1. Beck, U. (1992). From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment. Theory, Culture & Society, 9(1), 97-123

Abstract: Munich University’s Ulrich Beck proposes his theory of the “risk society,” or how rapid modernization has shaped society’s strategies in dealing with risk. He notes that in preindustrial society, catastrophic events were either classified as “strokes of fate” or “religiously motivated.” Industrial risks, he indicates, are inherently political ones (e.g. conflicts between states). Beck argues that as economies slide toward the “mega-technological” age, risks to postindustrial society are largely defined by modernity itself. He uses the example of nuclear energy to illustrate his claims frequently, pointing to the risk presented by unforeseeable accidents. Here, economic risk merges with ecological risk; markets that modern society has created in order to build security paradoxically increase potential risk. Beck is critical of current risk management systems, stating, “Acceptable risks are ultimately accepted risks.” The article offers a view of how further globalization will cause risk analysis to be ingrained in society to an even greater degree, but warns that individuals not depend solely on decision makers to evaluate risk for them.

2. Cottle, S. (1998). Ulrich Beck, ‘Risk society’ and the Media: A Catastrophic View? European Journal of Communication, 13(1), 5-32.

Abstract: Simon Cottle examines the significant ideas behind Beck’s “risk society” through the lens of mass communications, and questions both the absence of existing literature on how media fits into Beck’s model and the aspects of this topic that Beck misses in his own work. Cottle looks closely at the idea of “reflexive modernization” – the notion that progress in modern society is attributable to the reform and restructuring of existing institutions. He observes that the media plays the crucial role of watchdog in Beck’s conceptualization of the risk society, being the sector best positioned to interpret contemporary risk elements. This is because, according to Beck, risk is not real in the technological era until it becomes “visible” to knowledge-processing bodies. Cottle continues with his own exposition of this aspect of modern society. He acknowledges the significant intellectual achievement behind Beck’s work, but critiques the German’s sociologist’s ultimately cursory treatment of mass communications in his theoretical framework.

> Living in the world risk society [Economy and Society]

> Intellectual Autobiography

The event was held in the auditorium that once housed the hearings of the 9/11 Commission — somewhat ironic in that the man who was now brought into speak was about to tear into the secretive and misleading security policies of past and present administrations. He was introduced to an audience that appeared to be more than familiar with his work by Morton Halperin, an a former policy expert who served under three different presidents and is presently a senior advisor at the Open Society Institute.

Hersh began without much in the way of a preamble and quickly launched into a discussion of his knowledge of the intelligence community and covert operations that are currently underway in the fronts against terrorism. He spoke animatedly, breezing through his subject matter at breakneck speed, pausing rarely. At times, Halperin, the seated “moderator” of the talk, looked somewhat bemused at the pace at which his old friend was proceeding.

The address continued as a casually informative, anecdotal view of the information barrier between government and public. In addition to his good-natured, mile-a-minute delivery, Hersh was charmingly cynical throughout his speech, in the way that his audience more or less expected him to be, given his particular career.

The only really disappointing aspect of the event was this Q&A session held after Hersh’s concluding remarks. (Actually, it was really only the “Q” part that irritated this audience member) Most of the question-askers seemed to be merely clamoring for the spotlight, but a few went beyond the bounds of acceptable public decorum. My favorite awkward moment occurred when a blogger from The Huffington Post — who was at first cheered by the crowd because of his press affiliation — was met with incredulous silence when he asked a bizarre, indecipherable question concerning the link between the “military-industrial complex” and the climate change debate. (To which Hersh of course responded, “Sorry, I’ve got nothing.”)

Though not much was stated that would have surprised any well-informed consumer of the news media, I was thoroughly contented simply to have seen this professional hero of mine speak.

