MODERNITY, RISK, AND REFLEXIVITY

Risk and Reflexivity: Anthony Giddens

1. Introduction

It is widely agreed in the discipline of sociology that sociology emerged out of the process of
modernization. The forerunners of sociology like Marx, Durkheim and Weber mostly have engaged
themselves with the question of modernity. In later period while appreciating the contribution of
modernism, its failure also widely acknowledged in the sociological literature. Among many,
Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck and Zygmunt Bauman are the prominent thinkers who all are engaged
with the ideas of risk, reflexivity, uncertainty and the fall out of modernism. Anthony Giddens is one
of the leading sociologists of the contemporary time. Giddens is popularly known to the sociological
world for his theory of structuration and his critical views on modern societies.

This module is divided into parts and includes some of the most influential works of Giddens which
he developed with the ideas of Modernity, Risk and Reflexivity. He has covered most of his
prominent ideas in his volume „Consequences of Modernity‟ (1990), in which he offers critical inputs
on modern societies. In this particular work he shows the differences between traditional societies and
modern societies. Giddens highlights the different aspects and facets of modernity, different
institutions of modernity, and dynamics of modernity and finally the risk in modern societies and
more emphatically the reflexive characteristics of modernity which differentiated modernity from pre-
modern societies.

The sub sections of module are as follows:

- Modernity and Anthony Giddens
- Dynamism in Modernity
- Reflexivity and Modernity
- Risk and Modern Society

2. Defining Modernity

In a simpler way of understanding, modernity is refereed to wide range of period and situation starting
from late 19th century. Although, the initiation of modernity can be referred to age of enlightenment,
where traditional ideas and dogmas were questioned as well rational ideas came into fore starting
from 17th century. Enlightenment entirely changed the European mind with the discovery and
invention of new theories and ideas which challenged the traditional notion of worldview in the
domain of natural sciences and social sciences. Marx viewed modern society in terms of capitalist
society; whereas Weber looks modern society in relation to the rise of rational institutions. On the
other hand, Durkheim holds that organic solidarity with the weakening of mechanical (collective
consciousness) is the initiation of modernity.

Modernity is generally associated with the following:

a. Rise of the nation state

b. Growth of tolerance as a political and social belief
c. Industrialization
d. Rise of capitalism
e. Discovery and colonization of the Non-Western world
f. Rise of representative democracy
g. Increasing role of science and technology
h. Urbanization
i. Proliferation of mass media

In addition, the 19th century can be said to add the following facets to modernity:
 a. Emergence of social science and anthropology
b. Romanticism and Early Existentialism
c. Naturalist approaches to art and description
d. Evolutionary thinking in geology, biology, politics, and social sciences
e. Beginnings of modern psychology
f. Growing disenfranchisement of religion
g. Emancipation

(Ref: http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/modernit.htm)

2.1 Modernity and Anthony Giddens

Giddens defines modernity as „a shorthand term for modern society of industrial civilization.
Portrayed in more detail, it is associated with (1) a certain set of attitudes towards the world, the idea
of the world as open or transformation by human intervention; (2) a complex economic institutions,
especially industrial production and a market economy; (3) a certain range of political institutions
including the nation-state and mass democracy . Largely as a result of these characteristics, modernity
is vastly more dynamic than any previous type of social order. It is a society- more technically a
complex of institutions - which unlike any preceding culture lives in the future rather than in the past‟
(Giddens & Pierson 1988). In this sense, Giddens distinguished the modern society from the previous
social order or from the traditional societies. In a simpler way he looks at modernity as “to modes of
social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and
which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence. This associate‟s modernity
with a time period and with an initial geographical location, but for the moment leaves its major
characteristics safely stowed away in a black box‟ (Giddens 1990). Thus modernity can be seen as a
phenomenon originated in Europe in 17th Century onwards and spread to the other parts of the globe
subsequently.

Marking the differences between pre-modern and modern social order, he talks about four basic
features of modernity. These he refers as the institutional dimensions of modernity:

a. Capitalism
b. Industrialism
c. Surveillance and
d. Military power.

For Giddens, the creation of modernity is linked up with the new capitalist economic order.
Capitalism is characterized by commodity production, private ownership of capital and property-less
wage labour and class system. Capitalism depends on the productive competitive markets, consumer,
prices etc. The second attribute to the modernity is industrialization. Modernity is a technology and
machine-based civilization to produce goods for the market. Industrialism also affects other spheres of
human life viz. communication transportation and domestic life. Giddens defines surveillance as „the
supervision of the activities of subject populations in the political sphere- although its importance as a
basis of administrative power is by no means confined to that sphere‟. Supervision may be direct and
based upon control of information. The control of means of violence- the military power is a
distinguished dimension of modernity which includes industrialization of war (See Section 6.2b).

2.2 Modernity & Post Modernity

Anthony Giddens in his book „The Consequences of Modernity‟ (1990) holds that we live in the age
of modernity not in the age of post modernity, more emphatically in the age of late modernity.
Different scholars argue that nowadays we stand in a new era and have coined it as the era of post
modernity. Giddens does except the features of the present era as referred by different post modern
scholars like Lyotard and labelling of the same as post modern era is refuted by him. Giddens opines
that modernity is not over. For him the controversies on postmodernity and modernity are largely
issues of philosophy and epistemology. Scholars like Lyotard, refers post modernity as a shift away
from attempts to ground epistemology and from faith in humanly engineered progress. The modernity
offers grand narratives and a continuity of past and present and predictable future; where post
modernity sees multiple narratives of claiming knowledge. For post modernists, systematic
knowledge about social organization can‟t be obtained. As opposed to such positions, Giddens argues
that we are put in the universe of events where we have not fully understood and large parts are
outside of our control, and new terminologies like post modernity is the outcome of such undefined
spaces. On the contrary, it is necessary to look again the nature of modernity. Giddens thus, making a
sharp contrast between early and late modernity, continues to insist the importance of using modernity
in spite of post modernity.

2.3 Discontinuities of Modernity

For Giddens, the modern institutions are unique and henceforth different from traditional one. To
understand the same it needs to see the discontinuities of modernity. He gives the following features
which distinguishes the discontinuities of modernity

a. The sheer pace of change: The rapidity of change in modern institutions are much more
higher than the pre-modern societies; although changes are also seen pre-modern societies,
but in terms of technology which also influences other spheres also are immense in modern
societies.

b. The scope of change: Due to interconnectivity of different places and areas in modern time
the scope of changes and social transformation are more rapid and touches the entire globe.

c. Nature of modern institutions: In the human civilization some institutions were never found
which are existed in the modern social order; such as political system of nation state,
dependence of production, commodification of products and wage labour.

3. Dynamism in Modernity

Modernity is a complex process. It is different from the traditional societies. The modernity is given
dynamism by three essential aspects:

1. Distanciation

2. Disembedding

3. Reflexivity

Distanciation refers to the time and space separation in modern time; where disembedding as Giddens
refers is the „lifting out‟ of social relations from local contexts and their restructuring across indefinite
spans of time and space. The third aspect is the reflexivity. For Giddens, modernity is a reflexive
process. Let us discuss these three aspects in details below.

3.1 Distanciation: Modernity in Time and Space

Giddens views that the time and space separation give dynamism to modernity. The „time‟ and
„space‟ in traditional and modern society can be conceived differently. Time and space in pre-modern
societies connected with physical place. In such societies time and space was linked together. For
example, „when‟ was associated with „where‟. But in modern societies time is separated from space
which he calls as distanciation. Giddens holds, „the time reckoning which formed the basis of day-to-
day life, certainly for the majority of the population, always linked time with place- and was usually
imprecise and variable. No one could tell the time of day without reference to other socio-spatial
markers: "when" was almost universally either connected with "where" or identified by regular
natural occurrences‟ (Giddens 1990). Most of the pre-modern societies developed calendars to
calculate time and ordering of space. To calculate time or any kind of day to day activities the pre-
modern societies linked time with space. Reference to any „time‟ may be morning, evening, or night
were tied to their local uses. Thus, before the invention of mechanical clock and diffusion of the same,
time was always understood in relation to space only. From the late 18 th century the mass diffusion of
mechanical clock, time became separated from space. A half an hour or an hour became universal. It
separated time from the space. It can be seen in calendars, railway timetables etc. The time became
uniform and abstract as well both of them have become empty phenomena. The world in modern
time having a unified calendar, dating system, globalized time zones which are quite different than the
pre modern time. The separation of time and space and referring them without physical locale became
abstract means of ordering social activity. The emptying of time took casual priority over the
emptying of „space‟. In pre-modern societies, space and place were interconnected. Most of the times
both were used synonymously. Emptying of space refers to separation of space from place. „Place‟ as
Giddens defines „is best conceptualized by means of the idea of locale, which refers to the physical
settings of social activity as situated geographically‟. In pre modern societies space and place
coincided as most of the population dominated by presence by localized activities. But with the
coming of modernity and abstract time, space is torn out from the place and place became increasing
phantasmagorical. Space became also abstract without associating of place. Thus, time and space in
modern societies became more abstract and standardized.

3.1.1Time-Space Separation and Modernity

The separation of time and space is key to the development of modernity. Giddens offers three basic
issues where time-space separation leads to modernity.

1. It is the prime condition of the process of disembedding, which Giddens says that the
distanciation of time-space is the major pre-requisite for the second source of dynamism of
modernity. (It will be discussed in details later)

2. The time-space separation gives the scope for the development of different rationalized
organisations. Bureaucracy, nation state are such organisations. These modern rationalized
institutions having inherent dynamism where they can connect the local and the global. This
was not possible in pre-modern societies. The inherent dynamism of such institutions affects
the lives of many people.

3. Time-space separation, according to Giddens, is related to „radical historicity, with modernity

depends upon modes of “insertion” into time and space unavailable to previous civilisations‟.
In this sense history is the systematic appropriation of past and helps to draw up the future.

3.2 Disembedding

Giddens defines disembedding as „lifting out of social relations from local contexts of interaction and
their restructuring across indefinite spans of time-space. Disembedding thus implies removal of social
relations from local context and restructuring across time-space. He cited two types of disembedding
mechanism those are involved in the development of modernity:
a. Symbolic Token
b. Expert systems
Symbolic token are „media of interchange‟ that can be „passed around‟ without regard to the specific
character of a group or individuals that handle them at any particular juncture. This is an abstract
system. Money, political legitimacy is the examples of symbolic token. Giddens describes how money
can be symbolic token which allows space distanciation. Money as a symbolic token which can be
exchanged regardless who use it.

Expert system is a „systems of technical accomplishment or professional expertise that organize large
areas of the material and social environments we live in today‟ (Giddens 1990: 27). According to
Giddens, the expert system removes the social relations from the immediacies of context. Expert
system is increasingly important in modern life. This removes the social relations from the
immediacies of everyday life. It builds faith in a body of expert knowledge. Giddens gives the
example of car driving or where without knowing the technology the actor keeps the trust over it.
Thus expert system gives the guarantee of performance over time and space. It separates time and
space.

3.2.1 Trust and Modern Society

The disembedding mechanism in modern society is based on trust. Giddens refers trust as the
fundamental to the institution of modernity. Pre-modern societies do not require trust to a significant
level as time-space separation distanciation is not great. But in modern societies, for him trust is
vested, not in individual but in abstract capacities (Giddens 1993). Trust is a particular kind of faith or
confidence which gives the reliability over the institutions. Giddens refers the following observations
on trust:
1. Trust is related to absence in time and space. The prime condition of trust is that it is not that
someone has lack of power, but having lack of information.
2. Trust is bounded up with contingency not with risk.
3. Trust is the link between faith and confidence.
4. Trust rests upon faith in correctness of principles of which an individual is ignorant.
5. Trust as defined by Giddens as confidence in reliability of a person or system regarding a
given set of outcome or events. Here confidence expresses a faith in probity or love of another
or correctness of abstract principles.
6. Trust exists in condition of modernity a) human activity is socially created b) the increased
transformative scope of human action
7. Trust reduces the danger of a particular type of action of an individual.
8. Trust is balanced with acceptable security risk.
9. The opposite of trust is not mistrust rather which is darker.

a. Reflexivity and Modernity

The third feature of modernity is reflexivity. Giddens argues that reflexivity is one of the key elements
of modernity which differentiated it from tradition. He contends that earlier societies to some extent
were modern, but such kind of modernization was a „simple modernization‟. The present modernity is
reflexive modernization. The contemporary societies offer a high degree of social reflexivity. He
offers the idea of „reflexive monitoring of action‟ by which Giddens means that it is the monitoring of
individual actions and others, more emphatically what is happening in wider social context. Men are
themselves responsible for the ongoing social conditions. In that senses the reflexive monitoring of
actions is the constant monitoring of actions to reduce risk and opportunities. The two key points of
reflexive modernity holds that individuals have increased knowledge which helps to reflexive
monitoring of actions. Reflexivity radicalizes the modernity.

