DOCSLIB.ORG

Thesis H. Throne-Holst

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thesis H. Throne-Holst Harald Throne-Holst Harald Operationalizing the risk society Operationalizing Consumers, nanotechnology and nanotechnology responsibilities Consumers, Consumers, nanotechnology and responsibilities Harald Throne-Holst CONSUMERS, NANOTECHNOLOGY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OPERATIONALIZING THE RISK SOCIETY DISSERTATION to obtain the degree of doctor at the University of Twente, on the authority of the rector magnificus, prof.dr. H. Brinksma, on account of the decision of the graduation committee, to be publicly defended on Wednesday the 18th of April 2012 at 14h45 by Harald Throne-Holst born on 16th of May 1970 in Oslo, Norway This dissertation is approved by the promotor prof. dr. Arie Rip. © Harald Throne-Holst Acknowledgements Doing this PhD has at times felt like a rather lonesome affair. However, a number of people have encouraged, assisted and helped me along the way. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them. First among these is my supervisor prof. dr. Arie Rip. After we met at the PRIME Nano Winter work shop outside of Grenoble in 2008, we discussed the possibility of me writing a PhD with you as a supervisor. I was thrilled at this opportunity. We have since mostly met at Skype, each of us with a glass of red wine at hand for enjoyable and inspiring conversations. The encouragement, the enthusiasm, the effort and the energy you since have put into supervising me is something of which I am truly grateful. As prof. dr. Rip and I interacted on the possibility of doing a PhD, I turned to my employer SIFO to inquire what possibilities they saw for me doing this in my regular working time. Arne Dulsrud, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Eivind Stø were as thrilled as I was, and the financial and organisational questions were quickly and smoothly solved. Over the last year Ingun and Eivind have shielded me from a variety of requests and small and big tasks. I am thankful for that, and I am ready to take my turn again in various projects and applications. It was together with Eivind I ventured into nanotechnology back in 2006, and we have explored and worked on the issue since. Eivind, your energy and willingness to learn about new things and perspectives is inspiring, and coupled with your good sense of humour it has been a pleasure working with you all through the years, and I hope we will continue the cooperation for many years to come. The third partner in SIFO’s nano-team is my “office neighbour” Pål Strandbakken. You are a knowledgeable, caring and witty colleague and you have given valuable advice during the course of this project, as well as 4 CONSUMERS, NANOTECHNOLOGY AND RESPONSIBILITIES necessary breathing space in our conversations about everything between heaven and earth –and more! Nina Heidenstrøm at SIFO has read various drafts of texts and chapters, always interested and always with inspiring and important comments. I would also like to thank three fellow phd-students, my colleague at SIFO Gunnar Vittersø and my friends Johan Caspar Wohlfahrt at UiO and Gunhild A. Stordalen at GreeNudge for listening and sharing the pleasures and the occasional pain of doing a phd. Thanks are due also for other colleagues, Alexander Schiøll for help with the statistics, Stine Hulleberg Hansen for translation of the focus group topic guides, and Hanne Hole Young for various help with the document as well as the front page of the dissertation. I would also like to thank those who have provided support outside of my work: Nicolay, Geir, Ove, Jacob, Fredrik, Nicolai, Joachim, løpegutta, LØTS, my mother Aslaug, Cathrine, Elisabeth, Andreas, Per Thorkild, Gry Anita, Gisle, Roger, Grethe and Kalle. Last, but not least I would like to thank my nuclear family. Dear Sina and Martinus - you are enjoyable and wonderful persons. I love you and I thank you for the patience you have had with a father that over the last years too often have been absent or absent-minded. And my dear Evelinn, the light of my life: Thank you for your solid support when times were tough, for encouragement, for listening, for your endless patience and for your love. The NANOMAT programme of the RCN granted the financial support for the projects that included the focus groups studies I have used as data material. The material culture project at SIFO financed my work with this thesis as well as the printing of the dissertation. Both are gratefully acknowledged. Table of content Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... 3 Table of content ................................................................................................ 5 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 9 References ................................................................................................... 15 2 Theory and literature ............................................................................... 17 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 17 2.2 Positioning my theme ..................................................................... 19 2.3 Theorising risk society .................................................................... 23 2.3.1 Understanding risk ...................................................................... 26 2.4 The Risk Society thesis ................................................................... 28 2.4.1 The notion of Risk Society ......................................................... 28 2.4.2 Risk Society thesis of Ulrich Beck ............................................. 