The dimension of risk has been studied by sociologists in relation to how modernity and societal changes generate new types of risks and uncertainties.
Safe risk-taking: Safe risk-taking is a balancing act in which one feels a degree of security in life while simultaneously taking risks that are productive in the pursuit of the good life, for example, as part of civic engagement. Part of this involves feeling ontological security, a sense of continuity in one’s life, which is created through routines, practices, and narratives (Giddens, 1991). Beck’s concept of the risk society becomes central here to understanding safe risk-taking. Safe risk-taking means, as an actor in the risk society, supporting efforts to make society safer in the face of risks taken at the planetary level (Beck, 1992). In this society, one must engage with the systemic risks created by modernity. This requires reducing risks and striving to make them more manageable, which in turn requires the actor to take risks for the collective by investing time, resources, money, and the capacity to manage those risks. This risk awareness is linked to the “historical consciousness” dimension of the balance framework, in that risk management is motivated by the need to defend future lives and by the fact that humans are not immortal.
The concept of resilience is closely related here and represents a level of safe risk-taking. Theorists such as Butler have, for example, emphasized that we rather share a fragility that some, due to their position within various systems, experience to a greater or lesser extent, and that fragility is a site of resistance (Butler, Gambetti & Sabsay, 2017). Vulnerability has become central to some people’s struggle and resistance (Butler, Gambetti & Sabsay, 2017). The focus is on presenting oneself as vulnerable in contrast to genuinely experienced victimhood (Haidt & Lukianoff, 2018; Ecclestone, 2011). Furedi argues that the focus on vulnerability has been socialized to the point where it has become something naturalized and normalized for us (Furedi, 2004, 2017; Haidt & Lukianoff, 2018).
Fragility, however, is linked to resistance and courage; vulnerability is a positive quality that requires courage (Brown, 2017). Safe risk-taking involves having the resilience to be fragile in the presence of oneself and others. Without fragility and vulnerability, a hardness emerges in which we do not dare to let other people get close to us and create the kind of dependence that people need, for example, in love, where there is a risk of being abandoned. Furedi, in creating an alternative to psychologization, emotionalization, “therapization,” and the demoralization and withering away of historical consciousness, offers a vision of a positive risk orientation (Furedi, 2019). Positive risk orientation is an openness to experimentation and the future, where courage is a central virtue that needs to be socialized far more effectively than it is today. Nassim Taleb has introduced the concept of anti, fragility (Taleb, 2012). Anti, fragility is a state in which an actor or system becomes stronger and better adapted as a result of shocks and stressors (Taleb, 2012). Systems and people need to be designed and cultivated to be anti, fragile because humans have limited knowledge and ability to predict the future in a complex world (Taleb, 2012). This requires a life of experimentation and testing, as well as certain approaches drawn from practical philosophy. Taleb draws much inspiration from the Stoics, which is one path to follow. Changes in society also bring new areas of risk that people need to manage with new practices and approaches; one example is the risks associated with new technologies such as social media (Paulsen, 2020).
Imbalances
Below are various imbalances in this dimension.
Insecure risk-taking
There is always a degree of insecurity in risk-taking, but it can decrease the more we feel that the risk we are taking has meaning and is necessary. Insecure risk-taking stems from insecure relationships that can be either isolating or all, consuming (Scheff, 1990). Examples of insecure risks could include selfish, narcissistic, or clichéd risks, in the sense that the risk is a routine activity that people, such as teenagers, have done before, which does not lead to a truly meaningful adventure. These risks are also largely meaningless. Risk-taking can also take the form of incorporated consumption, such as extreme sports, where the purpose is one’s own enjoyment of the adrenaline and excitement.
Insecure risk aversion
Insecure risk aversion is another imbalance that could manifest, for example, as existential anxiety (Giddens, 1991), where there is so much chaos around us that we are dominated by uncertainty and precariousness, leading us to try to minimize risks in order to cope with everyday life. Part of the creation of insecure risk aversion involves processes of pathologization, medicalization, victimization, or misguided therapy. Liquid fear (Bauman), a culture of fear (Furedi, 2019), and attempts to neutralize various risks all contribute to increasing anxiety (Paulsen, 2020, 286).
Secure risk aversion as an imbalance occurs when one feels a high degree of security, yet the culture, practices, and discourses one engages with do not cultivate risk-taking. This imbalance leads to complacency and laziness. There is a lack of understanding or an inability to take productive risks in the pursuit of the good life.