The traditional societies reflexivity exists in the form of reinterpretation and clarification of tradition,
where in modern societies reflexivity having no one-to-one relation with past. Referring to reflexivity
in traditional societies and modern societies he said that in modern societies everything is open and
reflexive, including the reflection itself. Modernity replaced tradition, and the period is itself
unsettling and reflects uncertainty. A given body of knowledge, may be challenged or altered with
this reflexivity; which was not possible in pre-modern time. No knowledge in modernity is said to be
certain. The fundamental to reflexivity of modernity as a whole is that all empirical based knowledge
is to be reinterpreted and may be subverted. Reflexivity is thus central to the modern scepticism and
uncertainty.

Giddens views that in traditional societies reflexivity also exists but in the form of reinterpretation and
clarification of tradition. Here past is more weighted down than the future. He holds, „in pre-modern
civilizations reflexivity is still largely limited to the reinterpretation and clarification of tradition, such
that in the scales of time the side of the past is much more heavily weighed down than that of the
future‟. But in modern societies, the routinizations of daily works have no fundamental relations with
the past. The incoming information regularly altered the existing knowledge. As such, social
practices cannot be defended longer by appealing to tradition. Giddens refers to „wholesale
reflexivity‟ by which he implies tradition may continue in modern period too but at the same time
incoming knowledge is also recognized.

The reflexivity changes our behaviours too. He cites the examples of marriage, property, divorce - all
are based on statistics. The collection of the statistics to monitor the behaviour sans changes in
behaviour. In such sense, modernity is itself deeply intrinsically sociological. In modernity people
change their actions thereby changing their fate. Thus the idea of rationality propounded by
Enlightenment is challenged by modernity. He put forth the following arguments in support of this:

1. The appropriation of knowledge does not happen in a homogenous fashion as the society
have differential levels of power.

2. There is no rational basis of values.

3. The impact of unintended consequences: no matter how much we know, any actions will
always have unintended consequences; and

4. The reflexivity of modern social life blocks off the possibility of limiting these unintended
consequences: knowledge may be stable, but learning that knowledge makes it unstable.

(Ref: http://jamesarvanitakis.net/theorests/anthony-giddens/)

4. Risk and Modern Society

Ulrich Beck opines that we are no longer in the era of industrial society, but moving towards „risk
society‟. The risk society is a form of modern society or part of reflexive modernization. Giddens
views modernity in terms of security versus danger and trust versus risk. He considers modernity as a
double-edged phenomenon. Although modernity has created vastly greater opportunities for human
beings to enjoy, but at the same time it has a sombre side. In the opportunity side, Giddens discusses
the ideas of the founding fathers of sociology viz. Marx, Durkheim and Weber. He makes a re-reading
of Marx and Durkheim who looked the modern era as a troubled one, but at the same time the
beneficent possibilities overshadowed the negative sides. Marx considers that the class struggle is the
fundamental source of schism in the capitalistic order. But at the same time it has envisaged the
emergence of a more humane social system. Durkheim believed that expansion of industrialism would
establish a harmonious and fulfilling social life through the combination of division of labour and
moral individualism. On the other hand Max Weber was much pessimistic, who saw the world as
more paradoxical one, where material progress is achieved through the expansion of bureaucracy
which crushed the individual creativity and autonomy. Giddens views a number of consequences of
modernity. Giving examples of environmental degradation due to industrialisation was never
predicated. The consolidation of political power into totalitarianism was also never predicted as
despotism is a characteristic of pre-modern state. Giddens holds, „Totalitarianism is distinct from
traditional despotism, but is all the more frightening as a result. Totalitarian rule connects political,
military, and ideological power in more concentrated form than was ever possible before the
emergence of modern nation-states‟ (Giddens 1990) The classical sociology is limited in
understanding of the double-edged nature of modernity; as none of the founding father of sociology
gave proper attention on the „industrialization of war‟. Giddens differentiated risk from danger or
hazard. Risk can be conceptualized as the active assessment of future hazards.

Modernity is a risk culture. In some sense modernity reduces risk in certain areas and modes of life
but at the same time at the same time has introduced some risks which were not part of the traditional
social life. He holds, „Modernity is a risk culture. I do not mean by this that social life is inherently
more risky than it used to be; for most people that is not the case. Rather, the concept of risk becomes
fundamental to the way both lay actors and technical specialists organize the social world. Modernity
reduces the overall riskiness of certain areas and modes of life, yet at the same time introduces new
risk parameters largely or completely unknown in previous eras‟ (Giddens quoted in Loyal 2003).
Influenced by the works of Beck, Giddens looks at the interrelationship of trust, risk and danger. In
modern societies trust is derived from the socially organized knowledge in the form of abstract
systems. The disembedding mechanisms have provided large areas of security, at the same time
creating new array of risks. Giddens posits that, „The possibility of nuclear war, ecological calamity,
uncontainable population explosion, the collapse of global economic exchange, and other potential
global catastrophes provide an unnerving horizon of dangers for everyone‟ (Giddens 1990). The risk
is everywhere irrespective of persons or space.

5. Summary

The following points of importance can be gathered from this chapter:

 In above sections we have discussed Giddens idea of modernity. Strongly arguing that the present
condition is not post-modern rather it is an era of high modernity. He has discussed the four
institutional dimensions of modernity viz. Capitalism, Industrialism, Surveillance and Military
power.
 Giddens discussed the different dynamism of modernity. These are distanciation, disembbeding
and reflexivity. Modernity is strongly related to risk, trust and danger. Though modernity created
different kind of welfare but at the same time it has brought several risks and dangers to human
life in different form.
 Giddens apt fully summarises his whole idea of modernity as:
„A runaway engine of enormous power which, collectively as human beings, we can drive to
some extent but which also threatens to rush out of control and which could rend itself asunder.
The juggernaut crushes those who resist it, and while it sometimes seems to have a steady path,
there are times when it veers away erratically in directions we cannot foresee. The ride is by no
means wholly unpleasant or unrewarding; it can often be exhilarating and charged with hopeful
anticipation. But, so long as the institutions of modernity endure, we shall never be able to control
completely either the path or the pace of the journey. In turn, we shall never be able to be entirely
secure, because the terrain across which it runs is fraught with risks of high consequence‟
(Giddens 1990).
 According to Giddens, modernity is a risk culture. In some sense modernity reduces risk in
certain areas and modes of life but at the same time at the same time has introduced some risks
which were not part of the traditional social life.

6. References

Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press, 1990.

Giddens, Anthony & Christopher Pierson. Conversation with Anthony Giddens. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1998.

Kuper, Adam & Jessica Kuper. Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences. London: Routledge, 2004.

Steven Loyal. The Sociology of Anthony Giddens. USA: Pluto Press, 2003.

Stjepan G.Meštrović. Anthony Giddens: The last modernist. London: Routledge, 1998.
 MODERNITY, RISK, AND REFLEXIVITY

Risk Society and Reflexive Modernization: Ulrich Beck

1. Introduction

Sociology is largely seen as an outcome of modernism emerged out of modernist philosophy and
thinking. It took a proper disciplinary shape in the late 19 th century and early 20th century. Forerunners
of sociology discipline such as Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were engaged in
analysing the social changes that occurred in the modern period. „As a modernist project, it was
committed to the idea that it was possible to produce reliable knowledge about society that human
beings could use to shape their futures for the better‟ (Bilton et al 2002).

In common understanding, „modern‟ means contemporary or newest. For sociologists, it is the advent
of enlightenment philosophy or enlightenment movement clubbed with industrial revolution and
scientific progress where reason and rationality became the buzzword. Modernist thinkers emphasised
that this modernism emerged in Western Europe and others followed it, though this view is contested
by many social thinkers. Along with the modernist idea, science and technology developed in an
unpredictable way. People started questioning the religious institutions. Most people started governing
themselves in tune with the modernist ideology where they thought they have control over their own
life.

Along with the advent of modernization process, society changed drastically mostly in the western
part of the world. It had both advantages and disadvantages. The industrialization brought about
development along with other forms of hazards and risks. Often in common parlance risk is defined as
potential exposure to a given danger or hazard in terms of health and wealth. It is also sometimes
regarded as anticipating uncertainty and it is mostly subjective in nature. In present times risk has
taken a prominent place in the discourse of welfare for human beings. Mostly it is used in the context
of health and wealth.

In earlier days the risk was attributed to fate, luck, nature‟s fury and to some other types of
supernatural powers. But because of the Enlightenment and modernity, reason and logic became
important tool for analyzing social processes. They tried to find out causal relationship between all
types of phenomena. Risk became a matter of scientific prediction rather than explanation on the basis
of supernatural powers. In recent times risk can be anticipated from not only hazardous industries, but
also from a kind of lifestyle where we use too much of electronic devices from cooking instruments to
use of mobile phones. Risk is also attached to the wellness and illness behaviour. After the
prominence of AIDS and other types of fatal diseases, health is also exposed to risks.

2. The ‘Risk Society’

The concept of Risk Society was mainly developed and conceptualised by German sociologist Ulrich
Beck and later expanded by Anthony Giddens and Niklas Luhmann. Though Giddens‟ ideas on risk
society have similarity with Beck‟s, Luhmann differs from Beck‟s approach in his ideas. In common
understanding it denotes to the modern society‟s engagement and response to the element of risk.
Giddens points out that mostly the risk is used in the negative connotation. „The word refers to a
world which we are both exploring and seeking to normalise and control‟. Essentially, “risk” always
has a negative connotation, since it refers to the chance of avoiding an unwanted outcome‟ (Giddens
1999: 3).
Giddens traces back to the origins of risk society to two fundamental transformations which are
affecting the lives of the people. Each is connected to the increasing influence of science and
technology. The first transformation he calls it as the end of nature; and the second one is the end of
tradition (Giddens 1999). Giddens talks about the initial phase of human civilization where people
were threatened by forms of natural calamities like earthquakes, floods, plagues, droughts and so on.
Now, since last few decades, humans worry about what they have done to nature. This transition
makes one major point of entry in risk society.

Giddens emphasises on the distinctions should be made between „risk‟ and „hazard‟. He suggests we
must differentiate risk from hazard or danger. He stresses that though life in the middle ages was
hazardous, there was no notion of risk. In the medieval period people were more dependent on god or
supernatural power to save themselves from the fury of nature. Giddens emphasizes that the idea of
risk is associated with the aspiration to control the future. When the whole society is preoccupied with
future and its safety, it generates the notion of risk. According to Giddens, the idea of risk was first
used by western explorers when they ventured into exploring geographical space through water ways.
The word risk refers to both exploration and seeking to normalize and control the future. Giddens
argues that essentially, „risk‟ always has a negative connotation as it refers to the chance of avoiding
an unwanted outcome. But it has positive aspects as well, in terms of the taking of bold initiatives in
the face of a problematic future (Giddens 1999).

Ulrich Beck is considered as the pioneer of the idea on risk society and has substantial contribution to
the idea of modernization and risk society. He views modernization and risk society to be closely
related. He understands modernization as a process where changes took place due to rationalization
and technological inventions. In the footnote he writes:
Modernization means surges of technological rationalization and changes in work and organization,
but beyond that it includes much more: the change in societal characteristics and normal biographies,
changes of lifestyle and forms of love, change in the structures of power and influence, in the forms
of political repression and participation, in views of reality and in norms of knowledge. In social
science's understanding of modernity, the plough, the steam locomotive and the microchip are visible
indicators of a much deeper process, which comprises and reshapes the entire social structure (Beck
1992: 50, footnote no.1).
Confronting with the dangers of modernization, Beck suggested the concept of reflexive
modernization. This concept will be discussed in the coming section. Relating the process of
modernization and risk society, he defines risk society as „a systematic way of dealing with hazards
and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself. Risks, as opposed to older dangers,
are consequences which relate to the threatening force of modernization and to its globalization of
doubt. They are politically reflexive‟ (Beck 1992: 21).

Both Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens relate risk society to the advent of modernity. They develop
the concept of reflexive modernization and reflexivity to understand how individual and society
scrutinise itself. Both the sociologists argue that human civilization has been facing risk since early
period in terms of natural disasters. But the modern society is facing risk in terms new kind of
illnesses, crime, accidents which are offshoots of the modernization process.

