In 1987, Plough and Krimsky wrote in Science, Technology and Human Values (a publication of Harvard and MIT) that risk communication was, “an organizing theme for a set of diverse but conceptually related problems concerning the political management of public risk perceptions.”

TWP is above all, a matter of recognizing the properly political nature of the perception formation process, that is, our perceptions of risks and of other public concerns, is not neutral or simply spontaneous, nor is the notion of risk.

To paraphrase Newton’s third law, one could metaphorically say that “to every perception there is a reaction”, and in this equation politics and power play a determining role, both in its formation and in its management.

• Risk perception as politics: values, cultural cognitions, process issues-who decides, power, trust, responses, conflict/controversy (P. Slovic).

Thinking Politically:

• Relevance of (soft) power in the formation of perceptions – who has the power to decide how society should be organized and function, and to allocate resources (H. Lasswell, J. Nye)
• Role of cultural cognitions, worldviews.
• Social amplification/attenuation of risk (cultural and communication politics)
• Competing and conflicting conceptions of risk perceptions and cost-benefit narratives /discourses– risk perception as a cultural and political dispute

Working Politically:

• Managing/changing perceptions as a soft power tool, perceptions of the public, experts, politicians, decision and policy makers (perception-shaping capabilities)
• Role of perceptions in societal responses and in political & policy decision making (political tool to reduce power gaps – promoting more equitable distribution of benefits and resources)
• Risk perception as a preventive tool, as a social skill (empowerment) to respond to threats, emergencies, navigate adversities and emerging challenges.