2. Polythetic Concept of Risk

This idea was then little further developed by Steve Rayner, he was talking about polythetic concept of risk and that in generally, we consider risk is the probability of an adverse event and the magnitude of his consequence right, something will happen, an adverse event will happen and it has some consequences.

Steve Rayner's concept suggests that risk should not just be viewed in terms of the probability of events occurring and the consequences these events might cause. Traditional definitions focus mainly on numbers and outcomes, yet Rayner argues that risk is much broader than this basic expectation. It encompasses the perceptions and interpretations of risks by different people, influenced by their backgrounds and beliefs.

Consider a restaurant that has a high rating on a food review website. For one person, the risk of eating there may seem low because they trust the reviews. For another who has had food poisoning before, even a small risk of unsanitary conditions might seem significant. This shows how perceptions shape our understanding of risk.

So, we are talking about this that how one see different way of looking at the risk from their cultural perspective so, it is not that risk is objective and his hazard dependent but it is more that how people are culturally when oriented, how their perception values are met as we see in each cases; individuals, egalitarian, hierarchists and fatalists.

Risk is not universally understood; it varies with cultural background. Different groups perceive risk based on their beliefs and social structures. For example, individualists may focus on personal responsibility and fear risks that limit their freedom, while egalitarians might rally against risks that bring about social injustice. Hierarchists fear risks that disrupt their established social order, whereas fatalists believe risks are beyond control and become resigned to them.

Imagine a community where a factory wants to build a new plant. An individualist might support it because they see economic opportunity. An egalitarian may oppose it due to potential pollution affecting the community's health, a hierarchist might worry this plant disrupts social order, and a fatalist might think there’s nothing they can do about it anyway. Each of these reactions reflects a different cultural perspective on risk.

But he is arguing that risk is more than that risk actually a kind of perceptions, it varies from one person to another, there is no one meaning, risk is more polythetic, so he got this philosophical idea okay, from Wittgenstein, he is asking that to for you what is the meaning of a game okay, for if you look at the game, you will not see something that is common to all game.

Rayner's polythetic concept of risk likens the definition of risk to the concept of 'game' as discussed by philosopher Wittgenstein. Just like games have various forms and rules but share no singular characteristic that defines them, risk encompasses a range of perceptions and understandings, not limited to one definition. Each person may interpret risk based on their personal experiences, leading to a diverse understanding of what risk truly is.

Think of different board games. While Monopoly, Chess, and Poker are all games, they vary greatly in rules and play styles. A player might love strategy games but not enjoy luck-based ones. Similarly, how people perceive risk may vary greatly depending on their experiences and beliefs.

So, he is offering that for that we can have a kind of model which is called TLC; trust, liability and consent okay.

The TLC model introduced by Rayner adds layers of complexity to risk perception. Trust involves faith in the parties involved (like experts or authorities), liability relates to who is responsible if things go wrong, and consent reflects the agreement among stakeholders about risks. All three aspects must be considered together when evaluating risk, making it clear that risk management is not just about statistics but also about relationships and responsibilities.

Imagine a group deciding to start a community garden in a shared space. Trust among the members ensures they feel comfortable sharing responsibilities. If plants fail due to weather, members need to discuss who would handle costs (liability) and how they would agree on potential changes for future seasons (consent). This illustrates how trust and cooperation play crucial roles in managing risks.

Like, in case of nuclear power plant that if we want to tell people what should be done, we should can consider this; this TLC concept okay.

When discussing high-risk technologies like nuclear power, applying the TLC model is vital. Stakeholders need to establish trust about the project, clarify who takes on liability in case of accidents, and reach a consensus on what is acceptable risk. This comprehensive approach acknowledges that decisions about technology are not only technical but also socially and ethically complex.

In a town debating whether to build a nuclear power plant, residents would need trust in the safety regulations, understand who is liable if there is a problem, and collectively agree on terms of use. This example highlights how community engagement and transparency can shape perceptions and acceptance of significant risks.

--