Post-Modernism

Prior to the modern age, the industrial revolution (or pre-modernism) was

characterized by man discovering ways to harness the elements of nature and his collective capabilities to expand industrial output, and to make products and goods accessible to the

vast majority through commercial innovations. Pre-modernism was succeeded by

modernism, which emerged as technology and science discovered application in modeling

techniques to control the effects of natural or human phenomena. According to Ulrich Beck, the found ability to control these phenomena is what ultimately created our “risk-society”,

which as David Garland warns is dangerously “spinning out of control”. [14] Many of these risks generated through modernization never eventually become realized, yet they are capable of causing widespread panic or concern. An example of this occurrence happened during the rush to ensure computers didn’t crash globally following the changeover of computer clocks at the start of the new millennium which could have resulted in less panic if society were more reflexive in its modernization strategy. Reflexive Modernization is when we confront the risks that are fabricated and introduced by society [14], and this

confrontation is necessary to reduce the complexities that hinder progress. Eventually this phase will pass, and society will transition to post-modernism where we begin to have productive conversations about risk by synthesizing multiple theories across various

domains, questioning the actual value of progress, and analyzing all the information collected from previous lessons to form a new model for dealing with the uncertainties and risks society will face. This new model or paradigm will signal the end of modernism, and usher in a new school of thought to help us cope with the 21st Century and the Post-Modern period. 3.4.1 Effects of Modernism.

In modern times, perceptions of new threats and catastrophes are being conceived more quickly than society has time to react and manage these realizations. Society places an enormous amount of pressure on politicians to solve our problems because the complexity of problems has become so great that individuals are incapable of assessing risks alone. The

evaluation of food and drugs is one such example of where government regulators are needed to verify the safety of products because citizens do not have the expertise or time to make these conclusions for themselves in addition to all the other threats that pose a hazard. Once a food or drug has been classified as “safe”, citizens can consume these products with

reasonable assurance that their safety has been essentially guaranteed. One of the primary motivations behind modernism is to overcome any scarcity or need, but this cyclical effort resulted in developed technologies that came with unanticipated costs. [16] This cycle created a surplus of risks and costs that now far exceed the original benefits those

technologies were intended to bring. In addition to coping with these risks and costs, citizens must develop skills to utilize these new technologies. This began around the mid-20th

Century when magazines began including sections that provided demonstrations on how to put these new technologies to use. Since this point, individuals have developed personalized curriculums to self-educate themselves on everything ranging from household appliances to computing technologies. Internet Computing Technologies (ICTs) energized this

development when individuals gained access to almost limitless amounts of information. This Google and Wikipedia-fueled boom helped expand this revolution, and created a new phenomenon called the “Death of Expertise”. [40] The “death of expertise” is incredibly dangerous and represents the collapse of dialogue and trust between professionals and non- professionals. The dangers of this collapse become evident when diseases, once thought eradicated, re-emerge due to the opposition to vaccines supported by non-professional bloggers. Social media has also enabled individuals to amplify their voices and discount the advice of experts by “becoming as loud as the opposing 999,999”. [M. Hopper, personal communication, 2016] Prior to social media, it was difficult to quickly generate an

opposition or unify a small cultural sub-set due to communicative limitations or regulated media. The elements of social deconstruction and globalization have combined to form the process of individualization. Individualization is a process to achieve and maximize

fundamental freedoms, and this process has hindered society’s ability to collectively reflect and respond to ideas. Ulrich Beck defines individualization as “a process of dis-embedding from a person’s social environment, and embedding into a world ordered and revealed by technology”. [16, p. 26] There have been several responses to modernism, and two of those are unfettered capitalism and religious fundamentalism. [15] Both oppose modernism, but ironically embrace the capabilities introduced by it. Modernism has also led to an erosion of trust between science and religion where each are in constant competition, and this erosion has led people to trust neither and seek out the answers for themselves which has further accelerated the process of individualization. This cycle must end otherwise the social fabric that unifies us all will fall apart, but there are academics who believe the qualities that characterize a post-modern period will enable society to find stability and security for the future. Before we can get there, there are several challenges that must be overcome. 3.4.2 Transitional Challenges.

The primary challenges to overcoming the problems created by modernization and transitioning to a period of post-modernism are finding solutions to reducing the effects of compounding complexities, the process of individualization, and the growing challenge to expertise. As each new risk materializes, a separate function or specialization is required to contain this risk, and this rate of growth in risks corresponds to advances in technology. Reflexive Modernization is essential in reducing the complexities created by risk materialization by confronting these risks early in development. The deconstruction of

systems, bureaucracies, and identities could also help to reduce complexity by turning larger problems into smaller ones and solving those smaller ones individually. A model that adjusts to the granularity of the problem is one such technique. Post-Normal Science, as suggested by Jakob Arnoldi in [14], is another suggestion to reducing social complexities by presenting values to the public as opposed to assumptions because trust is lost in the experts when their positions or conclusions shift. Post-normal science would also alleviate the challenges presented by individualization. Individualization is unlikely to cease expanding, and because of this process people desire to see the information for themselves, self-educate on the risk variables, and then compare their own analysis against the recommendations or conclusions of experts. This cross-comparison leads into the third and final transitional challenge where society must find a common balance between non-professionals and professionals. The need for experts that specialize in various specialties will never disappear, but neither will the public’s desire to understand how these experts formed their conclusions. Accepting the following terms between the common person and the expert will enable both to succeed in a post-modern world: (1) the expert isn’t right 100% of the time, (2) the expert is more likely than the common person to be right in their area of specialization, (3) expertise is a result of certified education and a wealth of experience, (4) a common person’s understanding of a specialty cannot surpass that of the expert simply by browsing the web, and (5) the common person’s analysis will always have less value than the expert’s in the eyes of an outsider. [40] When asked how capable common people are in drawing effective conclusions for

themselves using the information available, LTC Hopper feels that “that reliance on expertise will always be necessary for good decision-making and is crucial practices in making sound judgments.” [M. Hopper, personal communication, 2016] By overcoming these challenges

and developing a framework that synchronizes the multiple risk management theories and approaches mentioned throughout this study, it will become possible to create a model that is equally functional, objective, and optimal for those assessing risk in the post-modern world.