The talk started out broadly enough, first focused on how the President is perceived in Europe — the continental homes of both speakers (Younge is British, Baruma a Dutchman). Both seemed to agree that the adoration that most Europeans have for Obama stems from the loss of faith in the largely disappointing leadership of Blair, Berlusconi and Sarkozy. Even more so than in the United States, Obama’s victory in 2008 seemed filled with the promise of diplomacy, fair and responsible governance and — in stark contrast to his predecessor — deference to the more intellectual traditions of politics.

What came as somewhat of a bittersweet revelation was the fact that this European view has changed little in the year since Obama assumed office. While he finds himself besieged by a perhaps an overly-expectant nation on this side of pond, public opinion there continues to hold him in exceptional esteem. Of course, “Old World” Europe does not grapple with the same societal issues that we do here (not to mention our deeply-entrenched, more pronounced natural proclivities toward conservatism), but it was nevertheless interesting to note the disparities in attitudes, given the fact that both continents more or less shared the very same hopes in Jan. 2009.

Naturally, the two reasonably objective “outsiders” (where American politics are concerned) then turned their attention to domestic matters, debating the role of race in the election — the point at which their opinion diverged — and volunteering various theories as to why Obama presently finds himself an embattled leader (while Bush, despite incontrovertibly steering the nation toward the brink, receives a remarkably light sentence from the American public).

Returning to agreement toward the end, they proposed that, like observers the world over, Americans had become too seduced by this paradigm-shifting, messianic figure of Obama, holding him to unrealistic measures of success, and thereby ensuring disillusionment, even when no world leader in history has achieved what was expected of this president just one year into the job.

Though the discussion was much more political in nature (as opposed to media-related, as its title suggested), it concluded by making some good observations of the role of media outlets and new technologies in relation to perceptions — real and imagined — of the President. The speakers each noted how they both, in their respective fields, had been exposed to the ways in which media has distorted the realities of both Obama and the situations he must govern over. For instance, Buruma highlighted how social media and partisan television programming have given the “ranters and ravers” a voice, enabling them to mobilize as they never have been able to do so before, citing the Tea Party movement as an example. Younge detailed how his decade-long stint as a US-based correspondent had often led him to strongholds of the virulently anti-Obama movement, where he engaged attempted to engage loyal followers of the agenda-setting, reality-distorting FoxNews network.

It was important to hear these firsthand perspectives from such seasoned political commentators, because hardly do we Americans pay very much attention to European attitudes toward our politics. The particular insights that were shared seemed fresh and well-informed, even if the general subject matter has long been belabored by the 24-hour news cycle that President Obama views with contempt. Both gentleman were extremely well-spoken, in firm grasp of their facts and appropriately elaborate with their responses to one another.

All in all, it was quite a pleasant way to spend an early Friday evening.

Though it was only briefly mentioned in the lecture, the item that most sharply captured my interest was futurist Stewart Brand’s famous maxim: Information wants to be free.

I had heard the phrase before, but it was particularly arresting as a feature of such a comprehensive look at media through the ages. Some quick research on its origins and meaning gave me a context for the aphorism: at a 1984 computing conference, Brand made his famous proclamation as part of an argument for no-fee content (mass distributed).

I interpret Brand’s words in a different way (and indeed, there is some debate over their true meaning). Heard as part of a highly detailed chronology of human communication, I took the phrase to mean that the widespread dissemination of information is natural, and is not easily stifled.

As we saw, the propagation of mass communication has been a feature of civilizations for millennia. Yet as Prof. Wilder pointed out, in no age before this one has there been such unfettered access to information – perhaps we are finally reaching a point in human history in which information can truly be regarded as free.

In calling this site Maximalism, I’m resurrecting the title of an arty webzine that I used to co-edit with a buddy a few years ago. It commented mainly on architecture and postmodern design trends. I think the name is even more apt here, though — it calls to mind the nature of both the media space and New York City.

In writing this blog, I hope to contribute to the deep pool of knowledge that my professors and peers have established within the New School community, as well as share my education with family, friends and colleagues. Thanks for reading.