Risk Culture: Performance and Danger in Early America

Notes

Notes chapter 1 1. John Smith, The Complete Works of Captain John Smith, ed. Philip Barbour, 3 vols. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 1:218, 224, 225. 2. Thomas Harriot, A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia (1590; reprint, New York: Dover, 1972), 29. See also Stephen Greenblatt, “Invisible Bullets: Renaissance Authority and Its Subversion,” in Shakespearean Negotiations : The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 21–65. 3. Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 3. See also Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 151; idem, “Runaway World,” BBC Reith Lectures, 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english /static/events/reith_99; and idem, “Living in a Post-Traditional Society,” in Re›exive Modernization: Politics, Tradition, and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order , by Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 56–109. 4. Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, trans. Mark Ritter (London: Sage, 1992). See also Beck, “Risk Society and the Provident State,” trans. Martin Chalmers, in Risk, Environment, and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, ed. Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Brian Wynne (London: Sage, 1996), 31; idem, World Risk Society (Cambridge: Polity, 1999), 137; idem, “The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Re›exive Modernization,” in Beck, Giddens, and Lash, Re›exive Modernization, 1–55; and idem, “From Industrial Society to Risk 217 Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure, and Ecological Enlightenment,” Theory Culture and Society 9 (1992): 97–123. For other appraisals, see Alan Scott, “Risk Society or Angst Society? Two Views of Risk, Consciousness, and Community ,” in The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory, ed. Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck, and Joost Van Loon (London: Sage, 2000), 33–46; Joost Van Loon, Risk and Technological Culture: Towards a Sociology of Virulence (London: Routledge, 2002); Merryn Ekberg, “The Parameters of the Risk Society: A Review and Exploration,” Current Sociology 55 (2007): 343–66; and Iain Wilkinson, Anxiety in a Risk Society (London: Routledge, 2001). 5. Anthony Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 144; Giddens, Consequences of Modernity, 18, 21. 6. Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 17. 7. Giddens, Consequences of Modernity, 22–26. For other appraisals of Giddens , see Lars Kasperson, Anthony Giddens: An Introduction to a Social Theorist, trans. Steven Sampson (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000); Nigel Dodd, Social Theory and Modernity (Cambridge: Polity, 1999); Martin O’Brien, “Theorising Modernity: Re›exivity, Identity, and Environment in Giddens’ Social Theory,” in Theorising Modernity: Re›exivity, Environment, and Identity in Giddens’ Social Theory, ed. Martin O’Brien, Sue Penna, and Colin Hay (London: Longman, 1999), 17–38; Derek Gregory, Geographical Imaginations (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994), 112–24; Alex Callinicos, “Anthony Giddens: A Contemporary Critique,” Theory and Society 14 (1985): 133–66; and Nigel Thrift, “The Arts of Living, the Beauty of the Dead: Anxieties of Being in the Work of Anthony Giddens,” in Anthony Giddens : Critical Assessments, ed. Christopher Bryant and David Jary, 4 vols. (London: Routledge, 1997), 4:46–60. 8. The risk thesis has come under a good deal of scrutiny. For critiques of Beck, see Gabe Mythen, Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society (London: Pluto, 2004); idem, “Reappraising the Risk Society Thesis: Telescopic Sight or Myopic Vision?” Current Sociology 55 (2007): 793–813; Anthony Elliott, “Beck’s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment,” Sociology 36 (2002): 293–315; Iain Wilkinson, “Social Theories of Risk Perception: At Once Indispensable and Insuf‹cient,” Current Sociology 49 (2001): 1–22; Scott Campbell and Greg Currie, “Against Beck: In Defence of Risk Analysis,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (2006): 149–72; David Goldblatt, Social Theory and the Environment (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996), 173–87; and Brian Wynne,”May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Re›exive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide,” in Lash, Szerszynski, and Wynne, Risk, Environment, and Modernity, 44–83. Other approaches to risk include the “culturalist” approach, stressing ideal types responding to risk in distinctive and predictable ways, and the “governmentality” approach, stressing the links between risk perception and social discipline. The culturalist approach is associated with Mary Douglas. See Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the 218 notes to pages 4–5 [18.223.172.252] Project MUSE (2024...