リスク・コミュニケーションにおける摩擦の問題 ―ニクラス・ルーマンの社会学の観点を参照して―

“LCS: Less Conflictual Solutions” is a methodology of “functional　tolerance” theory proposed by Yoichiro Murakami. Takeaki Komatsu regards the concept of “tolerance” defined by Murakami as the one which shows a necessary condition for information senders to understand the context of their communication with information receivers or to build a new context they will be able to share. This definition appears when　Komatsu criticizes the premises of risk communication. This paper aims to reconsider LCS and　functional tolerance theory by analyzing Komatsu’s argument based on Niklas Luhmann’s sociology. According to Komatsu, one of the main interests of risk communication is how to convince information receivers. It means that the success of risk communication for information senders is to gain information receivers’ trust in their risk management. However, such an assumption is not self-evident if referred to Luhmann’s comments on risk communication. He distinguishes risks from dangers. Risks belong to the decision-makers, and dangers belong to those affected. In other words, risks are the losses recognized as the results of a decision, and dangers are the ones recognized as what are provided from the outside. There is a gulf between the decision-makers and those affected. What Luhmann pointed out is important to reexamine LCS. Murakami says that it is impossible to achieve the unique solution as the least-conflictual one. Therefore, making a compromise is necessary to reach a less conflictual solution. However, LCS cannot be a methodology to overcome a gulf between the decision-makers and those affected. On the other hand, Murakami emphasizes the importance of seeking a possibility to find a better solution, not the best one. If a person places absolute trust in the option selected already, he/she will lose sight of the possibility of choosing a better solution. He/she should be conscious that their present choice is tentative. Murakami regards that such a person is functionally tolerant. Being functionally tolerant is necessary to improve a situation by recognizing a gulf between the decision-makers and those affected, though it will not be resolved completely. In this meaning, Komatsu’s definition of Murakami’s “tolerance” is incorrect. Komatsu’s criticism against risk communication can be applied to LCS, but not to functional tolerance theory itself. However, this does not mean that functional tolerance theory should be accepted uncritically. It will be possible to revise LCS and functional tolerance theory by referring to Luhmann’s view.