Beck points out that capitalist expansion and consumerism practices are also responsible for creating
the condition of risk. Rich people might avert risk through certain kind of precautions by buying good
food and water. But it is difficult to avoid the polluted air. He says it is the knowledge and
information which is more useful than wealth to avert risk. Giddens argues that though risk is
associated with a certain kinds of social practices, it also can be avoided by discipline and changed
economic and consumption behaviour in the society.

3. Knowledge and Risk Society

Both Beck and Giddens have strongly pointed out the role of knowledge in the risk society. How
information and knowledge can put us away from the risk. Deborah Lupton in her book „Risk‟
categorizes risk society into the following theoretical categories. These are cognitive, socio-cultural,
social constructionist theories on risk.

3.1 Cognitive Science Perspective

Deborah Lupton holds the view that the cognitive science perspective is a kind of techno-scientific
approach to risk, emerging from fields as engineering, statistics, and psychology and so on to
calculate the probability of danger or hazard. She remarks that „risks, according to this model, are pre-
existing in nature and in principle are able to be identified through scientific measurement and
calculation and controlled using this knowledge‟ (Lupton 1999: 19). The cognitive science approach
takes individuals as emotion-free actors, in a way which is similar to economic rational actors who
pursue private interests more passionately. Mary Douglas has criticised this approach as very narrow
and overlooking other socio cultural aspects of the human being.

3.2 Socio-Cultural Perspectives

Cognitive science approach has been criticized for overlooking the social and cultural contexts of the
risk. Lupton opines that socio-cultural perspectives on risk emphasize the very aspects that cognitive
science has neglected. Socio-cultural perspectives have emerged from disciplines such as cultural
anthropology, philosophy, sociology, social history, cultural geography etc. Ulrich Beck and Anthony
Giddens‟ idea of „risk society‟ can come under this category of risk (Lupton 1999: 25). Sociologists
like Beck and Giddens have adopted a macro perspective. They link the idea of risk society to the
process of modernization and characterize it as an outcome of modernity.

Lupton also includes the „governmentality‟ scholars in this perspective who have taken up Foucault‟s
insights on governmentality to explore risk in the context of regulation and disciplining the mass
populations. Risk could be viewed differently by differently people depending on their position in
respective social groups. Risk has become an important and prevalent idea in the human civilization
over last two centuries. With the modern technology and rational action, it is believed that risk can be
controlled and regulated by the human beings.

3.3 Social Constructionist Perspectives

In the social constructionist perspective, risk is analyzed on the basis of the perception and response
through social, cultural and political processes. Danger, hazard and risk all these concepts might
change over a period of time according to the context and people‟s perception on the same. It is
difficult to establish an objective or standard parameters for danger or hazard. To define the object of
risk, it is often contested. In a particular context a risk is defined through a discourse. For an example,
three decades earlier, drinking water could be collected from any of the sources in rural and semi
urban area, but now it is a matter of great concern. People are very much conscious about the quality
and nature of water borne disease. It also depends on class. A poor person can draw drinking water
from the pond where as a wealthy or rich person may not even want to take a bath in the same water.

So it depends on the kinds of knowledge construction about risk discourses in a particular historical
context where social, cultural and political factors influence in the construction of the risk object.

4. Risk and Reflexive Modernization

This section discusses the core theme of this module. Giddens and Beck both consider the concept of
risk society as an outcome of modernization process. Deborah Lupton observes that both these
sociologists relate the concept of risk to the conditions of late modernity. Their approach of risk
society focuses on processes such as individualization, reflexivity and globalization.
Ulrich Beck has written extensively on risk. One of his important and founding works on risk is „Risk
Society: Towards a New Modernity‟. He has also written on reflexive modernization which was
produced along with Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash. His many others works include: „Ecological
Politics in the Age of Risk‟, „Ecological Enlightenment‟, „What is Globalization?‟ ,„World Risk
Society‟, „Individualization‟ (with E. Beck-Gernsheim), „Power in the Global Age‟, „Cosmopolitan
Vision‟, „World at Risk‟. In these works, Beck develops the idea of risk society, reflexive
modernization and individualization. Taking from examples of western countries, he argues industrial
nations and societies are progressing towards risk society. The individual pursuance of wealth and
rationality generates more risk. He links these factors to the outcome of modernity.

Beck also links the notion of risk to people‟s knowledge and awareness. This has gone into people‟s
imagination and taken a prominent place in the popular discourse. The more society is entering
towards risk, the more conscious they are getting about the risk. Essentially, Beck is concerned about
risk which is a result of modernization. Beck argues that risk is a kind of social construct which is
presented through scientific argument and evidences. Beck has taken up two major approaches to
define risk. One is „natural-scientific objectivism‟ and the other one is „cultural relativism‟ on hazard.
According to him both the approaches are having certain usefulness as well as some fallacy. The
scientific method helps in predicting the nature of hazard and can measure it while it can ignore
context specific perception of risk. The cultural relativism approach can differ in the context of space
and time.

Ulrich Beck tries to find out a new perspective by combing these two approaches. With the integration
of these two approaches he finds out a new approach and terms it as „sociological
perspective‟ in his book (1995) Ecological Politics in the Age of Risk. He explains that to perceive
risk in terms of senses is very difficult because of the high modernised industries in the modern
society as opposed to a different type of risk and hazard in the early industrial period. During that
period risk and hazard could be perceived though the sensory organs which were obvious but these
days it is very difficult to comprehend the risk. So he argues many risks in modern period exist in
scientific knowledge rather than in everyday experience of people.

The modernization is grossly marked with the difference from the pre-modern period in terms of
controlling the nature. In the pre-modern times nature was seen as a part of belief system where
people believed in god and devil. The Enlightenment movement and development of a rational
attitude bolstered the development of science and technology. Here in the modern period people
started controlling the natural calamities which were earlier perceived as the creation of god or devil.
Contemporary problems on risk could be linked to the human‟s activity and humans can be held
responsible for these acts of hazards. Though science and technology has created many facilities, at
the same time the process of industrialization, modernization and globalization have created many
challenges and uncertainties for the human civilization. In modern times according to Beck, the risk is
a result of human activities and the externalities of industrialization and nuclear proliferation. So he
says hazards and risks are based on decision making process and they become more and more
political issues day by day than a natural process.

5. Reflexive Modernization

To understand and counter the risk and hazard in the modern society, the idea of „reflexive
modernization‟ was developed by Beck and Giddens. Uncertainty creates more anxiety than risk. So it
is useful to analyze risk with reference to uncertainty at various levels such as organizational or
individual level. Of late, the modern society which is grossly an industrial society has realised that it
is a risk society. It raises dilemma over the claim of supremacy of the modernist power. The recent
example from the nuclear catastrophe of the Fukushima Daiichi in Japan and Chernobyl nuclear
disaster in Ukraine are crucial. In this context one should engage in reflexive modernization, which
according to Beck highlights that the modernization and industrial society which gives blind eye to
these kind of externalities. Reflexive process forces the modern society to reflect on the risky situation
and contemplate to counter it.

Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens, both the sociologists are also known in the domain of social
sciences for developing the concept reflexive modernization. Beck looks at modernity from a critical
perspective. Like Anthony Elliott mentions that Beck critically examines sociology of modernization.
Beck considers many theorists in social sciences to be confused between industrial societies with
modernization. These two concepts mostly analyzed in a binary condition such as good or bad,
positive or negative etc. Beck even considers that most of the social theories have taken a position that
society is changing and progressing through production and utilization of resources. In this, the social
theories also equate modernity with industrial society. Beck reminds that society is not only
progressing but there are risks and dangers which infiltrates to the society and modern institutions
(Elliott 2002).

Ulrich Beck understands that the present society is positioned between industrial society and
advanced modernity. In „Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern
Social Order‟ jointly written with Anthony Giddens and Schott Lash, Beck discusses the idea of
reflexive modernization. For him „reflexive‟ means self-confrontation. In the process of
modernization of society and industrialization, risk comes unintentionally and becomes the part of the
modernization project. Beck writes „risk society is not an option which could be chosen or rejected in
the course of political debate. It arises through the automatic operation of autonomous modernization
processes which are blind and deaf to consequences and dangers‟ (Beck quoted in Elliot 2002: 297).

Beck suggests that reflexive modernization initiates modern people into „self-confrontation‟ with the
consequences of risk that cannot be easily fought, controlled and overcome. The limitation of the
modernization process in addressing or informing about the danger and risk creates the condition for
human beings to bring in to a condition of self-confrontation which he terms as reflexive
modernization. He also warns us about the irresponsible side of risk society that emerged out of
modernization process.

Deborah Lupton in her analysis of Beck‟s work on risk and reflexivity writes that the concept of risk
is linked to reflexivity because anxieties about risks serve to pose questions about current practices.
Lupton mentions that Becks outline three features of reflexive approach. In risk society, society
becomes reflexive in three ways, stemming from the newly global nature of risk.
a. First, society becomes an issue and a problem for itself at the global level.
b. Second, the awareness of the global nature of risk triggers new impulses towards the
development of co-operative international institutions.
c. Third, the boundaries of the political come to be removed, leading to world-wide alliances.
By these processes, risk society becomes „world risk society‟, in which the public sphere of
political debate and action is globalized (Lupton 1999: 68).

6. Individualization

Ulrich Beck develops the concept of individualisation along with the concepts of risk society and
reflexive modernization. It is in a way similar to Zygmunt Bauman‟s idea of liquid modernity. Here
Beck does not refer to alienation. Here individuals are desired to produce their own biography and life
story unlike in traditional sense where people had fixed roles. Individualization could be seen as an
outcome of modernization process and Beck looks at it as a part of the globalizing force. Beck
defines individualization as „the disintegration of the certainties of industrial society as well as the
compulsion to find and invent new certainties for oneself and others without them‟ (Beck 1994: 14).

In the contemporary times, the process of individualization has taken a strong position as people are
more concerned about the own self and try to shape it according to their wish. As opposed to the
traditional society where people used to give importance to the social structure, now they are keen to
follow their own life and create their own biography which is dependent on their own interests. Beck
emphasizes that individualization can be observed ubiquitously. Beck compares the individualization
approach to the reflexive biography model. The individualization is a part of everyday social
processes and its affect various categories of people in a different manner. As mentioned in the
previous section of this module, in earlier societies life events were attributed to somebody‟s luck and
fate or play of something beyond the individual‟s control, where as in present context individuals are
responsible for creating their own life story or biography with self-introspection what Beck calls as
reflexive biography. In this condition, society is no more controlling the individual totally rather it is a
part of individual‟s creation of the self.

The process of individualization has also affected other institutions in the society such as marriage,
religion, education, occupation and so on. In the high modern or late modern era people have good
number of options where they can go for various non-traditional kinds of jobs and occupations. In the
domain of education, there are wide range of disciplines and practices. Similarly in the field of
religion people are no more part of the rigid religious practices, but they can switch over to various
other forms of faiths and religions.

7. Criticism to Beck’s Work

Deborah Lupton points out that Beck demonstrates anger at the hazardous nature of life in late
modernity. Beck envisages that the whole human civilization may be destroyed by danger and hazard
created by the risk society which is an outcome of high modernization. Lupton observes weak version
of the social constructionism in Becks writing where he writes about the social and cultural processes
by which understandings and perceptions of risk are mediated. Critics have alleged that „reflexive
modernization‟ proposition is based on generalizations that lack grounding in everyday life and real
experiences of people. They also allege that Beck and Giddens conceptualization of modernity and
self-reflexivity or reflexive modernization as simplistic. They have not considered the complexity of
various kinds of forces and resistance with the modernization process itself. Both the sociologists are
alleged that they have ignored the communal or collective understanding and resistance to the shared
meaning on risk while evaluating individualization.

8. Conclusion

Beck (2006) writes that modern society has become a risk society in the sense that it is increasingly
occupied with debating, preventing and managing risks that it has produced. He raises questions as to
whether modern societies are able to control the contingencies and uncertainties, for example with
respect to accidents, violence and sickness. Like Tsunami catastrophe, the destruction of New Orleans
by Hurricane Katrina, Beck makes a key distinction between risk and catastrophe. According to him
risk does not mean catastrophe. Risk means the anticipation of catastrophe. He further defines that
risk „is not reducible to the product of probability of occurrence multiplied with the intensity and
scope of potential harm‟. Rather, it is a socially constructed phenomenon, in which some people have
a greater capacity to define risks than others.

Beck outlines that risks are not limited to the local phenomena rather it is characterised by the three
kinds of characteristics for the perception of risk. The theory of world risk society maintains,
however, that modern societies are shaped by new kinds of risks, that their foundations are shaken by
the global anticipation of global catastrophes. Such perceptions of global risk are characterized by
three features:

a. De-localization: its causes and consequences are not limited to one geographical location or
space, they are in principle omnipresent.
 b. Incalculableness: its consequences are in principle incalculable; at bottom it is a matter of
„hypothetical‟ risks, which, not least, are based on science, induced not-knowing and
normative dissent.
c. Non-compensability: the security dream of first modernity was based on the scientific
utopia of making the unsafe consequences and dangers of decisions ever more controllable;
accidents could occur, as long as and because they were considered compensable (Beck
2006: 337).

Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens have common ideas regarding the concept of risk in the modern
context. Both agree that the risk is generated in the contemporary times due to modernization and
industrialization. It is also argued by them that risk is not only scientific in calculation and perception,
it is a political game. Only reflexivity or reflexive modernization can be used a counter tool to the risk
or hazard. They argue that risk and reflexivity often affect the private life of people. They go through
this dilemma of risk in their everyday life.

Beck attributes the risk reflexivity to the growing number of the cases of risks in the modern times
whereas Giddens differ from this view. Giddens argues that cases of risk in modern times have not
increased, rather the awareness of scientific knowledge has given people the ability to speculate about
the risk. For him it is not the real happening which is a matter of anxiety rather than the apprehension
or speculation about risk.

Deborah Lupton writes that for Giddens that reflexivity takes place through expert systems. People
believe and rely on expert knowledge, but for Beck, reflexivity is a critique of expertise, based not in
trust but distrust of expert systems, particularly in relation to environmental hazards. Lupton
mentions that Beck‟s and Giddens‟ speculations on the nature of risk in contemporary societies have
been enormously influential in contemporary sociology. Ideas proposed by Giddens and Beck give
insights into both the political and structural feature of risk. Both the sociologists are also successful
in analysing the changes in the meanings of risk over the eras of pre-modernity, early modernity and
late modernity. The implications on ideas about risk, subjectivity and social relations they have put
forward are valuable and suggestive (Lupton 1999).

Beck argues that we live in a very vulnerable era due to various industrial hazards and nuclear
proliferation. The only way to protect ourselves from the hazard is through reflexive modernization.
This idea is also supported by Anthony Giddens but from a different perspective. Though there are
limitations to the construction of risk society, nevertheless the idea of risk society became highly
influential in the social science literature and has provided valuable insights various aspects of risk.

9. Summary

The following points of importance can be gathered from this chapter:

 The idea and concept of risk society was developed by German sociologist Ulrich Beck and later
on Anthony Giddens also contributed to the literature. Beck developed this concept in response to
the modern and industrialised society.
 Risk society is conceptualised in terms of society‟s response to the harm, hazard and insecurities
created and induced by the modern and industrialised society.
 Both Beck and Giddens look at various process of the modern industrials society and calculate the
risk generated by it. Contemporary times is marked by high modernism and there exists a global
world in terms of network of technologies through telecommunication, information and
communication technologies. At the same time it has created hazards and danger to the
environment Nuclear proliferation and warfare are examples of this kind. In their analysis
ecological and environmental concern holds crucial importance.
 Ulrich Beck argues that risk is self-created and manufactured by the modern human beings. To
counter the excessive domination of modern industrialization and minimise the risk, collective
and individual social concerns led to the process of reflexive modernization.
 Beck developed the concept of reflexive modernization along with risk society. Reflexive
modernization is a counter answer to the rising nuclear proliferation and massive industrialization
of the society.
 As critique to modernization and industrialization, reflexive modernization surfaced in the
society. It is widely agreed among social scientists that risk has affected the modern society and
reflexive modernization is the counter to the risk society which is proposed by Beck and Giddens.
 Individualization approach gives an individual scope to orient his or her life according to various
choices. It creates a multiplicity of option unlike pre-modern era where society used to function in
more or less within a fixed kind of structure. Today, unlike the past, individuals are responsible
for creating their own life story or biography with self-introspection or what Beck calls as
reflexive biography. In this condition, society is no more controlling the individual totally rather it
is a part of individual‟s creation of the self.

10. References

Beck, Ulrich. “Living in the World Risk Society.” Economy and Society Volume 35, no.3(2006):329-
345.

Beck, Ulrich. Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995

Beck, Ulrich. Reflexive governance: politics in the global risk society in Jan-Peter Voß, Dierk
Bauknecht and René Kemp (Ed) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, pp. 31-56,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006.

Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity translated by Mark Ritter London: Sage
Publications, 1992.

Beck, Ulrich. The reinvention of politics: towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A.
Giddens and S. Lash, Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern
Social Order, pp. 1–55. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994

Bilton, Tony, Kevin Bonnett and Pip Jones. Introductory Sociology, London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2002.

Douglas, Mary and Aaron Wildavsky. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological
and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983

Elliott, Anthony. “Beck‟s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment” Sociology 36, no.2 (2002): 293–
315.

Giddens, Anthony. "Risk and Responsibility" Modern Law Review 62, no.1 (1999):1-10.

Lupton, Deborah. Risk. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.

 MODERNITY, RISK, AND REFLEXIVITY

Liquid Modernity: Zygmunt Bauman

1. Introduction:
What has been cut apart cannot be glued back together. Abandon all hope of totality, future as well
as past, you who enter the world of fluid modernity (Bauman 2000: 22).
To bring order in the society modernity came into existence. Order making became the most
important aim of modernity, to find a reliable foundation, to remove the vulnerability persisting in the
society. The so-called order making process brought along uncertainties and contingency.
Modernity‟s order making mission brought freedom of choices albeit insecurity and risk. Social
events ceased to be explained by taking recourse to the supernatural and there was a victorious entry
of man. Judgements were made purely on the basis of rational thinking. Modernity promised freedom,
liberation and emancipation in every individual‟s life where they were supposed to be guided by
reasons. Orderliness came along with homogeneity and negligible scope of diversity; everything and
everybody had to be perfectly fit into the bowl of modernity. „The marriage between freedom and
insecurity was prearranged and consummated on the wedding night; all subsequent attempts at
separation proved vain, and the wedlock remained in force ever since‟ (Bauman 1992: 12).

Recent changes in society have led scholars to ponder on the changing social relationships,
uncertainties and risks that have crept in the life of individuals in the 21 st century and this makes
scholars question as to whether we live in the era of postmodernity. Hence to capture this constant
nature of change in society Bauman gives the term „liquid modernity‟. As nothing is constant, people
are at move, keeping oneself updated with time has become one of the major concerns. Postmodernity
says Bauman is a social system that challenged the classic modern era. It should be understood as
something discontinuous with modernity. It is however a tough task to study these arising frictions
due to increased rate of mobility in the time of modernity. Hence, postmodernity emerged as a
rejection of the models taught by the modernity viz. individualism, freedom, liberty to choose
whereby society was deemed to be seen as a market.

By coining the term „liquid modernity‟, Bauman tries to encapsulate in a nutshell the characteristics of
today‟s highly globalized and consumer societies. Boundaries have become fluid and we live in an
age of uncertainty as in a globalized world grappling with contested and fragmented identities. Liquid
modernity is a continuum of modernity or in other words one can say that liquid modernity is a
developed version of modernity. Individuals are provided with multiple choices and freedom to
choose in a consumer society, but this freedom of choice also creates a chaotic situation whereby an
individual can move from one social position to another in a fluid manner. This freedom of mobility
creates a hierarchy where affluent majority are benefited while the poor and marginalized are side-
lined. Bauman provides us with a theoretical perspective of the condition of future of our society by
coining the term liquid modernity, and engages with the dynamics of changing social relationships
and loosening bonds between people (Bauman 2000).

Bauman (2000) has used the term „solid‟ and „liquid‟ in order to make a difference between two ears
of modernity and postmodernity respectively, and liquid modernity is used for contemplating the
contemporary scenario. It makes one inquisitive to pose a question: has Bauman used the term „liquid
modernity‟ instead of „postmodernity‟ to criticize the failure of postmodernity as a counter force to
modernity? Every one of us is busy making our self-identity, that leads to individuation and
individuals are turned into consumers. Liquid modernity is in a relationship with modernity and has
intensified in present time because of the growing consumerism and quest for identity. Poor people
who are unable to keep up with the competition in the consumer market are kept out of the scenario.
These poor people are supposed to be fit in this consumer society and the matter of being unemployed
becomes redundant. There is no government institution or agency to solve the problem of
unemployment. One needs to be an effective purchaser of whatever is sold in the market.
Consequently it is fundamental to understand the concept of liquid modernity given by Bauman where
we find his sociological and philosophical reflections.

2. Who is Zygmunt Bauman?

Zygmunt Bauman is a world renowned Polish sociologist and philosopher. He is Emeritus Professor
of Sociology at the University of Leeds; his main academic interests are ethics, political philosophy,
Sociology, postmodernity and postmodern art. He is a well-known eminent social theorist who wrote
on diverse issues like modernity and Holocaust, postmodern consumerism and liquid modernity. He
was awarded the European Amalfi Prize for sociology in 1992, the Theodor W Adorno Award in
1998 and Prince of Asturias Award in 2010.

He was born to Jewish parents; his family had to escape to Soviet Union after Nazis invaded Poland.
Bauman studied Sociology at the Warsaw Academy of Social Sciences. He had taken an active part in
the battles of Kolberg and Berlin and was awarded the Military Cross of Valour. He was a communist
since the outbreak of Second World War and in 1945 he joined a military internal security
organization. Later he was dismissed from the military organization after which he went on to
complete his Masters. From 1954 to 1968 he was a lecturer at the University of Warsaw. The anti-
Semitic campaign in Poland forced him to renounce his Polish citizenship. Before accepting a chair in
sociology at the University of Leeds in 1972, Bauman worked in Tel Aviv University.Though initially
Bauman was close to orthodox Marxist doctrine, but after getting influenced by Antonio Gramsci and
Georg Simmel he became critical of Poland‟s communist government.

Bauman‟s work addresses a number of common themes like globalization, modernity, postmodernity,
consumerism and morality. He is a prolific writer and his famous work on Liquid modernity very well
captures the fragmented nature of contemporary times where we are engrossed in searching our own
identity and remain bothered by the instability in which we live in today‟s world as individuals.
Private and public realms of life are kept separate where we deal with society as a whole in a
contractual way. His book on liquid modernity also makes us aware of the demands to be fulfilled to
survive in this era. Though we are provided with the choices yet it guarantees nothing. His work
enlightens scholars and students to understand the process of individuation, loosening of social bonds
and ponder upon the growing precariousness because of increase in globalization process.

3. ‘Liquid Modernity’

3.1 Theoretical Framework

Bauman (1992) says that basically modernity was in a desperate need of establishing a structure,
everything had to be functional, and no vagabonds would fit in the structure. Hence to quote him, „In
the city of reason, there were to be no winding roads, no cul-de-sacs and no unattended sites left to
chance- and thus no vagabonds, vagrants or nomads‟ (Bauman 1992: 15). As man was empowered
with mastery over nature there was no room for chaos, in order to prevent the precariousness
modernity aimed at keeping a constant supervision on individuals, it was indeed the main feature of
modernity. Bauman (1992) says that postmodernity is a state of mind that criticized the urgency
brought by modernity but it has not been critical enough to refute the order-making and universalizing
nature of modernity. „So the critical theory‟, according to Bauman, „confronts an object that seems to
offer no more resistance; an object that has softened, melted and liquidised to the point that sharp
edge of the critique goes through with nothing to stop it‟ (Bauman 1992: 9). It is in this milieu that
Bauman gave the concept of liquid modernity.

Taking examples of postmodern art Bauman says that postmodern art led to levelling of hierarchies,
questioning the dominant narratives that guided and ruled the society, it also was against the plurality
that existed in the human world. Postmodern perspective of human world is a view of seeing plural
meaning and autonomous agencies. Postmodernity is a shift from universalizing world view (aim of
modernity) to agency of community. Sociologists have described postmodernity as a crisis of
modernity; Bauman articulates they have failed to capture the essence of postmodernity as vistas of a
wider transformation in society (Bauman 1992).

Fluid or liquid is used as a metaphor for explaining the present day scenario of permeable boundaries
in the time of growing consumerism and globalization. The idiosyncratic characteristic of liquid is
associated with the idea of „lightness‟. The term liquid modernity befits well when we wish to
apprehend the pleasantly new phase in the history of modernity. In the present scenario although an
individual gets freedom of choices yet this freedom comes with its own risk as there is no one to rely
on. As individuals are concerned only about their private problems liquid modernity has brought
certain cleavages in social relationships. One cannot deny the superficial change brought in our lives
by liquid modernity (Bauman 1992, 2000)

Modernity is described as a fluid that has flown altogether from past to the present. Bauman (2000)
says that globalization has led to a divide between power and politics, whereby power meant ability to
do things and politics meant ability to decide which things to be done. Few centuries ago nation state
consisted both power and politics. There was a reasonable expectation from the state government to
have power and political institutions in order to decide over certain matters. But because of the
creation of cyber space, power is no more vested in the hands of states but politics is still local. „The
two young men with cellular telephones whom I watched at the airport bar might have been
specimens (actual or aspiring) of that new, numerically small elite of the cyberspace residents thriving
on the uncertainty of all things worldly, but the style of the dominant tend to become the dominant
style- if not by offering an attractive choice, then at any rate by imposing a life-setting in which its
imitation becomes simultaneously desirable and imperative, turning into a matter of self-satisfaction
and survival‟(Bauman 2000: 154). Because of globalization there has been an increase in the flow of
capital, finances, information. Everything is mobile and transcends the boundaries of a sovereign
state. We tend to find a local solution for a global problem. Hence, we see a wide gap between power
and politics.

Bauman highlights the role of powerful agencies in order to decide over the problems and steps that
should be taken to eradicate the wide gap between power and politics. He talks about the change that
fluid modernity has brought in the society and especially upon individuals. The advent of modernity
can be traced by the relocating the relationship between time and space. Because of the advent of
technologies and globalization there has been an increase in movement and the mechanism of
application of power has been outside territorial limits. „In Panopticon, the inmates were tied to the
place and barred from all movement, confined within thick, dense and closely guarded walls and fixed
to their beds, cells or work-benches. They could not move because they were under watch; they had to
stick to their appointed places at all times because they did not know, and had no way of knowing,
where at the moment their watchers - free to move at will - were.‟ (Bauman 2000: 9).

Bauman (2000) asserts that 21st century society is no less modern as compared to society in
20thcentury; the only difference is that contemporary society is modern in its own way. By providing
us with Caravan Park analogy he wants to state the process in which we interact with the society
today. We as an individual have become self-critical and this is the result of transformation of society
from heavy modernity to light modernity meaning we are confined to ourselves and engage with
others in a very contractual manner.

This transformation from heavy to light modernity has brought changes in the public spaces, as by
giving the example of panopticon and modern day cell phones Bauman (2000) assures the use of
public spaces in a different manner as suggested by early critical theorists. He also arbitrates that in
the liquid modernity era public spaces are preoccupied with private realms of life. Individuation is
taking place due to which individual way of thinking is solely discussed without taking social
problems in consideration and in turn this bleak individuation is hampering the empowerment of an
individual.
Bauman (2000) compares heavy modernity with early capitalism whereby he says everything was
supposed to be in order. He gives an example of Fordism model where the model was supposed to be
controlled by the managers and it was seen as a giant fixed model of heavy machines and massive
labour force. Then coming back to late or liquid modernity he says that capital is no more stable it
flows instead, it provides us with a lot of choices and possibilities and we as consumers are caught
amidst this uncertainty of choices. „Indeed there seemed to be no alternative to the Fordist factory and
no serious hindrance to stave off the spread of the Fordist model to every nook and cranny of society‟
(Bauman 2000: 57).

Bauman suggests that individual are so concerned to put up their individual identity at the top that
they get influenced by the products in the market, in a consumer society it becomes difficult for the
poor to keep up with the pace of the development. Hence, Bauman wants to say that in today‟s time
boundaries have become fluid and people are much concerned who are watching whom, and keeping
oneself updated has become a lifestyle.

Consumer society does provide us with a lot of freedom but on the other hand it is not the way for
emancipation. He says that consumer society has created a kind of stratification whereby mobility has
become difficult for the poor. Public spaces have been turned into places that are privately controlled,
are under fixed boundaries, always under watch or surveillance. Anyone who is supposed to be
outside this privately owned space (e.g. stalkers) is seen as an intruder and hence we see that because
of globalization the developments that take place it influences wealthy majority (rich) and minority
(poor) in different ways.

Discussed below are some of the themes that are related to liquid modernity that will help in
understanding the concept more clearly. I have dealt with four basic themes namely a) Duality of
modernity b) global and local c) space and time d) individuals turned into consumers.

4. Associated Themes

4.1 Duality of Modernity

In the book on „Modernity and the Holocaust‟ Bauman (2001) highlights the dual face of modernity.
By dual face of modernity he means that on one hand, the period of Enlightenment promised
emancipation, rationalization, development, moreover modernity was deemed to be a tool for a
civilizing process, but the irony on the other hand that persists, is that, the developments of machines,
gas chambers, bureaucracy led to events like the Holocaust. „We suspect (even if we refuse to admit
it) that the Holocaust could merely have uncovered another face of the same modern society who‟s
other, more familiar face we so admire‟ (Bauman 2001: 7).

By taking into account Weber‟s theory on bureaucracy and rationality Bauman (2001) arbitrates that
Holocaust proved to be a failure of modernity. Bauman goes on to explain that most of the social
thinkers could not highlight the other part of modernity and hence an event like Holocaust is just seen
as a private affair in the life of Jews, and mere an event of the past to be studied in history books. It
becomes a sorry state of affairs when a subject like sociology fails to capture the duality of modernity.

Modernity committed to lead a society that would be guided by reasons but events like Holocaust
question the very foundation of modernity. Hence, Holocaust can be said to be the test of modernity.
Taking the example of a garden, Bauman states that, modernity takes society as a garden that needs
maintenance and proper care, unwanted plants should be removed as that can be harmful, hence to
quote Bauman „behind the alliance stands fast the modern “gardening state”, viewing the society it
rules as an object of designing, cultivating and weed-poisoning‟ (Bauman 1998: 13). Thus, in the age
of liquid modernity where one is surrounded by uncertainties, events like Holocaust can occur in any
part of the world.
4.2 Global and Local

Bauman takes globalization as a starting point for explaining in detail its consequences on social
relationships, gap between power and politics and what it means to live in an era of consumer society.
As we know, globalization is most debated topic in public discourse as well as in social sciences. In
his essay „On Glocalization: or Globalization for some, Localization for some Others‟ Bauman (1998)
talks about glocalization which for him means the process of reassertion of the local in the midst of
hybridity. He talks about the universalizing nature of globalization that would result in order-making.
Order-making here means bringing improvement and change that would be able to interact with the
global forces. He also asserts the power of state as an agency which controls the boundaries of certain
territories. He talks about the global chaos, and to keep this chaos under control state keeps an eye on
the local and is effectively controlled. Bauman suggests that glocalization and globalization are
complimentary to each other. „Glocalization is first and foremost a redistribution of privileges and
deprivations, of wealth and poverty, of resources and impotence, of power and powerlessness, of
freedom and constraint‟ (Bauman 1998: 43)

Thus, we see that globalization and glocalization may seem to be inseparable but the population of the
two parts of the world live on the different sides; some get the opportunity while others who are not
capable of interacting to the global force are marginalized. Hence, globalization is a paradox while
few get benefited the rest are secluded. Present day consumer society provides us with radical choices
and lack of stability whereby issue of keeping up to one‟s identity becomes a critical concern. Identity
thus is a modern concept; a resourceful person can have easy access to the multiple choices provided
by the consumer society. The contemporary period of liquid modernity, results in silencing the voices
of the marginalized and poor (Bauman 2000).

With the issue of identity also comes the idea of a nation state; nation state is the outcome of
modernity. As we looked forward to the idea of a secular, progressive state, to have a central political
order in order to have unified idea of nation amidst cultural diversity. But on the contrary the rising of
the voice of marginalized, growing identity politics started contesting the progressive notion of
modernity.

Thus, Bauman by giving the idea of liquid modernity tries to explain the failure of the grand
narratives (emancipation, reasons, rationality) promised by modernity. It is true, that in the present
time, when we see the interlinking of global and local, globalization effects international trade, spread
of goods and flow of people by an increase in the process of migration. In any case globalization has
led to polarization of resources and we are (mis)guided by anonymous forces.

4.3 Space and Time

During the 20th century modernity focussed on the development and innovations. Basically the idea
was to dominate the space, because of the advent of technologies there began the concept of
conquering the space within no time. Bauman talks about the urban areas that are kept under high
security that separates public life with private life. People do not interact with everyone; they only talk
to those whom they think are alike. Poor and the marginalized are kept out of this so called private,
high security, good environment society. Thus, gated communities are formed where stalkers are seen
as demons that would interrupt their private space and hence put them into trouble. The use of
technologies helped traverse the space in very less time. (Bauman, Z: 2000)

Because of these technological developments the value of space has been demeaned. Taking the
example of public space like shopping malls, Bauman (2000) suggests that these public spaces are no
more the spaces for interaction. The temporal and spatial annulment has led to polarization of people
within their own shells. We do not find people interacting with each other; there is a feeling of
„otherness‟ implicit within.

One cannot deny the fact that globalization that is taking place has created a gap between haves and
have nots. Because of domination over space, in less time, resources and wealth are placed in such a
manner that it is available only for selected, well to do people in society. We need to take into account
the changes in the time and space that have taken place due to the developments. Though western
enlightenment came with the values of emancipation, developments and egalitarianism yet on the
other hand, Bauman (2000) feared the principles of totalitarianism that people are under control, they
have to be submissive and under surveillance. Hence, the moot point of the idea of totalitarian
principle is latent in modernity. „That heavy/solid/condensed/systemic modernity of the critical theory
era was endemically pregnant with the tendency towards totalitarianism‟ (Bauman 2000: 25)

4.4 Individuals Turned into Consumers

The book „Liquid Love‟ (2003) written by Bauman clearly depicts the impact of globalization and
growing consumerism in our day to day social relationships and interactions. This era of liquid
modernity, even though it provides us with unlimited opportunities, has had an adverse effect on the
individual, social relationships and society as a whole. Consumer society even though provides us
with unlimited choices but promises or guarantees none. Whatever we buy from the market is
unpredictable, this highly unpredictable characteristic of liquid modernity leads to insecurity i.e.
insecurity of choices, individual, social bonds and relations. Bauman (2003) opines that the proper
meaning of love has lost its value. It has been replaced by the feelings of insecurity, competition,
expectations and anxiety.

As discussed above liquid modernity tends to create a chaotic situation whereby we are provided with
more choices and but chained with uncertainties. In the highly escalating time of globalization and
consumerism bonds and relationships are getting loosened. Personal identity has become fluid as
there are lot of possibilities individuals have turned into consumers. Hence, liquid modernity provides
us with illusory freedom. Bauman (2003) remarks that instead of living together, bound by love we
tend to live with the feeling of competition. Freedom of choice has turned an individual as consumer.
We are endowed with the freedom and liberty of choices but it is also tied up with the feeling of
insecurity and risk.

Bauman (2000) talks about the increasing desires of people that is created by consumer society and
that in turn these opportunities provided to us never satisfies or fulfils our desires. Consumer society
has been ruling the people. Bauman says that we buy commodities from the shopping mall and when
it gets depreciated we tend to replace it, rather than repairing it. We apply the same logic in our
everyday social relationships and this highlights the fluidity of love itself. Also, modernity led to a
making of different class of people i.e. refugees and migrants. They are considered to be „wasted
lives‟ and are seen as an unavoidable factor and hindrance to economic progress and order making.

In a highly consumer society there is no room for these minority groups. Modernity led to the
cleansing of ethnic groups and religious groups who were seen as a threat to the establishment of
order. He very well uses the metaphor of garden to explain this phenomenon as discussed in the
section on duality of modernity and makes it clear through the example of holocaust.

5. Conclusion

In this module we have tried discussing some of the major aspects related to „liquid modernity‟. The
term „liquid modernity‟ used by Zygmunt Bauman however captures the increasing anxieties and
ambiguities in highly globalized and consumer society. It becomes critical to understand the changes
that our society is undergoing. Thus, Bauman very well tries to make us recognize the situation of
present times by making us aware of the changing relationships, uncertainties brought by
globalization, difference between power and politics and quest for identity.

The module deals with the precariousness arising from intensified globalized and consumer society.
These uncertainties however widely discussed by Bauman do not provide us with the solution to deal
with them in present scenario. The vulnerability arising by such uncertainties are pretty clear.
Zygmunt Bauman‟s contribution to scholarship through the attempt of explaining the changing nature
of human relationship, constant competition, individuation, increasing efficiency and contesting
identities in the age of intensified globalized and consumer society have enriched the thoughts of
students and scholars. It has also helped us realize and reflect upon this dubiousness of liquid
modernity in today‟s time.

6. Summary

The following points of importance can be gathered from this chapter :

 Bauman addresses the nuances of social change by highlighting the interplay of solid and liquid
modernity. Hence, Bauman finds liquid modernity as an apt term to replace the umbrella term of
postmodernity, to address the wide variety of social transformations. Bauman arbitrates that liquid
modernity is a continuum of modernity.
 Bauman was concerned with the fluid world created by globalization that led him coin the term
liquid modernity that addresses the inadequacies of solid modernity. To make the term solid
modernity crystal clear, Bauman addresses the example of panopticon that depicts a centralized
power where everyone was under control and surveillance.
 The unintended consequence of globalization is disintegration of social bonds and relationships.
As individual is granted with all possible freedom it would be imprudent to deny that liquid
modernity has brought an end to community life.
 Public and private lives have been redefined where private problems are to be kept separated from
public issues. This gap between public and private has led to subjugation of individual and
individual agency is left with negligible power to act. „Ours is an experience akin to that of the
airline passengers who discover, high in the sky, that the pilot‟s cabin is empty‟ (Bauman 2000:
133).
 Modernity resulted in order-making and economic progress, this orderliness and economic
progress led to a chaotic reality. Modernity led to migration of people from one place to another,
this led to the formation of an ambience of uncertainty. Nothing can be under control, even in the
context of nation states these uncertainties like terrorism, growing consumerism, individuality etc.
are beyond the control of local governments. These uncertainties (natural disasters, losing of
factories, and collapse of stock markets) of the era that we live in have inculcated fear within us;
we are ignorant and unaware of what will happen at the next moment. Any move that we take in
order to stabilize ourselves might lead to some opposite consequences.
 As discussed above we live in the age of uncertainties as consumers in postmodern society which
Bauman addresses as consumer society. Consumer society creates a feeling of desire and
temptation within us.
 People are always on the move and this mobility divides society into different strata. Hence,
refugees, migrants, poor and marginalized have no place in the society; they are turned into
redundant categories. They do not have an easy access to certain commodities and cannot traverse
space and time.
 The use of the term Liquid modernity aptly captures these uncertainties and ambiguities of
contemporary era. „There is a wide growing gap between the condition of individuals de jure and
their chances to become individual de facto- that is, to gain control over their fate and make the
choices they truly desire‟ (Bauman 2000: 39).
7. References

Bauman, Zygmunt. Intimations of Postmodernity: London: Routledge, 1992.

Bauman, Zygmunt. „On Glocalization: or Globalization for some, Localization for some Others‟,
Thesis Eleven 54, no. 1(1998): 37-49.

Bauman, Zygmunt. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity press, 2000.

- Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2001.

- Liquid love On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge: Polity press, 2003.

https://historiesofviolence.com/thinkers/bauman(last accessed on 30th August, 2014)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman(last accessed on 29th August, 2014)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfkcTVzTEsk (last accessed on 27th August, 2014)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PRV8fTN3WQ) (Last accessed on 27th August, 2014)
 MODERNITY, RISK, AND REFLEXIVITY

An Introductory Overview

1. Situating Reflexivity: The Many Discourses and Contestations in Contemporary Sociology

The idea of reflexivity, it may be said, makes for both, the imminent radicalism of the sociological, and its
most preliminary orthodoxy. Contained in this thesis, then, is the idea that the notion of reflexivity must
allude not only to the epistemic possibilities of the discipline, but also to its persistent historicity – to its
enduring object, that irrevocable ‘reflexivity’ of social action. It is the latter however, that makes also for
the inevitable disciplinary transgressions of the thesis of reflexivity – the fact that it must remain both,
peculiar to the sociological and most incontestably universal, alluding to the fundamental disposition of
the human condition, and hence also, of all human enquiry (Bonner 2001).

Implicit then, are two distinct traditions of enquiry that negotiate the essentiality of reflexivity to the
discourse(s) of sociology: one that must regard reflexivity as the preliminary object of sociology, and the
other that must presume reflexivity to be an inevitable methodological precondition. It might not be
incorrect then, however, most definitely reductionist to render the distinction as primarily one of ontology
and epistemology respectively, given that there must remain an inevitable correspondence between the
two orders – that categories of thought must conform to the truth(s) of being, that the method must
presume also, not only its contingent object, but also, the sovereign subject.

It was the affirmation of the necessity of an ontological reflexivity that made in the early theoretical
moorings of the discipline, for its disciplinary distinction. It made that is, in the rendering of a distinct,
manifest ‘object’, for the autonomy of the sociological – an autonomy that marked the separation of
sociology from its methodological correlates in the natural sciences. Both, in its ‘objectivist’ Durkheimian
and ‘interpretive’ Weberian traditions, the idea of reflexivity was pronounced as the critical precondition
of its enduring object – of human social behavior, of all social action (Salzman 2002). Reflexivity became
the fundamental marker of the ‘social’ nature of human actions and behavior, a condition that marked the
distinction of man from animal, and of the social from the natural.

It was the radicalization of the reflexive object that made, it may be said, also for the epistemic
preeminence of reflexivity– the unsettling of the fixity of the other, a contestation of the early objectivist
obstinacy in the wake of the unrelenting and most fundamental transformations in the extant social order.
Modernity that had contained the emergence and beginnings of the discipline, the certainty and the
promise of its method that is, also made for its emergent skepticism. It was the unsettling of its
ontological affirmations that made inevitable a radical methodological reform- that called for a reflexive
method to remake the sociological.

Reflexivity was only transformed into a meticulous methodological principal with the interventions of the
Hermeneutic discourse, the emergence of what is today referred to as SSK (Sociology of Scientific
Knowledge) or the Sociology of Knowledge (its early references manifest in the works for instance, of
Mannheim, Woolgar, Bloor, and Barnes), and radicalized subsequently by the post-structuralist,
postmodern turn in ethnography particularly and the social sciences more generally. Methodological
reflexivity called for a subversion of the objectivist schema, for a methodical unmaking of the obstinate
certainty of positive science. In its more contemporary articulations, reflexivity calls also, for a
denunciation of subjectivist nihilism, of a relativising subjectivism that had made for its epistemic
constriction. Manifest in the works of Bourdieu and Giddens for instance, reflexivity becomes a radical
principal of methodological and ontological skepticism, an affirmation of the inevitable dialectic of
sociality.

Reflexivity contains in that, it may be said, the unmaking of what was for Bourdieu, ‘the most
fundamental and the most ruinous’ of ‘all the oppositions that artificially divide social science’ – that
which is ‘set up between subjectivism and objectivism’ (Bourdieu 1990:25). Through a radical epistemic
reordering, through affirming the inevitable contingency of both, the subject and object, reflexivity calls
for a comprehensive reformation of the social sciences. Given the plurality of the discourses and the many
interpretations of reflexivity however, the sociological articulations of the notion remain fraught with
disjunctures and contestations, theoretical interjections that make for both, the inevitable elusiveness and
complexity of the term. It is this multiplicity of meanings and interpretations, the diverse array of
articulations that contain also however, its imminent possibilities, possibilities of both, a persistent
orthodoxy and that of an inevitable radicalism.

The trajectory of the notion of reflexivity thus, in a certain sense, may be regarded as one traversing the
historiography of the discipline itself. From the certainty of objectivist science, in an affirmation of the
promise of positivism, to a vehement denunciation of its ontological and epistemic presumptions, the
notion of reflexivity demonstrates the emergent skepticism and resultant ambivalence of sociology
towards not only its enduring object, but also its own biography. This trajectory culminates in what may
be regarded as three distinct discourses of reflexivity in contemporary sociological theory:

a. Sociological thought that presumes a definite historicity of reflexivity

such that the idea of reflexivity is inextricably linked to a definite epoch in
the history of modernity (as a correlate of ‘late’ modernity)
b. The postmodern turn that makes reflexivity a necessary condition of
critical ethnography.
c. The discourse of epistemic reflexivity that calls for a sociology that
presumes a meticulous, methodical self-confrontation.

2. The Biography of a Discipline: Sociology, Modernity and Radicalized Reflexivity

2.1 The Promise of Modernity

The very project of sociology, it may be argued, remains in a certain sense, most profoundly reflexive.
For it has, since its early beginnings in the 18th century and in its establishment as a distinct academic
discipline in the 19th century, been engaged in a relentless scrutiny of the modern. It was these context(s),
structures and processes of modernity however that had made also, for the fundamental conditions of its
own emergence. Sociology as a discipline, it is now commonplace, had emerged at a specific juncture in
western history, an epoch that had contained in itself the emergent structures of modernity- that had in
that been both, a precondition to, and constitutive of, the epistemic presumptions of the discipline. The
trajectory of sociology thus remains one of an inevitable ambivalence, a historiography fraught with
ambiguity and incongruity- from the convictions of early modernity and its correlate in positive science to
the tumultuous truth(s) of the late modern order (Pathak 2006; Hekman 1986).

Sociology’s engagement with the modern as aforementioned, has been necessarily incongruous –
sustaining in its most fundamental epistemic and ontological presumptions, both, the fervent optimism of
early modernity and a definite yearning for the bygone. There has remained thus, a persistent skepticism
towards even some of its most uncontested principles, towards the convictions of its emancipatory
promise, towards its aspirations for the human condition. Sociological thought has thus sustained a
manifest ambiguity, a plurality of discourses on the methodological and ontological affirmations of the
enlightenment, on the promise of social progress, on the unity of the sciences and the autonomy of its
principal object.

In its early beginnings, sociological thought, it remains apparent, presumed both, the necessity and
inevitability of the modern – the idea that not only was modernity a critical precondition to human
progress, but it was inexorable given the radical transformations that were already underway. Emerging in
what Hekman (1986:5) refers to, as ‘the shadow’ of ‘the triumphs’ of the natural sciences, early sociology
enshrined what may be regarded, the essential tenets of the European enlightenment – a dogmatic
affirmation of the autonomy of the individual, an obstinate notion of history and its linearity, the idea of
human progress impelled by the conquests of science and the necessary singularity of the notion of
scientificity itself.

It was this spirit of optimism, a conviction in and of the radical possibilities of science and the essentiality
of the latter for all human cultivation, that made for early sociological insights into the nature of
modernity and the possibilities that its social, economic and political order sustained for humankind.
Comtean positivism for instance, affirmed both, the possibility of the meta-science of social reality and
the manifest potentiality of such enquiry in the direction and cultivation of human progress. Affirming the
linearity of such progress, Durkheimian sociology in its own right called for the singularity of science, the
unity of the scientific method that was to inform also, the sciences of the social. Weber saw in the
dominion of modern reason, the possibility of unparalleled efficiency and economic advance. Marx
argued for the linearity of historical progress and the preeminence of science in its culmination through its
conquests of both, the natural world and of ideology (Pathak 2006; Hekman 1986).

For these early theorists then, modernity came to imply:

a. The affirmation of the autonomous individual

b. The progressive atrophying of tradition
c. The cultivation of critical consciousness and an ethos of enquiry,
experimentation and exploration
d. The establishment of political democracy and the assertion of the
individual citizen as a bearer of essential rights
e. Increasing segmentation making for more complex forms of economic
and social organization
f. The emergence of capitalism and industrial society
g. Urbanism and the rise of the city

The promise of modernity and the exaltation of positive science made for a definite faith in what may be
regarded, the fundamental dogma of scientificity. Modernity as such, came to represent a definite
epistemic stance, a manifest affirmation of a distinct mode of enquiry that had remained both, a
consequence of and precondition to the social and economic transformations in the modern order. The
social correlates of modernity in that, remained inextricably linked to its methodological presumptions, its
distinct epistemic imperatives that had made for early sociology, for what it regarded, the uncontestable
triumph of the scientific imagination.

This mode of knowing came to be most radically differentiated from the interiority and dogmatism of
earlier means of enquiry (Seidman 1983). It remained premised, most fundamentally, on the hegemonic
preeminence of reason, of a rationality that came to be affirmed in the methodical delineation of a
meticulous, unfaltering empiricism. It was this completeness that made for the categorical correspondence
of modern science – that between the ontological and the epistemic, between being and knowing. In that,
it affirmed the promise of modernity, of profound and ceaseless progress, of the possibility of absolute
human mastery over nature and the material world, the promise of an eternal surplus. It was in this revelry
of the natural sciences, that early sociology hailed the presumptions and methods of the new science, the
fundamental dogma(s) of modern scientificity:

a. Objectivism that made for the sovereignty of the scientific subject and the
autonomy of its object-other. Objectivism proclaimed an unassailable
disjuncture between subject and object, between fact and value.
b. Universalist knowledge premised on the ascendance of Cartesian
Rationalism and the regimentations of Baconian empiricism.
c. The normative identity of Truth and Science (Hekman, 1986).
d. A foundationalist affirmation of the singularity of the scientific method
e. The correspondence of Knowledge and Representation that proclaimed the
mimetic precision of modern science
f. An inevitable operationalism that made, in the preeminence of Baconian
empiricism, utility the elementary criterion of Truth.

