風險社會中的正義問題：對“風險”與“風險社會”之批判

本文的目的在關注「風險」這個概念是否可以如馬克思的階級觀一般建構一個社會理論。當「風險」是當代社會最基礎的社會構成原則時，我們才能同意貝克用「風險分配」的邏輯取代「財富分配」的老式社會正義概念。本文的結構則分為四個部份：第一部份描繪貝克迄今為止的「風險社會」理論與其中的社會正義問題。其次，利用紀登士(Anthony Giddens)、盧曼(Niklas Luhmann)的觀點補充、以及深入檢討所謂的「風險」概念。。第三部份則引介結構功能論學者Richard Münch對「風險社會」與「第二現代」理論的批評。第四部份則從理性觀念的角度觀察貝克的理論。從這個角度，貝克的理論一方面可視為自韋伯(Max Weber)以來，德國社會學傳統的「工具理性」問題之解決的嘗試之一。同時，理性的問題也使得「第二現代」的理論立場介於「現代」與「後現代」之間。

關鍵字

貝克；風險；風險社會；第二現代；社會正義

並列摘要

This article concerns about whether the concept of risk can beused to construct a social theory just like the concept of class of the Marxism does. Only when the ”risk” has become the most basically principle of the social construction in the modern society, then we can agree with Ulrich Beck to substitute the conventional social justice idea of the wealth distribution for the new logic of ”risk distribution”. Thestudy contains four parts. Firstly, it describes Beck's discussion about the Risk Society Theory and the social justice problems within it. Secondly, the perspectives of Anthony Giddens and Niklas Luhmann would behelpful to complement the deficiency in Beck's theory. Thirdly, the critique of the Risk Society and the Second Modern Theory from the structural-functionalist sociologist Richard Münch would be introduced. Finally, the Beck's theory would be observed from the aspect of the rationality. From this point of view we can conclude that, on the on eh and, Beck's theory belongs to the tradition of Germen sociology whichtries to solve the problems of the instrumental rationality since Max Weber; on the another hand, the approach the ”Second Modern” deals with the reason problems makes it stand between the ”Modern” and the ”Postmodern” theories.