2.4. TLC Model

So, we have to help each other to protect as our self from the threat of hazard; from the threat of risk and then we have hierarchical okay, they believe that nature can be exploited freely but there is certain rules, particular way they define there is a limit of it, okay because this limit is put because they have a very strict authority so, the authorities or the higher people those who have or the Kings or the top people they know how to do it.

This chunk discusses how different cultures perceive risk. It introduces the idea of a hierarchical perspective where there are rules and limits placed by those in authority, such as leaders or experts in society. These figures determine how much nature can be exploited, indicating that there are boundaries to this exploitation to prevent risk.

Imagine a school where a principal sets strict rules about how students can use park resources, like trees and fields. The principal believes that while it's okay for students to have fun, there are limits to ensure safety and a sustainable environment. This principal's authority serves as a parallel to how societal leaders govern the use of natural resources.

So, they are the most vulnerable so here, we look at the attitude of 2 risk; one is individualistic, the fear risk that would limit the market and constraints their ability to trade freely. Egalitarian; use the threat of catastrophic risk to generate solidarity, for example, global warming. Hierarchists fear risk that would upset the ranking of people okay. For example; crime or social deviance.

Here, the text defines four different attitudes toward risk: individualistic, egalitarian, hierarchist, and fatalist. The individualistic approach focuses on personal fear which can restrict market operations. The egalitarian viewpoint uses catastrophic risks, like climate change, to foster community solidarity. Hierarchists worry about risks that could disrupt social rankings, while fatalists believe that these risks are uncontrollable and therefore not worth fearing.

Consider a group of friends picking a restaurant. An individualistic friend may avoid a new, untested place due to fear it might be bad and limit their dining freedoms. An egalitarian might choose to support a local restaurant to fight against corporate chains. Meanwhile, a hierarchist friend may avoid a restaurant that is too popular, fearing a loss of their social status, while a fatalist may simply suggest going with the flow, believing it doesn’t matter where they eat.

This idea was then little further developed by Steve Rayner..., 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.

Steve Rayner enhances the understanding of risk by suggesting it is a polythetic concept, meaning that it cannot be strictly defined in one way. Like a game, where different types exist without a single unifying feature, risk varies significantly based on individual perceptions. Each person's view of risk is shaped by diverse factors, leading to different interpretations and responses to risk.

Think about different types of games people play. Soccer, chess, and Monopoly all fall under the category of 'games,' but they differ greatly in rules and objectives. Someone might enjoy chess for its strategy while another finds excitement in the unpredictability of soccer. Similarly, how individuals perceive risk differs; one might view a financial investment as a chance to gain wealth, while another may see it as a threat to financial stability.

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 introduces three key components—trust, liability, and consent—that are essential for understanding and managing risk. Trust refers to the belief that stakeholders will act responsibly; liability defines who is responsible if something goes wrong, and consent ensures that all parties agree to the terms of engagement regarding risk. This model emphasizes that risk assessment should include these social factors rather than purely technical calculations.

Imagine planning a community garden. Before planting, neighbors need to trust that everyone will take care of their assigned plots (trust), understand who is responsible for maintaining the communal areas (liability), and agree on the rules and responsibilities for use of the garden (consent). Just as this collaborative approach ensures the garden thrives, integrating TLC helps manage risks effectively.

--