2.2 Sociology and the Modern Quandary

Amidst the revelries of modernity, the euphoria of scientific advance and the industrial revolution, the a
priori reflexivity of sociology remains apparent, made inevitable also an enduring ambivalence – a
necessarily ambiguous engagement with modernity and hence also, with the conditions of its own
making. Since its early beginnings then, the discipline espoused a definite criticality towards the
consequences of industrial society, of a social, spatial and economic ordering that it regarded as the
necessary consequence of modernity. There remained as such, even in its early moorings, a definite
malaise with the idea of the modern, a theoretical confirmation of the limitedness of the project of
modernity and the necessary displeasures that it must entail (Nisbet 1976). What made for the
predicament of the modern, for sociology, was the necessity of its persistent paradox – the promise of
industrial advance and scientific certainty had made inevitable also an imminent decadence, inescapable
human misery and profound despair.

The most articulate rendering of such skepticism, it may be said, remains manifest in the work of
Durkheim. For Durkheim, the evolutionary imperative of the transition from ‘mechanical’ to ‘organic’
solidarity that implied a complex division of labor, consequent advances in technology and industrial
production, and the breakdown of traditional unfreedoms, made also for a heightened sense of isolation
and insecurity, a communal moral atrophy that would culminate in a profound and pervasive ‘anomie’
(Durkheim 1947). It was this sense of isolation and alienation, of moral degradation that found its
correlate in unrestricted desires and aspirations, in fragile bonds and pervasive disillusionment, all of
which made for Durkheim, for the rising rates of suicides in the emerging cities of a rapidly
industrializing Europe.

Such pathos of modernity was also manifest in the writings of Marx, Weber and Simmel, all of whom, like
Durkheim, made the modern condition a critical object of sociological enquiry. These early thinkers
demonstrate a palpable disaffection with the consequences of the modernity, more particularly, with the
human implications of its specific economic, social and spatial ordering. Modernity then, emerges as a
fundamental site of violence, an ‘iron cage’ as Weber affirms, where the human subject remains most
ruthlessly fragmented – alienated from the most essential states of herself, dismembered in a meticulous
unmaking of both, the ontological wholeness of man and her essential relatedness. It is the mechanistic
reductionism of modern science, the ascendance of instrumental reason and the epistemic privileging of a
rapacious empiricism that makes for, in the early imagination of the discipline, for the inevitable
predicament of modernity – the eventual distortion, dismemberment and conquest of its sovereign subject,
the dismantling of the promise of modernity.
Such apprehension in the early sociological discourses of modernity, it may be said, comes to be
structured into a meticulous methodological skepticism with the progressive radicalization of sociological
reflexivity. The trajectory of the discipline as such, demonstrates a manifest shift from the convictions of
modernity and of the scientific imagination, to a reflexive realization of the essential elusiveness both, the
object of sociological enquiry and its epistemic presumptions. Manifested in the many contestations and
discourses (for instance, in the assertions of the hermeneutic or phenomenological imagination in
sociology) on the nature of the sociological object and its methods, reflexivity in the emergent post-
modernist and post-structural traditions particularly, comes to effect a radical subversion – a meticulous
and cumulative unmaking of the methodological order of sociological enquiry, the sovereignty of the
sociological subject, and the enduring autonomy of its object other. Contained in the many discourses of
reflexivity as such, is a radical rethinking of the most fundamental of the presumptions of modernity, a
schema of profound and complete reform that must subvert both, the epistemic and ontological
presumptions of modern scientificity.

3. Risk, Reflexivity and the Radicalization of Modernity: Sociological Enquiries into the
Contemporary

Culminating in what has come to be termed, the ‘Risk-society’ thesis, the radical skepticism of early
sociological thinking on modernity and its consequences makes, it may be argued, for the preeminence of
the notion of reflexivity in the contemporary sociological delineations of the nature of its object.
Reflexivity that is, in the ‘risk-society’ thesis, comes to be regarded as a necessary correlate of the
contemporary – of ‘late’/‘high’ modernity, what Anthony Giddens, for instance regards, as the
radicalization of the traditional modern. For Ulrich Beck, it is the essentiality of reflexivity, its profundity
and pervasiveness in our times that makes for this radicalization.

What this represents, what makes for this critical transition from traditional modernity to the
contemporary epoch, is the ubiquitous preeminence of the notion of ‘risk’ (Giddens 1990; 2002. See also,
Beck 1992). What makes for the distinction of the traditional and the modern, what makes in itself, for the
condition of ‘late modernity’, that is, is the transition, more specifically, from the category of ‘danger’ to
that of ‘risk’. For the latter, Giddens argues, presumes a necessary extroversion, and comes into
preeminence only ‘in a society that is future oriented – which sees the future precisely as a territory to be
conquered or colonized”, in “a society that actively tries to break away from the past’ (2002:22). It is the
pervasiveness of risk that conditions for him, the emergence of a ‘radicalized’ modernity, one that makes
in the logic of its self-constitution, for both, the necessary confrontation of the past and the perpetual
uncontrollability of the future, for the reflexive then, as the essential condition of our times.

It is this inevitable and normative self-confrontation that makes for Beck, for the unintended reflexivity of
the late modern order – the idea that the notion of the risk must presume not only a persistent and
‘subversive, unintended and unforeseen self-questioning’ (2000:101) but the reflexive confrontation of
the self must itself contribute to the riskiness of the contemporary. The reflexivity of modernity as such,
contains for Beck, the fundamental condition of its precariousness –of its permanent uncontrollability, of
the inevitable inadequacy and incompleteness of our mechanisms of risk assessment, management and
reparation. This precariousness, the eternal changeability of globality in the risk-society thesis remains
articulated in a dual schema – manifest in the works of Giddens and Beck for instance, is the idea that the
riskiness of ‘late modernity’ must make reflexive not only the late modern subject, that reflexivity must
remain an attribute, not merely of the individual self, but also of a generative social (See also Lash 1994).
Reflexivity then, remains both, ‘marked as a characteristic of contemporary biographies and a structural
artifact of late/high modernity’ such that the ‘imperative to self-consciously and reflexively construct
one’s own identity’ remains a necessary condition of the global structural overhaul’ (Kenway and
McLeod 2004:526).

3.1 The Late-Modern Subject and the D-I-Y Biography

Self-reflexivity as such, emerges as the function of the late-reflexive subject, of a post-traditional self
unconstrained by the prescriptions of tradition. The late-modern self comes to be constituted as a self-
instituted ‘project’ increasingly delinked from the normative orthodoxies of the traditional order. This
emancipation of the subject, the progressive transcendence of the structural remains effected most
profoundly, within the structures of late modernity, in the traditions of the its unbridled individualization
and fragmentation. Individualization, then, for Beck, remains a structural attribute of late modernity, a
condition that sustains in itself, irrespective of the possibility of perpetual structural confrontation.
Individualization, he argues, ‘means that the standard biography becomes a chosen biography’ (Beck
Giddens and Lash 1994:15), a reflexively ordered self-reality effected through ‘disembedding’, and
secondly, through ‘reembedding of industrial society ways of life by new ones, in which the individual
must produce, stage and cobble together their biographies themselves’ (Ibid: 13). It is this context that
Giddens proclaims that we are no longer ‘what we are, but what we make of ourselves’ (1991:75). The
decline and waning of traditions in late modernity makes for him, for a dismantling of ‘action and
ontological frameworks’ (ibid:48) such that the individual now actively organize, cultivate and manage
her life in a perpetual and reflexive making of self-identities. Where orthodoxies themselves become
reflexive, where traditions must themselves be ‘chosen and invented’, they come to bear force ‘only
through the decisions and experience of individuals’ (Beck 2003: 276). Individuals remain most
profoundly ‘sequestered’(Giddens 1991), devoid of purpose, of the fundamental telos of being.

The late-modern subject, in that, remains necessarily ensnared, in the revelry of desire, in the tyranny of
freedoms- the contemporary self remains most profoundly unfree, caricatured by the fallacy of
sovereignty, of a being devoid of all morality. For Bauman, it is such ‘sequestration’, the inevitable
‘internal referentiality’ (ibid) of modernity that makes for its fatalism. For Bauman (1995) then, the late
modern order must sustain of necessity, even amidst the proliferation of choices, of the many avenues of
consumption and gratification, only a chimera of agency. Choice itself comes to be suspended, ephemeral
given the tumultuous ‘succession of episodes’ (ibid: 5) that come to mark the eternal immediacy of the
late-modern biography. For Bauman, what were deemed to be the necessary correlates of agency – guilt
and responsibility are now abdicated in a structured displacement of authority,
in an institutionalized disavowal of choice to the precarious and transient truths of the late modern
condition. ‘The consequences of choice’, Bauman argues, ‘outlive, as a rule, the authority on whose
advice the choice had been made’ (ibid), an authority, that for Beck, remains perpetually unmade in the
reflexivity of late modernity, in the contingency and precariousness of its institutions and structure(s)
itself.

3.2 Structural Reflexivity and Tumultuous Reign of the Expert(s)

The structural/institutional reflexivity (Bagguley 2003) of late modernity remains inextricably linked, as
aforementioned, to the pervasiveness of the notion of ‘risk’ in the contemporary order. Reflexivity, in its
structural order as such, emerges in the transition from the traditional to the late modern and remains
situated in the profound precariousness effected as a consequence of ubiquitous risks, particularly in the
emergence of what Giddens terms,‘manufactured risks’ (Giddens 2002). It is this notion of ‘manufactured
risks’ that contains, it may be said, the fundamental and persistent paradox of late modernity – the fact
that risk and uncertainty must remain the necessary outcomes of human interventions for control and
conquest. That risk must remain ubiquitous, because it is the mechanisms of risk management –
knowledge, expertise and scientific and technological advances in and for curtailing a pervasive riskiness,
that must in fact, make for its dogged persistence.

While reflexivity, it is argued, becomes a structural condition of late modernity- of a society that is
sustained in a radical and perpetual self-confrontation, it is this essential condition of continual self-
appraisal that secures in effect, the permanence of an unmanageable, surplus riskiness. What the condition
of structural reflexivity implies, more specifically, is that the ‘regularized use of knowledge about
circumstances of social life’ must itself be a ‘constitutive element in its organization and transformation’
(Giddens, 1991:20). For Giddens then, it is this in-turning of information, concepts and knowledge onto
the conditions of their emergence that makes for the structural reflexivity of late modernity. ‘The
reflexivity of modern social life’, he thus asserts, consists not in the absence or impossibility of a ‘stable
social world’, but precisely, in the fact that ‘the knowledge of that world must’ in itself, ‘contribute to its
unstable and mutable character’ (Giddens 1990:45).

Contained in the ascendance of the many expert systems, such institutionalized reflexivity comes to be
regarded as a fundamental attribute of a radicalized modernity. What marks the distinction of the late
modernity in fact, is the ‘all pervasive scope’ (Giddens 1991:30) of these systems of measurement and
appraisal, what Beck regards, a proliferating ‘calculus of risk’ (Mythen 2004) that is institutionalized for
the domestication and management of the imminent uncertainties and catastrophic risks of our times.
Reflexivity in the late modern order as such, remains effected primarily through the logic of science,
through a ‘modernization of modernization’ manifest in the reign of the expert – in the expert systems of
techno-science and in the hegemonic preeminence of instrumental reason. Reflexivity in the late modern
order then, remains utterly scientistic (Lash 1994; Elliot 1995), effected in and through a scientificity that
must ultimately remain necessarily inadequate, constitutive itself of an impending, and relentless
riskiness.

4. Many Reflexivities: Dialogues, Contestations and the Possibilities of a Reformed Sociology

Such scientistic rendering of reflexivity however, comes to be most meticulously contested in some of the
emergent traditions of sociological thought. The critique of scientism, it may be argued, remains itself, a
necessary outcome of the radical reflexivity of the sociological – a condition that makes for the inevitable
denunciation of the fundamental presumptions of modern scientificity, its dogmatic objectivism, the
imminent nihilism of its radical subjectivist contestations and the obstinate disjuntures that make for its
methodological schema.

