Semántica social del riesgouna aproximación cualitativa

  1. Ramos Torre, Ramón 1
  2. Javier Callejo Gallego 2
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

  2. 2 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revista:
Política y sociedad

ISSN: 1130-8001,  1988-3129

Ano de publicación: 2018

Título do exemplar: Historia y ciencias sociales: nuevas perspectivas de análisis

Volume: 55

Número: 1

Páxinas: 235-256

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.5209/POSO.54062 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Política y sociedad

Resumo

This paper studies the social semantics of risk. After summing up the modern history of risk it proposes that in the academic literature appears as a heterogeneous concept in which at least four different dimensions are typically considered (temporal, ontological, cognitive and practical). Research on risk social semantics is not yet enough developed. To progress in this field, this paper shows the results of a qualitative research by means of discussion groups. The discursive material provided by the research was subjected to a structural analysis. The main results are as follows: the social concept of risk contrasts risk and safety, and highlights, with different dramatism, its ambivalence (damage vs. opportunity). The distinctions that allow to qualify and assess the risks are spatial-temporal (proximity vs. distance), ontological (real vs. constructible), practical (control vs. lack of control) and cognitive (uncertainty vs. probability).

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alonso, L. E. (2013): “La sociohermenéutica como programa de investigación en sociología”, Arbor, Ciencia, pensamiento y cultura, 761, vol. 189.
  • Beck, U. (1992): Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity, Londres, Sage.
  • Bernstein, P. (1996): Against the Gods. The Remarkable History of Risk, Nueva York, John Wiley & Sons.
  • Barton, E. (1999): “Informational and interactional functions of slogans and sayings in the discourse of a support group”, Discourse and society 10(4), pp. 461–486.
  • Corominas, J. y J. A. Pascual (1983): “Riesgo”, en Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico, Vol X. Barcelona, Gredos, pp. 13-19.
  • Delumeau, J. (1983): Le péché et la peur. La culpabilisation en Occident (XIII-XVIII siècles), Paris, Fayard.
  • Douglas, M. (1992): Risk and blame. Essays in cultural theory, Londres, Routledge. Espluga, J. (2004): “Conflictes socioambientals i estudi de la percepció social del risc”, Papers 72, pp. 145-162.
  • Espluga, J., J. Farré, J. Gonzalo y A. Prades (2014): “Factores que inhiben la movilización social: el caso del área petroquímica de Tarragona”, REIS 146, pp. 191-216.
  • Ewald, F. (1986): L'État Providence, Paris, Grasset.
  • Ewald, F. (1996a): Histoire de l'État Providence, Paris, Grasset.
  • Ewald, F. (1996b): «Philosophie de la précaution», L'Année Sociologique 46, 2, pp. 383- 412.
  • Giddens, A. (1990): The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge, Polity Press.
  • Gutiérrez, J. (2010): “Técnicas grupales”, en J. Callejo, coord., Introducción a las técnicas de investigación social, Madrid, Ramón Areces, pp. 95-118.
  • Hacking, I. (1990): The Taming of Chance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Hawkes, G. y G. Rowe (2008): “A characterisation of the methodology of qualitative research on the nature of perceived risk: Trends and omissions”, Journal of Risk Research 11(5), pp. 617–643.
  • Ibáñez, J. (1979): Más allá de la sociología: Teoría y práctica del grupo de discusión, Madrid, Siglo XXI.
  • Irwin, A. S., P. y G. Walker (1999): “Faulty environments and risk reasoning: the local understanding of industrial hazards”, Environment and Planning, 31(7), pp. 1311-26.
  • Koselleck, R. (1985): Futures Past. On the Semantics of Historical Time, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
  • Larrión, J. (2016): “¿Qué significa estar bien informado? Retóricas, percepciones y actitudes ante el problema del etiquetado de los alimentos transgénicos”, REIS 153, pp. 43-60.
  • Lassen, I. (2008): “Commonplaces and social uncertainty: negotiating public opinion”, Journal of Risk Research 11(7-8), pp. 1025-1045.
  • Löfstedt, R. (2011): “Risk versus Hazard – How to Regulate in the 21st Century”, Symposium on Risk versus Hazard. European Journal of Risk Regulation 2 , pp. 149- 168.
  • Lois, J. (2001): “Peaks and Valleys: The Gendered Emotional Culture of Edgework”, Gender and Society 15(3), pp. 381-406.
  • Luhmann, N. (1976) “The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structures in Modern Society”, Social Research 43, pp. 130-152.
  • Luhmann, N. (1992): Sociología del riesgo, Guadalajara: Universidad Iberoamericana/Universidad de Guadalajara.
  • Luján, J. L. y O. Todt. (2000): “Perceptions, Attitudes and Ethical Valuations: the Ambivalences of the Public Image of Biotechnology in Spain”, Public Understanding of Science 9, pp. 383–392.
  • Lyng, S. (1990): “Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking”, American Journal of Sociology 95(4), pp. 851-886.
  • Lyng, S., ed., (2005): Edgework: The Sociology of Risk-Taking, Nueva York, Routledge. Mairal, G. (2003): “A risk shadow in Spain”, Ethnos 68(2), pp.179-91.
  • Mairal, G. (2008): “Narratives of risk”, Journal of Risk Research, 11(1-2), pp. 41-54. Myers, G. (2007): “Commonplaces in risk talk: Face threats and forms of interaction”, Journal of Risk Research 10, pp. 285–305.
  • O'Malley, P. (1996): “Risk and responsibility”, en A. Barry, T. Osborne y N. Rose, eds., Foucault and Political Reason. Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government, London, UCL Press, pp.189-207.
  • Ramos, R. (2017): “Futuros sociales en tiempos de crisis”, Arbor 193(784). http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2017.784n2001
  • Ricoeur, P. (2003): El conflicto de las interpretaciones, México y Buenos Aires, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Rowe, G. y G. Wright (2001): “Differences in expert and lay judgements of risk: Myth or reality?”, Risk Analysis 21(2), pp. 341-356.
  • Sjöbert, L. (2002): “The Allegedly Simple Structure of Experts' Risk Perception: An Urban Legend in Risk Research”, Science, Technology & Human Values 27(4), pp. 443-459.
  • Slovic, P. (1992) “Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm”, en S. Krimsky&D.Golding, eds., Social theories of risk, Westport (CON), Praeger, pp. 117-52.
  • Slovic, P. (1999): “Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield”, Risk Analysis 19, pp. 689-701.
  • Solá, R., A. Prades, J. Espluga y M. Real (2009): “Confianza, incertidumbre y percepción social de las tecnologías avanzadas”, Revista Internacional de Sociología 67, pp. 161- 175.
  • Strydom, P. (2002): Risk, environment and society, Buckingham, Open University Press. Swidler, A. (1986): “Culture in action: Symbols and strategies”, American Sociological Review 51(2), pp. 273-286.
  • Tulloch, J. y D. Lupton. (2003): Risk and everyday life, London, Sage
  • Van Loon, J. (2002): Risk and technological culture. Towards a sociology of virulence, Londres, Routledge.
  • Wagner, P. (2016): Progress. A reconstruction, Cambridge, Polity Press.
  • Wynne, B. (1996a) “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide”, en S. Lash, B. Szerszinski y B. Wynne, eds., Risk, Environment and Modernity, Londres, Sage, pp. 44-83.
  • Wynne, B. (1996b): “Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and the public uptake of science”, en A. Irwin y B. Wynne, eds., Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-46.
  • Weber, M. (1983), Ensayos de sociología de la religión, Madrid, Taurus.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet