由「風險社會」開始，到近年來標榜的「第二現代」，貝克已是目前德國社會學界的明星，匯聚了相當數量的學者在共同的口號之下集結各自的研究成果。本文有興趣的則是貝克的理論架構，把他與之前重要的德國社會學家之理性化批判連結起來，從批判科學理性的角度，來看他把當代社會比喻為不確定性的社會是否恰當。本文的結論認為，若把「風險」完全歸咎於工具理性的失敗，並且用「反思意識」的有無來界定新時代則未免牽強。但另一方面來說，融合後現代理論觀點的「第二現代」則是德國社會學對於如何抑制工具理性獨大最積極的嘗試之一，在規範策略上則傾向了韋伯的建議，並擺脫了韋伯對人類命運的悲觀看法。

Since the publication of Risk Society, Ulrich Beck has become one of Germany’s leading sociologists. Now, many social scientists— including Beck, Giddens and Lash—in many different fields, are flocking together to conduct their research under the motto of “second modernity”: a new sociological paradigm through which they seek to escape the controversies troubling “modern” and “post-modern” theories. This study concerns the other aspect of Beck’s theory: the critique of instrumental rationality, which is also contained in the original thesis of the risk society. In this way we discover a fundamental problem in Beck’s work. At the beginning he ascribes modern risks to the failure of instrumental rationality, but since he cannot find any objective criterion to prove that modern life is riskier than the earlier ones, there is consequently no epoch of “second modernity.” And when he identifies “risk” with “uncertainty,” all societies in the human history must be considered “risk societies.” On the other hand, Beck could not tame instrumental rationality without components of the “post-modern” theories in his thesis, which is among the most progressive attempts to solve the problems of rationalization. Finally, Beck’s normative strategy seems to be like that of Max Weber, who employs a “Handlungsmaxime” instead of a value system for which we should be searching. But it is also important that Beck holds a more optimistic standpoint in contrast to Weber.