@article{oai:icu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004442,
 author = {萩原, 優騎},
 issue = {85},
 journal = {社会科学ジャーナル},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {It is difficult to share values and aims in the contemporary society, which is a
background of the difficulties of consensus building. The purpose of this paper is
to consider the location of problems concerning the difficulties by referring to
previous researches on risks. Theories of Ulrich Beck, Slavoj Žižek and Niklas
Luhmann will mainly be focused on.
Beck is well known to his theory of risk society. He says that expert knowledge
is necessary to recognize risks in the contemporary situation, which is a result of
the radicalization of modernity. A main character of a risk society is uncertainty.
For example, not only the lay but also experts cannot predict the effects of the
problems caused by science and technology such as environmental problems.
People share anxiety and seek safety, but it will not motivate them to change the
situation because their main interest is to avoid the worst. Moreover, the more the
situation becomes serious, the more they will be faced with what they do not
know. In spite of this paradoxical matter, they have to make a decision to avoid
the worst.
Žižek’s thought is based on Lacanian psychoanalysis. He tries to explain
where the problems are in a risk society from the view of the structure of the
psychoanalytic subject. The imaginary is stable as long as the symbolic order
works well. However, this function tends to become unstable in the contemporary
situation. Traditional values and ethics are not self-evident today because of the
rapid development of science and technology. Ethics committees are organized 
every time problems occur, but they cannot recover the obviousness of social
values. The disintegration of the symbolic order is a result of the radicalization of
reflexivity. The obviousness relies on non-reflexive acceptance of the symbolic
institution.
Luhmann distinguishes risks from dangers. Risks are the losses which are
recognized as the results of decisions, and dangers are the ones which are
recognized as what are provided from the outside. There is a gulf between risks
and dangers, in other words, between the decision makers and those affected. For
example, the decision makers may communicate with those affected. Even if they
succeed in building a consensus as a result of this communication, the structure of
the conflicts among them itself continues to exist in the concerned society. It is
usually said that communication, participation, ethics, and so on are important
elements when they try to build a consensus, but none of them can bridge the gap.
Obviously these three theories have different premises and major concerns,
though all of them try to analyze the problems of consensus building. It will be
difficult to bridge among them, but comparing their premises and major concerns
is significant. Their characters and efficiency are clarified to some degree through
this research. Knowing characters and efficiency of some theories is necessary in
approaching complex problems in the contemporary risk society, because
examining the various aspects is a key to grasp the entire image even if it may be
tentative.},
 pages = {23--43},
 title = {現代社会における合意形成の困難 　—リスクに関する諸理論を参照して},
 year = {2018}
}