Recent decades have seen a proliferation of risk discourses in Europe and globally. However, even though the notion of risk has become commonplace in public debate as well as in professional practice and scholarly work, the characteristics of this shift towards risk and the driving forces behind it are still contested. Several sociological theories offer different explanations for the prominence of risk, linking it to the occurrence of new global risks, the change in the governing of societies and the growing prominence of individualist values. Attempts to explain these changes have largely remained in the different research traditions and thereby failed to develop a broader, thoroughly empirical understanding of the pervasiveness of risk in present-day societies.
To examine these issues, the Fellow developed a new research strategy—corpus sociology—which utilises linguistic research tools to examine changes in language and discourse as well as (social) contexts. On the basis of a case study of The Times (1785 to 2009) the Fellow produced an empirically grounded theory on risk which shows firstly, the relative ability of available theories to explain this historical shift towards risk in public debate after World War Two and, secondly, identifies the concrete developments which fostered risk language in the UK historically and in recent decades.
The action shows that the significant increase of at risk-expressions took place in the transition to the 1970s and 1980s which results from cultural and socio-structural changes, social strategies to manage risk as well as undesired events from large scale to individual disasters (compare Figure 1). These are accompanied by social conflicts, the negotiation of social reality and the discovery of undesired social issues (e.g. child abuse, famines). The research shows that risk language is mediated rather than caused by linguistic dynamics or changes in the newspaper production process but due to social issues. These changes have resulted in a new zeitgeist which is characterised by the tension between the rational management of social issues and the (unreasonable) exposure to risk.