Risk. It’s one of those things we all think we understand—until we actually have to make a decision about it. Then suddenly, the comforting binary of “safe” or “unsafe” melts away into a fog of opinions, assumptions, and, sometimes, marketing. The risk we perceive depends on who we ask, and how much they have riding on the answer.

Let’s start with the basics: What is risk? According to decision-makers (whether in politics, law, or corporate boardrooms), risk is something measurable, manageable, and something they can be held accountable for. Whether it's corporate liability or political reputation, someone, somewhere is always taking notes on whether they called it “safe” or “life-threatening.”

But while decision-makers are busy crunching data, stakeholders (read: the rest of us) have our own thoughts on the matter. One person’s “safe” might be another’s “absolutely no way I’m doing that.” And it’s not because we’re irrational—it’s because we’re bringing different people – decision-makers and stakeholders - to the table.

To illustrate, let's look at a few gems that I found online. These obviously are not ‘proper’ risk assessments, but almost function as Aldous Huxley’s ‘soma’. A drug that makes us happy, and not worry about uncertainty.

1. “Is it safe?”

“Yes, it [a cosmetic treatment that uses microwaves to heat and close visible veins in the human body] is safe… and medically approved by registered consultants.”

Those magic words: “medically approved” and “registered”. Never mind that microwaves in any other context make us jumpy. Here, we just need a white coat and a clipboard to feel reassured. After all, nothing says “totally fine” like veins sizzling shut under the careful supervision of a registered consultant, right?

2. “Is it safe?”

“Yes, it [taping your mouth to sleep better] is safe if you do it right.”

You’ve got to love the fine print on this one. “If you do it right.” Never mind that humans have been managing to sleep unassisted for millennia. What’s a little suffocation between friends, as long as you follow instructions?

3. “Is it safe?”

“Yes, it is safe to visit the Middle East, but you need to be aware that you are in a region still recovering and with still volatile parts.”

File this under “safe-ish.” Yes, there’s peace… mostly. And yes, you can visit. Just, you know, maybe avoid the regions where things blow up unpredictably. A nice adventure for the “it’ll never happen to me” crowd, maybe?

4. “Is it safe?”

“Yes, it is safe. Your safari guide will most likely have been born in the bush and grew up as a child poling themselves along the water… Your excursion will not put you in a dangerous situation, and if you are lucky enough to see an elephant, your poler has been in that situation a million times.”

This one’s for the thrill-seekers: if your guide most likely survived childhood and has been dodging elephants since birth, you’re golden. Totally safe. Especially if you’re the kind of person who defines safety as “hasn’t been trampled yet”.

Here's where things get fun: bridging the gap between these wildly different perceptions of risk. It’s not about arriving at some grand, unified truth—oh no, that would be far too easy. No, it’s about communication, a fancy word for "awkwardly acknowledging that other people see the world very differently than you do". Decision-makers have to navigate these waters, nodding along as stakeholders on one side demand tighter regulations while those on the other side just want fewer forms to fill out before they can start heating their veins.

So, next time you find yourself wondering “is it safe?” just remember—it depends on who you ask. And whether they’re wearing a white coat, holding a roll of tape in order to get you to sleep, or wielding a poling stick in Botswana.

Postscript:

This piece was inspired by Niklas Luhmann’s book Sociology of Risk, specifically chapter I, section III (pages 23-38 of the German version). We all use distinctions to label reality. For instance, we distinguish between positive and negative outcomes and we label and give meaning to events. Our distinctions often have a blind spot; while we’re making them, we are unaware of them. We then rely on other people to reflect and learn from potential errors. When we look at risk, specifically, this is a concept that arises from multiple distinctions and perspectives. We don’t factually describe a situation as dangerous or safe but we reconstruct phenomena from different perspectives. Risk becomes relevant when there’s a decision involved, as future outcomes are uncertain. Over time, risk has become associated with the possibility of future harm that is contingent on present decisions. This means that risk is something that could be avoided or managed through choice, and the potential consequences are directly linked to the decision taken. In cases of risk, responsibility falls on the decision-maker, while in cases of danger, the harm is attributed to external forces.

Thus, when we use the term ‘risk’, this involves the attribution of blame or accountability, especially when negative outcomes occur that can be linked to decisions. We then see risks as avoidable and contingent upon the decision-maker’s actions. In contrast, safety is the ideal state where such risks are minimized, though this is more of a goal than a reality.

Reference:

Luhmann, N. (1991), Soziologie des Risikos, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.

Illustration:

Safe Or Unsafe Free Activities online for kids in 1st grade by Carol Smith (tinytap.com)