The Achilles heel of conventional risk management is the counterfactual

I

The crux of counterfactual history is a present always not one way only. You want a counterfactual, but for which current interpretation or set of historical interpretations?

There are two moves that generate an answer, working like the blades of a scissors.

One devotes time and attention to “what is happening,” a state of affairs that can be interpreted in multiple different ways. The other devotes time and attention to “what has happened,” a state of affairs that could have turned out differently and so too the allied interpretations. Where the blades slice, they open up not only the contingent nature of events past and present, but also the recasting of what is and has been.

II

This is a problem when it comes to the instruments of risk assessment and management: The only way to get to any such tool is by following the shadow of its very problematic counterfactual history.

It’s not only that “risk” and “management” are historically contingent concepts with forgone alternatives. Their instruments and alternatives can be recast differently at any time.

Consider a city’s building code. Viewed one way, it is sequential interconnectivity (do this-now followed by then-that). But if cities also view their respective building codes as the means to bring structures up to or better than current seismic standards, then the code becomes a focal mechanism for pooled interconnectivity among developers and builders.

That neither is guaranteed should be obvious. That you in no way need recourse to the language of conventional risk management to conclude so should also be.