30 2.4.3 Nanotechnology as a modern risk ............................................... 32 2.5 Citizens and consumers in the risk society ..................................... 35 2.6 Citizens and consumers .................................................................. 37 2.7 Political consumption ..................................................................... 43 References ................................................................................................... 48 3 Research design and Methodology of Focus Groups .............................. 55 3.1 Operationalization of the risk society ............................................. 56 3.2 Methodology of the Focus Groups Exercises ................................. 58 3.3 Focus groups ................................................................................... 58 3.4 Planning, setting up and doing the focus group exercises. ............. 61 3.4.1 Doing the focus groups ............................................................... 63 3.4.2 2006: four focus groups with 5-6 participants each, Oslo 24 -25 October 2006. .......................................................... 63 6 CONSUMERS, NANOTECHNOLOGY AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3.4.3 2008: four focus groups with 5-6 participants in each, Oslo 02-03 June 2008. ................................................................ 63 3.5 Working up the data ........................................................................ 66 3.6 Analysing the focus groups ............................................................. 68 References ................................................................................................... 73 4 Empirical findings from focus groups ..................................................... 75 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 75 4.2 An overall pattern of argumentation ............................................... 77 4.2.1 New is worrisome ....................................................................... 77 4.2.2 But old is worrisome too ............................................................. 79 4.2.3 Yes, new is like old, but with possible added benefits ................ 80 4.3 Content analysis and clustering ...................................................... 82 4.3.1 Cluster 1: Trust/assurance ........................................................... 85 4.3.2 Cluster 2: Balance of risks and benefits ...................................... 90 4.3.3 Cluster 3: Roles and agency (influence) ................................... 101 4.4 Reflections on empirical findings ................................................. 115 References ................................................................................................. 120 5 Who should be precautionary? Governance of nanotechnology in the Risk Society (Published paper) .................................................... 123 6 Risk, Responsibility, Rights, Regulation and Representation in the Value Chain of Nano-Products (Published paper) ................................. 149 7 ”Nobody Told Me I Was a Nano-Consumer” : How Nanotechnologies Might Challenge the Notion of Consumer Rights (Published paper) ....................................................................... 183 8 Complexities of labelling of nano-products on the consumer market (Published paper) ....................................................................... 199 9 In conclusion .......................................................................................... 231 9.1 About articulated concerns ........................................................... 231 9.2 Living with technology in the risk society .................................... 237 References ................................................................................................. 239 Table of content 7 List of appendices
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction 1 the Political Sociology of Late Modernity
    Notes Introduction 1. Although much focus after the first election was on the strong showing of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party, with almost 7 per cent of the vote – and a continued presence in Greek society – the combined forces of the Left did well. Not only did Syriza (16.78 per cent) and Pasok (13.18 per cent) come second and third behind the conservative New Democrats (18.85 per cent) but the communist KKE (8.48 per cent) and socialist Dimar (6.10 per cent) parties were also among the seven parties to enter parliament on a largely ‘anti-austerity’ ticket. 1 The Political Sociology of Late Modernity: Political Individualization 1. There have been some recent attempts to combine the concepts of ‘multiple’ and ‘late’ modernity by suggesting that ‘non-Western’ parts of the world are experiencing ‘varieties of second modernity’ (Beck and Grande 2010, Maharaj 2010). These include East Asia (Han and Shim 2010); China (Yan 2010); Japan (Suzuki et al. 2010); South Korea (Kyung-Sup and Min-Young 2010); and Argentina (Levy 2010). Such attempts have been accused of some naïve historicity and ignoring differences (Calhoun 2010, Gilroy 2010). 2. My choice of the term ‘late modernity’ comes as a result of two consid- erations. Firstly, many other terms used to categorize societies of the late twentieth/early twenty-first century can misleadingly suggest a radical break with what came before (such as ‘post’ or ‘second’ modernity), whereas I argue that late modernity emerges from an earlier form of modernity, and in some ways is its very realization.
