Have library access?
IP:3.236.116.27
  • Journals

超越決定論的風險治理:替代性風險知識的產生

Beyond Deterministic Risk Governance: The Alternative Risk Knowledges

Abstracts


本文從知識社會學的角度出發,探討風險概念的複雜性,並關注風險治理的技術化傾向。由風險的決定論與建構論間對話,強調風險作為社會的知識,具備詮釋上的彈性,即風險不僅是預測、控制又是承擔、應變與權衡。風險不是「就在那裡」的實體。風險知識位處於現代社會專家與常民知識交會處,包含對制度進行安排、組建和成套的知識生產,是在社會-技術-政治脈絡內如何主動權衡與創造種種文化的問題。專家知識存在著一套社會性的價值承諾與預設,倚靠系統性改變實做慣例與社會關係來維繫其有效性與正當性;常民絕非僅能被動的對專家不信任,常民知識由在地生活為基礎的實踐經驗、慣例與文化所構成,亦具備有理論與工具層次的豐富潛力,更有潛在政治動員力。透過對Renn與Stirling不確定性矩陣的考察,本文並非否定風險治理專業所展現的價值,但認為風險治理不能被簡化為風險管理,因此主張打破專家與常民知識的界線,以發展出一套更為重視人類文化創作能動性的風險社會想像。

Parallel abstracts


This article explores the complexity of risk and the trend of technicality in risk governance. Through the interlocution between rational determinism and social constructionism, we argue risk, as knowledge of society, implies the will to predict, control as well as the attempt at interpretative flexibility, discretion and responsibility-taking. Risk is not simply an object "out-there". Risk is situated at the crossover between expert knowledge and lay knowledge in modern society, which includes the creation and (re)arrangement of institutions with production of sets of knowledges. Expert knowledge consists of social commitments and assumptions. It rearranges practices, conventions and social relationship to acquire its validity and legitimacy. Lay knowledge surely doesn't just distrust experts. It is situated in life world and comprises of local experience, practices and conventions with the potential of theory and practicality. Its capacity of political mobilization is unneglectable. With the review on the matrix of uncertainties proposed by Renn and Stirling. This article doesn't intent to deny the value of expertise of risk governance; nonetheless, it insists risk governance should not be reduced to the institutionalized expertise of risk management and scientific risk assessment. Therefore, going beyond the demarcation line of expert and lay knowledge is needed, which aims for the imagination of collective experiment, human agency and creativity of risk society.

References


杜文苓,2012 〈環評制度中的專家會議-被框架的專家理性〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,9卷3期,頁119-155。
周桂田,1998b 〈現代性與風險社會〉,《臺灣社會學刊》,21期,頁89-129。
周桂田,2013 〈全球化風險挑戰下發展型國家之治理創新——以台灣公民知識監督決策為分析〉,《政治與社會哲學評論》,44期,頁65-148。
楊智元,2009 《毒奶粉的風險論述分析與三聚氰胺的管制爭議》。臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。
Bauman, Zygmunt, 1991 Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge : Polity Press.

Cited by


許雅筑(2017)。我國技術官僚面對公民參與之回應策略—以細懸浮微粒管制議題為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201703607
許登盛、林貝珊(2021)。都市河岸部落洪患風險認知與韌性:桃園市崁津部落的個案災害防救科技與管理學刊10(2),1-13。https://doi.org/10.6149/JDM.202109_10(2).0001

Read-around