Danger, risk and security: a theoretical and empirical study

ENA family of definitions for the concept of risk can be distinguished with common features but clear disjunctures resulting from ontological differences in orientation to social research. The deepest disjuncture is between objectivist and subjectivist approaches. Giddens' critical theory transcends this divide with the concept of structuration and the recognition that empirical research is constrained by the double hermeneutic. The cultural theory of risk, the focus of this thesis, has subjectivist origins in anthropology and the first task is to define two key concepts - culture and power - in critical theoretic terms. The second task is to address epistemological concerns relating to the practice of social research. The dominant theory-testing approach is critiqued and an alternative theory-building approach is set out. The theory-building approach is operationalised around an intensive case study in rural Lithuania in the period since independence from the Soviet Union. Social (cultural) institutions are facilitative of social power and changes at the macro-level during the transition - in particular the ousting of the hierarchical Soviet government and the privatisation of the collective farms - undermined the social resources available. The cultural theory of risk is applied as an interpretative toolbox and the rises in unemployment and crime are identified as dangers which effect not only material income but also key institutions of self-sufficiency and private property. Adaptive strategies are described in grid/group terms as being 'low group'. The absence of institutional support for market interactions implies constraint under 'high grid' conditions. The villagers' perceptions of the future reflect this lack of agency and the pattern of blame attribution within the village is also discussed.