Editorial Board:
Editor:
George H. Conklin,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Board:
Rebecca Adams,
 UNC-Greensboro

Bob Davis,
 North Carolina
 Agricultural and
 Technical State
 University

Catherine Harris,
 Wake Forest
 University

Ella Keller,
 Fayetteville
 State University

Ken Land,
 Duke University

Miles Simpson,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Ron Wimberley,
 N.C. State University

Robert Wortham,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Editorial Assistants

John W.M. Russell,
 Technical
 Consultant

Austin W. Ashe,
 Duke University

® 

Volume 8, Number 1

Spring/Summer 2010

Book Review of
Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle

Reviewed by Korstanje Maximiliano
 University John F. Kennedy
Argentina

Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Sunstein, Cass R. 2005.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 225. ISBN 52184823-7. 

    September 11 represents for United States, as well as the world, the start of a new era. Even though many countries cope with terrorists in their own soil (such as Spain, United Kingdom even part of Latin America), the World Trade Center attacks signified a large psychological impact on security for citizens of the United States. With the passing of years, Americans saw how their day-to-day style of life substantially changed.  Under such a context, Sunstein presents a striking but polemic work entitled Laws of Fear. 

    Sunstein´s preliminary remarks deal with the question why people are frightened, or, as an alternative, why people feel safe when they should feel fear.  Sunstein first examines the role played by rationality in the process of dread and its consequent relationship with democracy. From his point of view, in a democracy, or at least in a deliberative democracy, the debate predominates over other forms of deliberation to decrease somewhat  involuntary errors.  This is the point that distinguishes a deliberative democracy from a demagogic populism. In other words, the state of a disaster that involves a community might be prevented or partly mitigated whenever the issues that impinge on the public life are previously discussed, debated and forecasted. This belief would explain the reasons as to why democratic societies have more instruments to face disasters than totalitarian or authoritarian ones. Whereas the latter does not provide their citizens with the necessary steps to evaluate the pre-existing risks, the former invests a considerable amount of capital in the process of mitigation and preparedness for natural catastrophes. 

    The problem of public fear is inextricably interrelated to the extent potential hazards are censored by the state. Sunstein goes on to acknowledge "democracies do best if they abstract from the largest questions and try to obtain a consensus from people who disagree on, or are unsure about, how to resolve those questions. In the context of fear, I suggest, it is possible to obtain just such a consensus… I understand fear to depend on some kind of judgment that we are in danger (Sunstein 2005:3)." 

    Starting from the premise that fears are pre-determined by previous beliefs rooted in the ways of perceiving disrupting events, people seem to be prone to experience serious risks in matters that are relatively safe whereas in some circumstances avoid real threats because of ignorance or even imprudence. His main thesis is that the precautionary principle stems from a focal belief about health, safety and environment born in the core of European enlightenment during XVIIIth and XIXth centuries. Nonetheless, fear like other underlying emotions works as a cascade or better a virus that contaminates others hosts. In prospective, the social day-to-day interaction determines what can be considered a frightful event. 

    Basically, Sunstein criticizes the thesis that points out that Europe accepts the precautionary principle while United States refuses it. Since Europeans overtly admit that the world should be contemplated within a margin of risk, there will be some gaps at times when capitalist states take the necessary steps to secure the life of their citizens. Conversely, American society seems to be unconcerned regarding the risks of global warming or genetic food modification policies. This suggests an erroneous idea that the United States requests a proof (evidence) of potential dangers to take action.  A false opposition between United States and Europe leads scholars to a misleading direction in their reflection about impacts of fear. 

    Sunstein emphasizes on the precautionary principle should be reconsidered taking into account the following relevant points. 
 

• The principle of precaution very well gives origin to the risks it tries to prevent. 
• Over-exposure to the precautionary doctrine predisposes public opinion to panic and inaction.
• This precautionary principle is self-blinding and hides other dangers which should be faced.  Societies are more interested in creating their own fears in order for ignoring the importance of the real hazards. 
• The principle of precaution often initializes a set of different set of criminal justice proceedings, subverting the normal processes.

    A problem in this book that Sunstein is unable to resolve the problem of what contingent actually means.  Also, the question immediately presents itself is how law can calculate sentences based just on speculation which is also based on the somewhat fuzzy principle of precaution. After all, judgments should be sustained by events that have already taken place. Even though the probabilities of harm are serious, how does one determine action about an offense which has never taken place?   These two slippery questions reveal certain theoretical limitations around the concept of precautionary principle. 

    This book is recommended for whose readers concerned about the perception of risk, hazards and the necessary policies to prevent the panic in general, not only to the mitigation of reality-based risks, but also the assessment of under what circumstances fear becomes panic. 
 
 

 Return to Sociation Today Spring/Summer 2010