    [Show full text]
  • Goffman, Action, and Risk Society: Aesthetic Reflexivity in Late Modernity
    Goffman, Action, and Risk Society: Aesthetic Reflexivity in Late Modernity Stephen Lyng When I decided to write about edgework over twenty-five years ago, I had no idea that I had put myself on a pathway of sustained engagement with one of the most important sociologists of the twentieth century. As an academic sociologist in the early stages of my career, I felt that I had a good general understanding of Erving Goffman’s most important ideas and a proper appreciation of his unique contributions to my discipline. Although I had a certain affinity for Goffman’s brand of sociology, I deliberately avoided pressure from close friends and colleagues to become a “Goffmaniac,” the kind of disciple that Goffman’s work often seems to inspire. However, when I took up the task of formulating a theoretical explanation of volitional risk taking, I had no choice but to dig more deeply into Goffman’s work, in particular, his famous essay entitledWhere the Action Is (1967), which at that time was one of the very few sociological theories of risk- taking behavior. The most immediate result of this excavation was a better understanding of the theoretical differences between my concept of edgework and Goffman’s notion of action, but the long term consequence was a profound appreciation of the power and relevance of Goffman’s ideas for making sense of the contemporary social world. This appreciation of Goffman’s work has been enhanced in recent years by my emersion in a body of theory and research that offers a unique perspective on the emerging social conditions that account for the growing relevance of Goffman’s theory of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper Series
    Working Paper Series W-2019/5 Do We Really Live in a ‘Risk Society’? David Furnues www.cris.unu.edu About the authors: David Furnues worked in the role of Regions in Global Governance at the UNU-CRIS specialising in ‘Local, Regional and International Environmental Governance’, in 2018. He holds a First Class Honours BSc in Geography from Northumbria University, Newcastle, a Masters in Global Politics from Durham University and a PGCE in Secondary Education, Geography from the University of Sunderland. He is presently a research Student at the School of Engineering at Cardiff University, [email protected]. 2 Abstract This paper critiques the world risk society theory, the fears of risk and insecurity through globalisation, the possibilities of managing risk from the grass roots perspective from a non-linear approach and considers to what extent we now live in a risk society. Many threats within modern society have strong anthropogenic elements: economic crises, carcinogens in the food chain, climate change, pandemic diseases, conflict and terrorism. The main social threats facing the new modernity are the unintended side-effects as a result of human activity, creating insecurities and uncertainties. While technological progress helps overcome risk in the short term, it becomes self-perpetuating, exacerbating risk in the long term by introducing new and larger global risks, a chain of events known as ‘reflexive modernisation’. Through the ‘boomerang effect’ no one is spared as the risks backfire on those who created them. Ironically, those in the ‘scarcity society’ are hopeful that by attaining the ‘keys of techno-development’ they too might become part of the materialistic world.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Socialist Modernity and Liquid Modernity. Vesna Goldsworthy’S Memoir Chernobyl Strawberries
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR HISTORY, CULTURE AND MODERNITY www.history-culture-modernity.org Published by: Uopen Journals Copyright: © The Author(s). Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence eISSN: 2213-0624 Between Socialist Modernity and Liquid Modernity. Vesna Goldsworthy’s Memoir Chernobyl Strawberries Gabriele Linke HCM 7: 244–270 DOI: 10.18352/hcm.556 Abstract In modernity studies, there has been an ongoing debate about different forms and phases of modernity. Eastern and Western Europe present special cases in this debate because modernity developed unevenly, and differences became particularly obvious after World War II. While the ‘Eastern bloc’ strove for socialist modernity, Western Europe continued its route of classic capitalist modernity, soon entering the state of late, or liquid