This paper aims at providing a critical account of Beck’s thesis that we are now coming to live in a new “global risk society” through the use of research evidence to support such claims.
Management of risk in the 21st century is most reliant on the ability to manipulate and control misfortunes. This can only be a result of awareness and preparedness for any misfortune. Studies have revealed that human beings in the 21st century are more aware of the risks that they face in their environments. As a result of this awareness they are able act more cautiously in relation to activities that might involve some risks. This is particularly backed by a research that was taken involving children between the age of 7 and eleven. The finding was that when questioned in groups they showed more awareness of the risks involved in their environments. It was also noted that though, quite naïve, they were informed of various ways in which they could react to misfortunes and accidents (Dawson 2013, p. 98). Though most of them define accidents as occurrences that are not planned for and are beyond human control, most of them suggest that there are ways in which the probability of the occurrence of accidents can be lowered and manipulated. This trend is different from that of previous generations.
In accordance to Beck, employment related opportunities and risks that results from the ushering in of the risk can be a result of individualization. The high rate in which capital, human beings, information, and labour are mobile tends to cause a loosening effect on cohesion of support networks that are collective. Evidence proves that there has been an increase in patterns of working flexibility. As commonly perceived, modern employees are expected to be receptive and adaptive to certain changes that can occur to the fluctuating labour market. This flexibility has in a way worked against the popularity of full-time contract that are standardized. This is supported by