風險社會學之理論對話與個案詮釋

自二十世紀末以來，現代社會的自我描述悄悄地轉變為風險社會，今日的人們也都更習慣與風險共存，卻未對風險社會學加以反省並釐清「如何可能」的問題。是以，本研究在二階觀察的提問立場上，檢視魯曼（N. Luhmann）、貝克（U. Beck）和紀登斯（A. Giddens）他們三人的風險社會學有何差異，而這些差異又是如何可能。依據魯曼的觀察理論，任何的觀察都是從一組特定的區別所進行的標示，因此本文的研究旨趣在於建構出魯曼、貝克和紀登斯風險社會學的觀察圖式，並透過理論對話呈現出觀察圖式在理論建構中的角色與功能。筆者以為貝克是通過「正常卅不正常」的區別，將現代社會標示為一個不正常的風險社會，因此貝克的風險社會學是關於一個正常社會的想像，是一個理念型的社會理論。紀登斯則是依著「確定性卅不確定性」的觀察圖式，認為現代社會是一個以不確定性為本質的反思性現代化階段，但他始終眷戀著現代性帶來的穩定。魯曼的風險社會學是藉由未來的「可調控性卅不可調控性」的弔詭，進一步將現代社會標示為風險社會，不過他關心的終究是社會談論風險的方式，而非具體的改善措施。本研究在這些觀察圖式的基礎上，將其應用於中科三期的個案詮釋，通過不同的理論視角展演出不同的個案風景。貝克與紀登斯著重於對科學理性以及專家決斷的批判，魯曼的風險社會學更加深刻地演繹出風險溝通的偶連性，描繪出各組織系統自我再製的運作過程，以及風險決策的作成是如何可能。最後，筆者提出本研究的結論與反思，毋寧是強調在二階觀察的脈絡下，世界的固有值是偶連性，以及弔詭作為認知的基本形式。

關鍵字

二階觀察；風險社會學；中科三期；偶連性；弔詭

並列摘要

Since the late 20th century, the self-description of modern society has transformed into risk society. Today, people get more used to live with risk, but we do not reflect on the sociology of risk and clarify the question of “how could it be?” Based on second-order observation, this study examines what’s the difference among Luhmann’s , Beck’s and Gidden’s sociologies of risk, and tries to answer how could it be. Therefore, the purport of this study is to construct the observation forms of Luhmann’s , Beck’s and Gidden’s sociologies of risk, and display the role and functions of observation forms through theoretical dialogue. In my opinion, Beck used the distinction of "normal / abnormal", and then marked modern society as an abnormal risk society. Beck’s risk of sociology is an imagination about normal society, also an sociology on an ideal type society. According to the "certainty / uncertainty" observation form, Giddens thinks modern society is a reflexive modernization, and its nature is uncertainty. However, Giddens always attached to certainty which modernity brought to. On the basic of the paradox of the “controllable / uncontrollable” of the future, Luhmann marked modern society as a risk society. However, Luhmann always concerns about how society talks about risk rather than provides specific improvement measures. Based on these observation forms, this study does a case study on the 3rd stage of Central Taiwan Science Park (CTSP), and exhibits that different theoretical perspectives will have different interpretation consequences. Beck and Giddens focus on the criticism of the scientific rationality and experts decision. Otherwise, Luhrmann more profoundly displays the contingency of risk communication, and describes the operational process of self-organized systems and how could risk decisions be made. In conclusion, in the context of second-order observation, contingency is the world’s eigenvalue, as well as paradox is the basic form of cognition.