GLOBAL RISKS AND SOCIAL-INEQUALITY - CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE RISK-SOCIETY HYPOTHESIS

The ''risk-society hypothesis'' consists of two related parts. In its first part, the hypothesis views modem societies as being in a transit ion from ''class societies'' to ''risk societies.'' In its second part , it states that modern societies undergo a process of ''individualiza tion.'' Essentially, Ulrich Beck and others elaborate both parts of th e hypothesis with respect to industrial societies in general and to Ge rman society in particular. Critics argue that the hypothesis misjudge s the relation between societal risk distribution, conflict, and socia l inequality. It fails to understand the main reasons for risk-related conflicts in society when it supposes that the basic conflicts charac terizing risk societies are different from the basic conflicts in clas s societies. It fails mainly because it ignores the possibility of cau sal attributions and risk perceptions directly related to antagonistic (class) positions. As far as the postulated individualization process is concerned, the risk society hypothesis represents a peculiar mixtu re of supposedly right and wrong assumptions. The hypothesis seems qui te right in assuming changing modes of social integration: Not so much traditional ties as market and competitive mechanisms determine socia l life, often advancing to its most private corners. The hypothesis fa ils, however, in its structural implications. In particular, the view that the postulated trends question the ''hierarchy model of social in equality'' is neither theoretically convincing nor empirically tenable . Instead, neither exposition to global risks nor individualization is likely to make society more egalitarian. Furthermore, instead of assu ming that risk-societies overcome class conflicts, the paper envisions the emergence of a new risk-related cleavage in society.