modernity, of which fluid and fragmented identities were a defin- ing feature. These conceptions of modernity have been reflected upon in the life narratives of people who experienced different modernities, of which Vesna Goldsworthy’s memoir Chernobyl Strawberries is a compelling example. She grew up in Yugoslavia’s socialist modernity but, at the age of twenty-five, left for Britain, where she became a jour- nalist and literary scholar. A close reading of her memoir reveals that she emphasizes the similarity of Western classic and Yugoslav socialist modernities but also constructs herself as a cosmopolitan subject with the flexible identity typical of liquid modernity. Keywords: Ambivalence, autobiography, Eastern European identity, ‘socialist’ modernity, migration HCM 2019, VOL. 7 244 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 01:36:07PM via free access BETWEEN SOCIALIST MODERNITY AND LIQUID MODERNITY Introduction Since 1989, the dissolution of the socio-political system of the Eastern bloc has shaped European history, and ideological battles over the state-socialist past have been fought among historians, politicians and in the field of literature and life writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflexive Transformation of Intimacy in Late Modernity Theories: Some Critiques and Conceptual Alternatives
    Available online at www.postmodernopenings.com e-ISSN: 2069–9387; ISSN–L: 2068–0236 Postmodern Openings 2016, Volume 7, Issue 1, June, pp. 35-54 Reflexive Transformation of Intimacy in Late Modernity Theories: Some Critiques and Conceptual Alternatives Cătălina-Ionela REZEANU DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18662/po/2016.0701.03 Covered in: EBSCO, ERIH PLUS, CEEOL, Ulrich Pro Quest, Cabell, Index Copernicus, Ideas RePeC, EconPapers, Socionet, Journalseek, Scipio ©2016 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House. Selection, peer review and publishing under the responsibility of LUMEN Publishing House. How to cite: Rezeanu, C.-I. (2016). Reflexive Transformation of Intimacy in Late Modernity Theories: Some Critiques and Conceptual Alternatives. Postmodern Openings, 7(1), 35-54. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18662/po/2016.0701.03 DOI: 10.18662/po/2016.0701.03 Reflexive Transformation of Intimacy in Late Modernity Theories: Some Critiques and Conceptual Alternatives Cătălina-Ionela REZEANU1 Abstract The last decades have seen a growing trend towards researching intimacy. A considerable amount of literature has been published based on the reflexive transformation of intimacy framework. This paper starts from the premise that, recently, more and more scholars have criticized the idea that detraditionalization and individualization led to the transformation of intimacy during reflexive modernity (late modernity). Critics question the ability of late modernity concepts to offer a cross- cultural and nuanced image of contemporary particularities of private life and intimate relations. The purpose of this study is to show the current state of knowledge in the social sciences on individualization thesis and detraditionalization thesis, the main theoretical criticisms of the two theses and conceptual alternatives to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociological Spectrum RISK SOCIETY, MEDIA
    This article was downloaded by: [Fitzgerald, Scott] On: 28 May 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 922595675] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Sociological Spectrum Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713666965 RISK SOCIETY, MEDIA, AND POWER: THE CASE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY Scott T. Fitzgeralda; Beth A. Rubina a Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA Online publication date: 27 May 2010 To cite this Article Fitzgerald, Scott T. and Rubin, Beth A.(2010) 'RISK SOCIETY, MEDIA, AND POWER: THE CASE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY', Sociological Spectrum, 30: 4, 367 — 402 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02732171003641016 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732171003641016 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Coversheet for Thesis in Sussex Research Online
