著者

井口 暁

出版者

社会学研究会

雑誌

ソシオロジ (ISSN:05841380)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.59, no.2, pp.21-38, 2014-10-31 (Released:2019-05-24)

参考文献数

18

---

A purpose of this paper is to reconstruct an idea of “attribution conflict” in risk sociology implicated by Niklas Luhmann and to clarify its significance in the “Post-Fukushima” era in Japan. First, this paper distinguishes two different aspects of Luhmann’s distinction of danger and risk and clarifies two core perspectives derived from them. On the one hand, “attribution analysis” focuses on under which social conditions attribution of danger becomes valid or is transformed to attribution of risk and vice versa. On the other hand, “analysis of risk evaluation conflict” focuses on how social conflicts over risk evaluation between decision-maker and those affected occur and proceed. Subsequently, it will be pointed out that the idea of attribution conflict as third perspective in Luhmann’s risk sociology remains unclear even in his articles within risk sociology and thus has not been focused in previous studies.Second, this paper attempts to reconstruct the idea by focusing his articles not only in risk sociology but also outside of it. In “Social Systems” (1984), Luhmann discussed more clearly on a situation of attribution conflict derived from attribution error between actor and observer based on social psychological attribution theory. And his general discussion can be transformed into context of risk sociology. As a result of transformation, it will be clarified that attribution conflict over risk and danger can arise from the fact that decision-maker tend to perceive (attribute) its own risk as natural or artificial danger and to impose his responsibility on natural events or others, while those affected sometimes tend to perceive apparently natural danger as its own danger, that is, risk derived from others as decision-maker. Finally, this paper concludes that further development of the theory of attribution conflict becomes more important in the “Post-Fukushima” era. It’s because several actors in Japanese society differently perceive the causes of and responsibilities for Fukushima nuclear disaster (for example, Tsunami, earthquake, human error of electric power company or mistake of Japanese nuclear power policy, etc.), and thus the attribution conflict seems to be caused in Japan in reality.