The constitutive element of probabilistic agency in risk: a semantic analysis of risk, danger, chance, and hazard

Abstract

Defining central concepts with accuracy is crucial to any scientific discipline. A recent debate over risk definitions in this journal illustrates the far reaching consequences of divergent definitions. Aven and Renn define risk as a social construct while Rosa defines risk as an ontological fact. Both claim that their definition reflects the common usage of the word risk. Through a semantic analysis this paper points to a constitutive element of what is termed probabilistic agency in the risk concept. In this respect, risk is distinct from danger, and because Rosa’s main argument is based on the apparent synonymy between risk and danger, the premises for his risk ontology are not valid. The paper furthermore argues that Aven and Renn’s attempt to bridge between epistemology and ontology is based on a distinction between a conceptual level of risk and its practical application which is impossible to uphold if a risk definition is to be in accordance with the ordinary usage of the word. The paper concludes by arguing that risks are only real within a subjective ontology.

Keywords:

• risk definition
• risk perception
• uncertainty
• probability
• ontology
• epistemology

Acknowledgments

The comments from an anonymous reviewer have substantially strengthened the arguments of the paper. The author wishes to express his gratitude for the generous feedback.

Notes

1. Luhmann’s systems theory is basically a theory of how observers observe, hence a theory that focuses on epistemology. Luhmann does not reject the existence of a world independent of human observation, but in his epistemological constructivism a world independent of human observation is cognitively inaccessible and therefore he does not engage his theory in speculation about this world.

2. What is referred to as the object is generally termed hazard or risks source. This may cause some confusion as the technical risk literature defines objects as the humans who are exposed to risk. At this point we should not enter in a discussion of whether these terms are appropriate or not. It suffices to say that in this specific case the object is the boulder.

3. The semantic presence of uncertainty in hazard is somewhat ambiguous. When hazard is defined as an object it is more or less synonymous with danger. But when hazard is used in a less concrete context the element of uncertainty, or more precisely randomness, is predominant.

4. In fact, if we should accept dictionary definitions, Rosa’s own definition of risk would face some problems. If we for instance look up the word ‘stake’ in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (1989) the following definition is offered: ‘That which is placed at hazard.’ As Rosa correctly point to, most dictionaries define concepts such as risk, danger, peril, and hazard in terms of each other and following the definitions in OED we could add ‘stake’ to that category. If we look up the idiom ‘at stake’ in the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary (1996), a similar definition emerges: ‘at stake’ means ‘in danger (of being lost)’ or ‘to risk (something), as upon the result of a game or the occurrence or outcome of any uncertain event.’ More superficial online dictionaries would simply refer to synonyms such as ‘at risk.’ If we accept the definitions by dictionaries as adequate descriptions of the meaning of words, we could easily use ‘at risk’ as a valid substitute for ‘at stake.’ In this case Rosa defines risk as ‘a situation or event where something of human value (including humans themselves) is “at risk” and where the outcome is uncertain.’ Surely Rosa would be dissatisfied with this definition as it represents a tautology, which he so enthusiastically disputed in his defense of a unification of risk and danger (Rosa 2003). Confronted with this apparent tautology Rosa would probably point to the fact that dictionaries do not account for the many situations where ‘at stake’ means something different from ‘at risk.’ Just as this paper has pointed to how ‘risk’ means something different from ‘danger’ depending on the situation in which we use the words.