    A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details A Libertarian Socialist Critique of the Political Sociology of Late Modernity Matt Dawson DPhil in Social and Political Thought University of Sussex July 2011 i Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another University for the award of any other degree. Signature: ii Contents Acknowledgements v Summary vii Introduction: The (In)compatibility of Socialism and Late Modernity 1 On Neoliberalism: A Definition 3 Chapter 1: The Sociology of Late Modernity 7 On Modernity 8 Life in Late Modernity 13 Empirical Work on Late Modernity and Individualization 22 The Embedded and Disembedded Theories of Individualization 32 Chapter 2: The Political Sociology of Late Modernity 37 Anthony Giddens: „Blair‟s Brain‟ 38 Giddens‟ First Stage: Structuration Theory & Historical Materialism, 1981-1993 47 Conclusions from Giddens‟ First Stage 47 Giddens‟ Second
    [Show full text]
  • Ander Errasti Lopez
    Nations and Nationalism in a Cosmopolitanized World Some Lessons from Ulrich Beck's Work Ander Errasti Lopez TESI DOCTORAL UPF / ANY 2017 DIRECTORS DE LA TESI Dra. Sonia Arribas (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) Dr. Daniel Innerarity (Universidad del País Vasco – Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea) DEPARTAMENT D’HUMANITATS ii A ti, si quieres, y siempre que quieras. Como no podía ser de otra manera. iii Eskerrak / Agraïments / Agradecimientos / Gratitudes Eskerrikasko Julen, bidai luze hau Iruñara egin genituen bidaietako hainbat eta hainbat elkarrizketatan hasi zelako, eta zure alboan inoiz amaituko ez delako. Eskerrikasko Bego elur, ekaitz hala dena delakoak datozenak datozela zure babesa izango dudala erakusteaz gain, inoiz kemena eta nigan konfidantza gal ez dezadan erakusteagatik Eskerrikasko Mikel munduan inork inoiz ez nauelako era hain zuzenean estimatuko. Espero ez sekula zalantzarik edukitzea aldebiko sentimendua dela. Eskerrikasko hiruoi, tesian teorikoki diodan zerbait – familia tradizionalez hitz egiteak dagoeneko zentzu askorik ez duela, alegia – mundura etorri nintzanez gero egunero­ egunero erakusteagatik: eta hala bedi, inon ez baitnaiz zuekin bezain maitatua sentitu. Eskerrikasko, nola ez, Lourdes: gaur naizena, onerako denean behintzat, neurri handi batean zuri esker baitda. Hori bai ez dudala inoiz ahaztuko. Eskerrikasko Tina eta José, queridos aitona y amona, por enseñarme que ser Euskaldun va mucho más allá de cualquier estereotipo. Eskerrikasko Julian eta Mariateresa, amama eta aitona maiteok, munduan egote honi paisaia, sustraia, nortasuna eta, nola ez, hizkuntza emateagatik. Laurok beti izango zaituztet bizi­bizi gogoan. Eta eskerrikasko baita ere Iñaki, Jesus Mari, Yolanda, Maritere, Jesus, Amaia, Jon, Asier eta Nora hainbeste bizipen eta oroitzapen goxoengatik. Y cómo no, a la familia en Iruña: Chelo, Enrique, Gonzalo y Adriana, gracias por todo.
    [Show full text]
  • Bbm:978-1-137-31823-7/1.Pdf
    Notes Introduction 1. On the ‘postmodern turn’, see, for example: Best and Kellner (1997); Brown (1994b); Hassan (1987); Quicke (1999); Seidman (1994a). 2. Turner (1996), p. 1. 3. Hollinger (1994), p. 124. 4. Ibid., p. 124. On this point, see also Delanty (1999), p. 7: ‘Sociology and its concept of modernity were products of the “great transformation”’. 5. Turner (1996), p. 5 (italics added). 6. Baert and da Silva (2010 [1998]), p. 285. On this point, see also Susen (2013b), p. 88. 7. Porter (2008), p. viii (italics added). 8. On the centrality of the ‘postmodern turn’, see, for instance: Best and Kellner (1997); Brown (1994b); Hassan (1987); Quicke (1999); Seidman (1994a). 9. The impact of the ‘postmodern turn’ on contemporary intellectual thought is reflected in the idea of developing a ‘postmodern social theory’. On this point, see, for example: Boyne and Rattansi (1990b), esp. p. 24; Davetian (2005); Porter (2008), esp. pp. viii–xxiv and 69–77; Seidman (1994c). For an excellent overview of the key historical and sociological challenges faced by social theorists in the context of the early twenty-first century, see Baert and da Silva (2010 [1998]), chapters 8 and 9. See also, for example: Allan (2013 [2007]); Beck (2012 [2010]); Elliott and Turner (2012); Inglis and Thorpe (2012); Jones, Le Boutillier, and Bradbury (2011 [2003]); Turner (2013); Turner (2014). 10. Until the present day, one of the most illustrative examples of the idea of a ‘postmodern social theory’ can be found in Seidman (1994c). 11. Ibid., p. 119. 12. Ibid., p. 119. 13. On the conceptual differentiation between ‘sociological theory’ and ‘social theory’, see also, for example: Allan (2013 [2007]); Baert and da Silva (2010 [1998]), p.
    [Show full text]