diskurse: semanticheskie, empiricheskie, istoricheskie i kontseptualnye poiski [Justice in sociological discourse: Semantic, empirical, historical, and conceptual challenges]. Russian Sociological Review. 2019; 18 (1). (In Russ.).
  16. Chernova E.B. Sotsiologicheskoe issledovanie politicheskogo myshlenija v situatsijah territorialnogo planirovanija [Sociological study of political thinking in urban planning]. Sotsiologiia Vlasti. 2014; 4. (In Russ.).
  17. Shlykova E.V. Sub`ektivnye faktory gotovnosti k risku v kontekste adaptatsii k bifurkatsionnoj srede [Subjective factors of risk readiness in the context of adaptation to the bifurcation environment] Sotsiologicheskaja Nauka i Sotsialnaja Praktika. 2022; 10 (4). (In Russ.).
  18. Sztompka P. Sotsiologija. Analiz sovremennogo obshchestva [The Sociology of Social Change]. Moscow; 2005. (In Russ.).
  19. Yanitsky О.N. “Kritichesky sluchaj”: sotsialny porjadok v “obshchestve riska” [The “critical case”: Social order in the “risk society”]. Russian Sociological Review. 2002; 2. (In Russ.).
  20. Bodemer N., Gaissmaier W. Risk perception. Sage Handbook of Risk Communication. Ed. by H. Cho, T. Reimer, K. McComas. Los Angeles; 2015.
  21. Bolton M. Technocratic responses to the politicization of risk: Underwater munitions in New York City’s Gravesend Bay and narrows. Marine Technology Society Journal. 2012; 1.
  22. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. London; 2000.
  23. Stern M.J., Coleman K.J. The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources. 2015; 2.
  24. Unger R. False Necessity. AntiNecessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy. Cambridge; 1987.
  25. Van Leeuwen T. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford; 2008.

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2023 Abgadzhava D.A., Aleinikov A.V., Pinkevich A.G.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies