PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

124
the work of British sociologist Anthony Giddens. 17
There is now even an emerging
“sociology of (auto)mobility” and of “auto risk” that uses Beck’s work as a starting point
(e.g. Beckmann 2001a, also see below).
In distinction to ecological modernization, which is more economy-focused, reflexive
modernization is thus a discursive framework that comes out of a sociological tradition
and distinguishes itself through the overarching theme of “risk rationality”. The key
policy relevance lies in the idea of precautionary action (also see below). Nevertheless,
the discursive framework of reflexive modernity is quite complementary to ecological
modernization. In fact, the term reflexive modernization is often discussed in conjunction
with ecological modernization, with many scholars discussing the two as part and parcel
of the same changing outlook on the future. This is particularly true of reflexive
modernity’s overarching concern with risk. As David Harvey (1996:377) notes: “Beck’s
(1992) formulation of the idea the we now live in a ‘risk society’ … has proven a useful
and influential adjunct to the discursive thrust to define a risk-minimizing politics of
ecological modernization.” In this study, I view reflexive modernity as an analytically
distinct, albeit highly complementary discursive framework to ecological
modernization. 18
17 For a detailed outlook on the similarities and differences between the Beckian and the Giddensian
conceptualizations of reflexive modernization/modernity, as well as the additional perspective of Scott
Lash, see the insightful volume “Reflexive Modernization” co-authored by Beck, Giddens and Lash (1994).
18 Remember that Mol and Spaargaren (1993), by contrast, present an evolutionary explanation that views
reflexive modernization as the concept that will eventually supersede ecological modernization as a
mainstream political program (also see above). Alternatively, Davoudi (2001b) views ecological
modernization and the risk society as the two “twin discourses of sustainability” and credits the latter with
seeing “irreconcilable conflict between the current mode of production and environment,” calling for
“greater participation in policy-making … and social transformation” and presenting a “radical” and
“moral” vision of sustainability. In essence, her “risk society” face can thus be seen as a conflation of my
discursive frameworks of reflexive modernization, communicative rationality, and political economy.