Doing and undoing risk: the mutual constitution of risk and heteronormativity in contemporary society

Abstract

This paper develops the concepts of ‘doing’ and ‘undoing’ risk, a new approach to risk research that echoes the ‘doing gender’ of gender studies. In this way, we combine intersectional and risk theory and apply the new perspective to empirical material. To better explore the doing and undoing, or the performance, of risk, we will refer to practices that simultaneously (re)produce and hide socio-political norms and positions, played out in contemporary, hierarchical relations of power and knowledge. The aim is to develop a theoretical understanding of doing and undoing risk. The study makes use of transcripts from five focus group interviews with men and women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of different ages living in Sweden to develop a theory of ‘doing risk’. The doing of risk of our informants takes place within the frame of a hegemonic heteronormativity. The way that risks are perceived and done in everyday life therefore always needs to be read within a frame of prevailing structures of power. This counts for all of us as we are all part of the hegemonic power structures and thereby are both subject to the intersecting doings of risk and performatively reproducing these power structures in practice.

Keywords:

• risk theory
• doing risk
• intersectionality
• inequality

Acknowledgments

We would also like to acknowledge the valuable discussions, ideas and comments of our colleagues and visiting scholars, at Mid Sweden University, particularly given by Siv Fahlgren, as well as the insightful comments that we have received from the two anonymous reviewers on a previous version of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Compared to the relational theory of risk (Boholm and Corvellec 2011), which makes an important contribution to the theoretical field of risk research, the doing risk approach both broadens the definition of what a risk is, or the object of risk, including norms as risks, and more importantly acknowledging the mutual constitution of risk and structures of power.

2. It is important to stress that a risk object can be anything from a physical object (e.g. a gun, nuclear accident or storm) to a behaviour (e.g. smoking, violence or bullying) or a societal norm (e.g. being thin, straight or white), and that the risk itself is a social construction of the object in question (e.g. whiteness, or war and violence), understood through time-/place-dependent lenses of power hierarchies and constructed, reconstructed and sometimes deconstructed).

3. To undo risk by taking higher risks might have some similarities to what has been referred to as voluntary risk taking and/or edgework (Lyng 1990), particularly the more recent developments by, for example, Lyng and Matthews (2007), Laurendeau (2008) and Olstead (2011) who argue that risk-taking activities are themselves part of the way in which individuals produce gender and identity. From their point of view, voluntary risk taking can be seen as activities through which normative notions on gender can be negotiated. These are important contributions to the field, but they are framed in relation to particular forms risks, for example extreme sport. Our point here is that by someone not confirming to hegemonic norms taking risks (edgework) is done on daily basis i.e. transgressing gendered, classed, racialised, religious and/or sexual boundaries are everyday life risks and the degree of voluntariness can certainly be questioned.