|
Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers | 
 enlarge | Authors: Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky
Publisher: University of California Press
Category: Book
List Price: $21.95
Buy Used: $3.49
You Save: $18.46 (84%)
New (16) Used (22) Collectible (1) from $3.49
Avg. Customer Rating:  3 reviews
Sales Rank: 207992
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 224
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.7
Dimensions (in): 8.4 x 5.3 x 0.6
ISBN: 0520050630
Dewey Decimal Number: 320
EAN: 9780520050631
ASIN: 0520050630
Publication Date: October 27, 1983
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Standard used condition.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews:
 A Classic July 18, 2005
9 out of 9 found this review helpful
This book is a classic in the study of risk perception. It is the genesis of the so-called "cultural theory of risk," which is an alternative to the dominant rational-actor and psychometric theories of risk perception. Douglas and Wildavsky's basic claim is that individuals conform their perceptions of various societal and personal risks to their preferred visions of a good society. Although (as noted by Gintis in his review) Risk and Culture is only casually empirical, it furnished a blueprint for a subsequent program of rigorous empirical study that is by now very far advanced and that corroborates Douglas's and Wildavsky's account.
 A Plausible Thesis, but not Properly Balanced March 4, 2005
2 out of 8 found this review helpful
The authors suggest, reasonably enough, that one's personal political and cultural predispositions affect how one assess the risk of different possible social dangers. If this were the only factor affecting people's risk assessment, it would be quite difficult to generate an informed social policy in a democratic society, and research in to actual risk levels associated with different degrees of social damage would be worthless, since people simply listen to the gurus that support their personal positions.
The authors present no data. Why is data important? Because if 90% of voters fit their description, we are in a much different situation that if 10% do. My best guess is that people systematically underestimate most social risks (e.g. accidental nuclear war, deadly SARS-type plagues) and overestimate a few (riskiness of air travel, danger of poisons in food). Most people, however, are willing to let the ideologues battle it out, and are strongly affected by the way the journalistic accounts of the battle portrays the cogencies of different positions. If I am right, the extremists on either side of positions, of the sort depicted by the authors, perform a valuable function but do not determine the outcome for the purposes of social policy. For instance, there are vehement supporters of gun control and equally vehement supporters of the rights of gun owners. Most voters, however, lie somewhere in the middle and are swayed both by events and scientific evidence. If that is so, the possibility of effective social policy is possible in a democracy. But, some say, the extremists are willing to put in time and money to sway the public, so ideology wins the day in this manner. I respond that it is wise for voters to take the strength of preferences into account in making social policy decisions. At any rate, no balanced discussion of these issues will be found in this volume.
From which it follows that.... May 24, 2004
3 out of 24 found this review helpful
According to the NYT review "Offering what they call a cultural theory of risk perception, the authors suggest that peoples complaints about hazards should never be taken at face value. One must look further to discover what forms of social organization are being defended or attacked."Applying this logic, we have to ask what Mary Douglas and Wildavsky have to gain from advancing this argument...and their consistently dismissive and condescending attitude toward environmentalists makes this fairly clear. If your unenlightened opposition INSISTS on talking about certain risks AS IF that was what REALLY mattered then you are, of course, completely justified in disregarding their point of view, (and for that matter them) entirely. Now THAT's a payoff...
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 - RailroadBookstore.com | |
