Human civilization seems to be unable to extract itself from risk. No matter how advanced a civilization is, risk follows it like a shadow, always finding various unexpected ways to ambush civilization.
The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic has been steadily increasing recently, leading to an unprecedented state of collective panic in Taiwan. Information is chaotic and contradictory and daily life is in a state of turmoil. It reminds me of my personal experience of the Chernobyl nuclear accident which occurred while I was in Germany.
When the Germans found out through the media that radiation leaks resulting from an explosion in a nuclear plant in Ukraine would reach their country, and that it might affect one's health, panic worse than the concerns incited by SARS was instant.
Abnormal particle counts were detected in quite a few cities. People immediately rushed to empty stores of canned foods, and they were afraid of venturing outdoors. A little bit like in Taiwan today, social exchanges and consumer activities slumped. People prioritized their own safety, and some Europeans even thought the end of the world was here.
The Chernobyl accident is symbolic of the high levels of risk inherent in high technology itself. Various infectious diseases, including SARS, are another, highly threatening, risk. These two risks have a direct impact on human spiritual and material civilization.
In his book Risk Society, the German sociologist Ulrich Beck points out that "Risks of modernization sooner or later also strike those who produce or profit from them. They contain a boomerang effect, which breaks up the pattern of class and national society." Even the rich and powerful are unsafe in the face of risk.
Beck claims that modern civilized man is used to possessing wealth, but that risk only can be endured collectively. Risk is evenly distributed by another kind of "civilizational" method in which knowledge plays a crucial part. Risk perception and risk evaluation are both based on risk knowledge, and risk communication and crisis management have taken on new political meaning.
Using SARS as an example, before it has been fully determined how the virus spreads, people in Taiwan will see danger lurking behind every tree. It will also be difficult for those placed under home quarantine to avoid getting a bad reputation.
Quite a few epidemic prevention measures may be the result of overreaction, but our current knowledge does not guarantee safety. "Risk rationality" therefore implies some kind of more complete self-rescue, and behavior has become based on expert opinion and hearsay. Only the gods know how effective that is.
However, different forms of risk draw different social responses. Some risks break through the restrictions of social classes and national borders, while some create new divisions and inequalities. SARS, for example, seems to reinforce social ostracism, labeling the homeless, Chinese immigrants and AIDS patients as high risk groups.
On the other hand, if we are to block out all possible external viruses that might enter Taiwan, the nation may not only have to close hospitals, but we may even have to close the whole island off, in the greatest backlash to globalization so far.
We can also see that the further the influence of risk extends, the less predictable the resulting political effects. Similar developments can be seen in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China: if leaders are able to successfully fight the epidemic, they prove their ability to lead, and consolidate their hold on power.
If their anti-epidemic achievements are less than desired, however, the legitimacy of their rule will be in doubt. In China, it might even lead to a crisis that may rock the government.
Of course, the situation in Tai-wan may be a bit more complicated than that. Because the epidemic first spun out of control in Taipei, the question of whether it was the responsibility of the central or the local government will become a point of contention in risk politics.
The only comfort in the current situation of fear and turmoil is the constant duality of risk. In addition to being destructive, risk also expands our understanding of and the importance we attach to responsibility. Mankind must not only consider thoroughly the rationality of the mechanisms for the creation, dissemination, prevention and control of risk that modern civilization has created, but when it comes to the relationship between the individual and the group, we must also consolidate a mutual ethics of responsibility to make sure that civilization remains sufficiently strong to overcome ignorance and fear, thus returning society to "normality."
In this respect, if SARS improves self-restraint as people discover the frightening results of someone acting irresponsibly, then at least that could be seen as risk-induced enlightenment.
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor of sociology at National Chengchi University and chairman of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers