Risk of power — power of risk

Authors

  • Alexander I. Strebkov St. Petersburg State University
  • Abdurashid I. Musaev St. Petersburg State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.215

Abstract

The article is dedicated to the risk of power and power of risk analysis, definitions of risk and substantiation of its objective nature, which is determined by the system of ruling social relations. Criticism is presented of Luhmann’s and Beck’s views, which ignore the objective nature of risk and its definitions. The risk of power and power of risk are concepts that reflect the different summation of connections and relations, where risk acts as a means for maintaining a dominant relationship. Objectivity of risk stems from the fact that the prevailing relationship is not a product of independent initiatives by people, but it is a result of relations mediated by items and things in which the mediator transforms itself from an ordinary “panderer” into absolute power of influence over an individual. The mediator becomes objective power, in other words, subjectless power which eventually submits to human will and substantiates power-wielding actions and power-wielding decisions, which aspire to the subjectless power’s pole and is at risk for losing power. While rotating between subjectless power and the individual, the repulsion force from individuals’ interests surpasses the force of attraction towards them. Risk, being woven into dominant relations, separates into independent being as a means of preserving these relations, in the form of negating the positive prospects of individual being, shifting social risks onto the shoulders of individuals, and turning them into subjective risks whereby the individual bears fully responsibility when making wrong decisions. Metamorphoses of the reduction of objective risks, inherent in society, into subjective and individual risks and the reduction of individual risks into objective and public risks, through a complex system of relations and interdependencies, end in conflict. Within conflict, risk is objectified in actions, which demolish the opposition of negative prospects. Conflict asserts a relations’ system in which risk weakens and fades. 

Keywords:

risk, risk of the power, power of the risk, subjective risk, objective risk, individual, society, ruling relations, capital, money civilization, conflict

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

1. Альгин, А. П. (1990), Риск: сущность, функции, детерминация, разновидности, методы оценки (Социально-философский анализ): автореф. дис. … д-ра филос. наук. URL: https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000200_000018_rc_284258/viewer/?page=21 (дата обращения: 15.02.2020).

2. Boholm, М. (2019), How do Swedish Government agencies define risk?, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 22, is. 6, pp. 717–734.

3. Бек, У. (2000), Общество риска: На пути к другому модерну, пер. с нем. Седельник , В. и Федорова, Н., М.: Прогресс-Традиция.

4. Луман, Н. (1994), Понятие риска, пер. Филиппов, А. Ф., THESIS, вып. 5, с. 135–160.

5. Луман, Н. (2001), Власть, пер. с нем. Антоновский, А. Ю., М.: Праксис.

6. Розанвалон, П. (2007), Утопический капитализм. История идеи рынка, пер. с франц. Зайцева, А., ред. и предисл. Каплун, В., М.: Новое литературное обозрение.

7. Гегель, Г. В. Ф. (1978), Система нравственности, в Гегель, Г. В. Ф., Политические произведения, М.: Наука, с. 276–367.

8. Маркс, К. (1960), Капитал, в Маркс, К. и Энгельс, Ф., Соч. 2-е изд, т. 23, М.: Гос. изд-во полит. лит-ры.

9. Базулин, Ю. В. (2008), Происхождение и природа денег, СПб.: Изд-во С.-Петерб. ун-та.

10. Катасонов, В. Ю. (2013), Капитализм. История и идеология «денежной цивилизации», ред. Платонов, О. А., М.: Ин-т русской цивилизации, с. 21–34.

11. Хеттих, М. (1993), Основные понятия политической науки, в Политология (70–80-е годы), М.: НИИВО ИНИОН, с. 75–76.

References

1. Al’gin, A. P. (1990), Risk: essence, functions, determination, varieties, evaluation methods (Socio-philosophic analysis), abstract of D. Sc. Dissertation, Moscow. Available at: https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000200_000018_rc_284258/viewer/?page=21 (accessed: 15.02.2020). (In Russian)

2. Boholm, М. (2019), How do Swedish Government agencies define risk?, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 22, is. 6, pp. 717–734.

3. Beck, U. (2000), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, transl. by Sedel’nik, V. and Fedorova, N., Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia. (In Russian)

4. Luhmann, N. (1994), The concept of risk, transl. by Filippova, A. F., THESIS, no. 5, pp. 135–160. (In Russian)

5. Luhmann, N. (2001), Power, transl. by Antonovskij, A. Yu., Moscow: Praksis Publ. (In Russian)

6. Rosanvallon, P. (2007), Utopian Capitalism: A History of the Idea of the Market, transl. from French by Zajceva, A., academic ed., transl. ed. and preface by Kaplun, V., Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (In Russian)

7. Hegel, G. F. W. (1978), System of Ethical Life, in Hegel, G. F. W., Politicheskie proizvedeniia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., pp. 276–367. (In Russian)

8. Marx, K. (1960), Capital, in Marx, K. and Engels, F., Sochineniia, 2 nd ed., vol. 23, Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury. (In Russian)

9. Bazulin, Yu. V. (2008), The origin and the nature of money, St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. (In Russian)

10. Katasonov, V. Yu. (2013), Capitalism. History and ideology of the “money civilization”, science ed. by Platonov, O. A., Mosow: Institut russkoi tsivilizatsii Publ. (In Russian)

11. Hettih, M. (1993), The main concepts of the political science, in Politology (70s–80s), Moscow: NIIVO INION Publ., pp. 75–76. (In Russian)

Published

2020-06-30

How to Cite

Strebkov, A. I., & Musaev, A. I. (2020). Risk of power — power of risk. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 36(2), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.215