Abstract
This introduction briefly describes the relational trajectory between Ulrich Beck and Asia in the last few years. It draws particular attention to his last words about the role of Asia in the global risk community. Beck began to speak of the concept of metamorphosis in the 2014 Seoul conference as the correct key to understanding emancipatory catastrophism that he had expressed in the 2013 Potsdam conference. He was fascinated by the explanatory power of this concept and was driven to complete a book to explain the cosmopolitan change of the world from this perspective. With his advocacy of cities as cosmopolitan transformers, he urged Asian cities, particularly Seoul, to initiate ‘United Cities of Asia’ for a cosmopolitan cooperation for risk governance. Beck also suggested ‘a parliament of risk actors’ as a practical task to be realized in the future. In this introduction the author attempts to trace back the formation of these ideas by focusing on the interaction between Beck and Asia before his sudden passing.
On 22 December 2014, I had a Skype conversation with Ulrich Beck. During our hour-long call from Beijing to Munich, we had a discussion on how to carry out the Seoul Project on participatory risk governance, which was set to begin in 2015. Beck expressed his enthusiasm for the project and suggested that we try to form ‘a parliament of risk actors in Asia’ as a practical accomplishment of the research.
At the time, I had no idea that it would be my last conversation with Beck. After his sudden passing just 10 days after our call, I came to realize that his final words to me were his last wish. I felt that this contained the essence of Beck’s cosmopolitan imagination, or what made his approach distinctive from other cosmopolitan ones. Thus, I take it as my liberty in this introduction to trace back to how this idea might have emerged, since it has something to do with an interesting cosmopolitan task in Asia that is related to the topic of this special section.
Beck began to describe the situation and consequences of climate change in terms of emancipatory catastrophism at the Potsdam workshop held in late November of 2013. Stemming from the tradition of critical theory, this concept was challenging and revealing as applied to climate change. At the same time, Beck identified cities – particularly global cities – as cosmopolitan transformers, distinguished from nation-states, which he defined as preoccupied with vested interests.
When Beck came to Seoul in July 2014, he introduced a new concept of metamorphosis as a key to further explain his concept of emancipatory catastrophism. The public response and academic debate on those two concepts were intense and stimulating. Based on this experience, several dialogue papers were published (posthumously, for Beck) in the January 2015 issue of Current Sociology. Of particular significance in this connection is Beck’s public lecture at Seoul’s city hall and his dialogue with the mayor of Seoul, Park Wonsoon, on 10 July 2014. It was here that Beck mentioned the idea of ‘United Cities of Asia’, with an emphatic appeal to the city of Seoul to become a pioneer in the direction of cosmopolitan risk governance. Mayor Park expressed gratitude towards this suggestion and soon requested Beck to form and lead the aforementioned Seoul Project.
In this way, Beck was well-received in Seoul. An avenue had opened up to link him to Asia in a practical rather than technical framework. At the Paris workshop on big data and cosmopolitan research held shortly before his death, Beck stressed the need for cooperation between his Cosmo-Climate research team and the Asian researchers to incorporate the Seoul Project into his broader vision of cosmopolitan transformation and research methodology. Two weeks later, during our Skype conversation, Beck indicated that he had got the idea of a parliament of risk actors from Bruno Latour, whom he met in Paris. He also said that he was working on his new book, The Metamorphosis of the World, every night in order to publish it as soon as possible. He strongly believed that the book would provide a completely new way of looking at the world.
As revealed by these episodes, Beck was a hard worker driven by his deep commitment. His sudden death was a severe blow and fatal loss, as stated in the articles dedicated to his memory in Global Dialogue (Vol. 5, No. 2, 2015). However, Beck’s memory is kept alive in Europe, Latin America and in Asia as well. In Seoul, a memorial ceremony was held on 17 March 2015 following an international conference on ‘The Challenge of Risk Society and the Future of East Asia’. Mayor Park delivered a touching tribute address and Buddhist memorial rites were presided over by a famous monk, Ven. Myoung-Jin, whom Beck and his wife Elisabeth had met during their 2008 Seoul visit. A speech by a diplomat from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany and a sorrowful performance of the haegeum, a Korean traditional instrument, were also part of the program.
Indeed, this special section is intended to explore and promote further cooperation between the Western and the Asian sociologists in line with the legacy from Beck, as inspired by EARN (Europe-Asia Research Network; www.EARNglobal.org), which Beck and I created during his 2014 Seoul visit. The long journey towards this section began with my letter to the editor of Theory, Culture & Society in January 2015, exploring a special section on Beck. After a positive response came back in March, I actively solicited papers from relevant scholars by sending out letters with guidelines for contributions. In July, I sent TCS the seven papers that had been selected according to the predetermined criteria, along with the text of Beck’s Nagoya speech of 2010. Ultimately, TCS decided to publish only five papers, and after reviews and revisions, the special section finally came to fruition.
The authors of this section all have special connections to Beck. Anders Blok and David Tyfield are members of his Cosmo-Climate research group. They have done extensive research on the cosmopolitan developments in East Asia. Blok attempted to link Beck’s theory to the empirical studies of urban climate policies in East Asia. Tyfield focused on low carbon innovation in China and its cosmopolitan significance. Daniel Levy has long collaborated with Beck with respect to methodological cosmopolitanism, particularly on cosmopolitan memory as a distinctive field of human rights research. Michel Wieviorka has also collaborated with Beck to create and strengthen a critical space of sociological intervention in this world. Finally, together with Young-Hee Shim and Young-Do Park, I have attempted to link Beck’s cosmopolitan sociology to the Tianxia worldview of China and the neo-Confucian concept of Tianxia publicness.
Originally, this special section was intended to draw attention to the emerging interplay between Beck’s theory and concrete cosmopolitan policies and imagination in Asia. However, in view of the distinctive quality of Beck’s last wish, which advocates neither a state-centered nor an expert-oriented but a bottom-up approach, this endeavor may be nothing more than an initial attempt. The cosmopolitan challenge is at once significant and ambivalent in East Asia. Perhaps we still have a long way to go; yet, the influence of Beck’s advocacy of emancipatory catastrophism and cosmopolitan solidarity will continue to grow in East Asia since it is clear that risks as unintended consequences of rapid growth are becoming ever more acutely recognized and pronounced in this region. In this light, I hope that this special section becomes a useful springboard towards the achievement of Beck’s last wish.
Footnotes