Lash (1994) and Elliot (1995) for instance, assert the ruthlessly objectivist and instrumental presumptions
of late modern reflexivity. Structural reflexivity in the contemporary times, they argue remains
necessarily ‘caught within a modernist prism’ (Elliot 1995:722) such that it is the logic of modern science
– Beck’s ‘calculus of risk’ for instance institutionalizes the instrumentality of scientific expertise. It is the
‘calculus of risk’ that is, that makes for him, also, the essential ‘relations of definition’ – the “basic
principles underlying industrial production, law, science, opportunities for the public and public
policy…that decide about data, knowledge, proofs, culprits and compensation’ (of risks) (Beck 1995 cited
in Mythen 2004:54). It is this preeminence of the scientific manifest also in Giddens’ ‘expert systems’ –
the proliferating systems of knowledge, measurement and appraisal that make also for the perpetual
riskiness of the late modern order. Such a rendering of reflexivity, for Lash (1994) remains necessarily
inadequate, most fundamentally erroneous, for what it effects, is a near complete bracketing of the
‘aesthetic’, an inevitable severance, that for Giddens affirms the obstinate ‘internal referentiality’ of late
modernity – it is thus for him, ‘positivistic thought in one guise or another’, becomes ‘the central guiding
thread in modernity’s reflexivity’ (1991:155).
Scientism and the singularity of science itself come to be adically contested in what may be regarded,
theoretical-ethnographic or postmodern articulations of reflexivity. The postmodern critique or the
critical/experimental turn in ethnographic writings, for instance, presents a radical self-critique of
conventional ethnography as both, a method of knowing and a convention of presentation. Contained in
the works of ethnographer-anthropologists like George Marcus, James Clifford, Steven Seidman and
Renato Rosaldo, among others, the postmodern critique contests the very presumptions of
representational knowledge – the obstinate realism and mimetic convictions of modern scientificity.
Reflexivity, in this tradition of thought, as such, comes to imply most fundamentally, the contingency of
both, the ethnographic subject and object, and the inevitable precariousness and partiality of all scientific
truths. In a reflexive ethnography then, the ethnographer must become ‘as much the question as the
questioner’ (Parker 1985 cited in Watson 1987:33) subverting most meticulously, the dogged
extroversion of the scientific order.

Such subversion, in the works of Bourdieu (1990; 1998) for instance, comes to be instituted not in the
subjective reflections of the scientific subject, but in the structuring of the sociological method(s) itself.
What makes for Bourdieu, that is, for the essential limitation of the latter, is the structured incapacity for
systematic ‘self-objectification’ – the fact that the method of sociology must necessarily preclude the
critical investigation of its own disciplinary unconscious , of ‘the unthought categories of thought which
delimit the thinkable and predetermine the thought’ (Bourdieu 1982 cited in Wacquant 1992:40).
Reflexivity as such, for Bourdieu, remains a fundamental condition of methodological rigor that
structures a perpetual vigilance into the method of social sciences, a rigor that presumes the meticulous
objectification of the conditions of its own making. It is only such ‘sociology of sociology’ that must
contain the possibility, for Bourdieu, of a radical, rigorous and indisputably ‘better sociology’ (2004:4).

A ‘better sociology’, however, Gouldner argues, remains possible only in a radical denunciation of the
logic of objectivation. For Goulder then, the radicalism of reflexivity is contained in precisely this
possibility. Reflexivity, that is, he argues, fundamentally unmakes what for him, is the most debilitating
disjuncture of the sociological method – the structured severance of subject and object, the enduring
dualism that makes for sociology’s sustained conservatism. Reflexivity thus, for Gouldner, presumes
primarily, a perpetual recognition of ‘the depth of our kinship with those whom we study’ (1970:490). In
this for Gouldner, is contained the necessary ethicality of reflexivity – the inevitable normativeness of a
method that calls for a radical monism, the moral communion of the researcher and the researched, the
subject and object. Reflexivity as such, promises for Gouldner, the blending of sociological rigour ‘with a
touch of mercy’ such that the skills sociologists may possess ‘may come to yield not only information but
perhaps even a modest measure of wisdom’ (ibid). What such sociology must address then is not only
‘how to work, but how to live’ (1970:489).

Perhaps, it is in this moral possibility that is contained the fundamental radicalism of reflexivity.

5. Summary

The following points of importance can be gathered from this chapter:

Ø the idea that the notion of reflexivity must allude not only to the epistemic possibilities
of the discipline, but also to its persistent historicity – to its enduring object, that
irrevocable ‘reflexivity’ of social action.
Ø Implicit then, are two distinct traditions of enquiry that negotiate the essentiality of
reflexivity to the discourse(s) of sociology: one that must regard reflexivity as the
preliminary object of sociology, and the other that must presume reflexivity to be an
inevitable methodological precondition. It might not be incorrect then, however, most
definitely reductionist to render the distinction as primarily one of ontology and
epistemology respectively, given that there must remain an inevitable correspondence
between the two orders –
Ø Both, in its ‘objectivist’ Durkheimian and ‘interpretive’ Weberian traditions, the idea of
reflexivity was pronounced as the critical precondition of its enduring object – of human
social behavior, of all social action (Salzman 2002). Reflexivity became the fundamental
marker of the ‘social’ nature of human actions and behavior, a condition that marked the
distinction of man from animal, and of the social from the natural.

Ø Reflexivity contains in that, it may be said, the unmaking of what was for Bourdieu, ‘the
most fundamental and the most ruinous’ of ‘all the oppositions that artificially divide
social science’ – that which is ‘set up between subjectivism and objectivism’ (Bourdieu
1990:25).
Ø Amidst the revelries of modernity, the euphoria of scientific advance and the industrial
revolution, the a priori reflexivity of sociology remains apparent, made inevitable also
an enduring ambivalence – a necessarily ambiguous engagement with modernity and
hence also, with the conditions of its own making. Since its early beginnings then, the
discipline espoused a definite criticality towards the consequences of industrial society,
of a social, spatial and economic ordering that it regarded as the necessary consequence
of modernity. Such pathos of modernity was also manifest in the writings of Marx,
Weber and Simmel, all of whom, like Durkheim, made the modern condition a critical
object of sociological enquiry.

Ø Contained in the many discourses of reflexivity as such, is a radical rethinking of the

most fundamental of the presumptions of modernity, a schema of profound and
complete reform that must subvert both, the epistemic and ontological presumptions of
modern scientificity.
Unit 29
Theories of Modernisation and
Modernity
Contents
29.1 Introduction
29.2 Approaches to Modernisation
29.3 Implication of Modernisation Theories
29.4 Phases in Modernisation Processes
29.5 Modernisation : The Asian Syndrome
29.6 Modernisation Process as a Whole
29.7 The Phenomena of Modernity
29.8 Approaches to Modernity
29.9 Conclusion
29.10 Further Reading
29.11 References

Learning Objectives
After having read this unit you will be able to,
define Modernisation
outline approaches, implications, and phases of Modernisation
discuss Modernisation in India
describe the phenomena of modernity
outline the approaches to modernity

29.1 Introduction
The theories of Modernisation inform us about how the various parts of the
world developed into industrial powers. The approaches/theories that describe
and analyse how and why this happened are the subject of the initial part
of this lesson. Thereafter we will turn to modernity and see how a
presentation and analysis of the same helps our understanding of modern
western society as also the social processes witnessed in some Asian societies.
Thus Modernisation is an outcome of various social processes. The major
events in this historical development began after the IInd world war and
these include the emergence of America (US) as a superpower in the globe
which had the result of trying to styme the rise of communism. To bring
about this aim of ‘containment ‘ the US invested greatly in the strengthening
of the economic base of certain countries including Western Europe, South
Korea and Japan. Modernisation also stems from the growth of the communist
movements in China Vietnam, Soviet Union (now no longer existing as a
communist bloc) and Cuba. The third of these processes include the factors
of decolonialisation in Asia and Africa and the termination of colonies
controlled by European powers.

At this point of time the former colonies had to face the challenge of
adopting some appropriate model of growth. In this they were assisted and
helped by the US which sent vast teams of social scientists to study the
165
Issues of Modernity ground situation in the new nations states. The idea behind this move of
the US was to see how capitalist ideologies could be used in the economic
growth of these nations most of whom were poor due to the long period of
colonisation which had greatly debilitated their resources and has been
deeply exploited. This included the export of raw materials which were
turned into products and commodities and reexported to the colonies so as
to make great economic profits. This strategy of supplanting capitalism and
capitalist ideologies was no doubt also an attempt to the influence of
communist ideology and to destroy it over a period of time. There is thus
a great dimension of political maneuvers and ideology which is involved in
the process of Modernisation. Thus the scholars in all fields of social science
studied these societies and their findings began to be published soon after
the IInd world war. The main tools of analysis and of subsequent published
included primarily the evolutionary theory and secondly the functionalist
theory. Let us describe these approaches now so that the overall process of
Modernisation begins to be clear. Thus evolutionary theory and theorists
pointed out the several factors which comprised the view point of this
approach found social charge in these societies to be in a linear progression
going from primitive to complex society. This was held to be so in all societies.
Again this theory and the theorists associated with it held that such linear
progress of societies was leading to a better world and represented the
good of humanity and civilization at large. Further social change was envisioned
as a gradual occurrence and was dissociated from any sudden and violent
chain of events eg revolution. Change was slow and steady and not sudden
and violent as the communist ideology upheld. This slow change considering
the situation of modern societies was felt to take enormous spans of time
running in to centuries, not just decades. Thus the functionalist theorists,
foremost of whom was Parsons, built up various tenets to promote its view
point the main ones being the analogy of society as being an organism which
had various interrelated segments in societal institutions. In this organismic
entity (society) each of the various institutions performed a particular part
which contributed to the whole. This theory propagated that there were
four main functions which the institutions performed. These were the
functions of - (a) adaptation to the environment performed by the capitalist
economic system. Then was the function of. (b) goal attainment which was
a government function a function which encompassed liberal aims(Rojas 1996:
p1). Next came the function of integration performed by legal and religious
institutions, specifically the Christian religion. Finally there is the latency
function performed by the family and by educational institutions.

29.2 Approaches to Modernisation

Thus Modernisation approaches distinguished between traditional societies
and modern societies. Thus the traditional societies were such that they
tended to have a large personal, face to face nature which was felt to be
inferior in terms of market relations. On the other hand modern societies
tended to be neutral and therefore much more capable of dealing with and
exploiting the market and the environment.

One of the key institutions in the society is the family and the nature of this
differed again in traditional and modern societies. Thus the family in
traditional societies was responsible for many functions. That is to say it is
multifunctional and covered issues of religion, welfare, education,
reproduction also emotional scaffolding. On the other hand the modern
166 family which the functions of the family are now the domain of the state.
In this theory social disturbances occur when any of the parts of society Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
begin to malfunction or to fail to deliver what was expected of it to maintain
the status quo. Disturbances include peaceful / violent agitation, revolution,
guerilla warfare and now terrorism. However there is a disturbing side to
these activities because any individual / institution that provokes the state
and the status quo is deliberately and often violently desisted and resisted
for doing so. These actions are deliberately viewed as action which is
humanitarian. The question of human rights is a recent phenomena and
organisations have be instituted to ensure that democracy is not violated at
the cost of middle level disturbances whether by groups or by institutions.

Box 29.1: Mc Donaldization

If we equate formal rationality with modernity, then the success and spread
of the fast food restaurant, as well as to the degree to which it is serving
as a model for much of the rest of society, indicate that we continue to live
in a modern world…

While there may be other changes in the economy which support the idea
of a post industrial society, the fast food restaurant and the many other
elements that are modeled after it do not. (Ritzer 1996, sociological theory.
P:579).

Smelser’s point of view differed somewhat from what we have been pointing
out. He took as his point of attention the effect of the economy and related
institutions on the overall social structure. He pointed out that in
Modernisation process society developed from simple technology to complex
ideology. Further this was a movement away from subsistence to cash crops
so far as agriculture is concerned. Again Smelser indicated that machine
power begins to dominate pushing aside simply human (physical) labour.
Finally there is an emphasis on urbanisation and urban structures rather than
development of the rural areas. Smelser however was realistic enough to
realise that these developments were not simple and linear but that these
processes took place at the same time (together) but not at the same rate
(Smesler, 1969).

Also such changes would occur at a different pace at different social structure
and societies. In other words there was not one single trajectory towards
social change because the traditions were varied in different societies. They
therefore provided different kinds of challenges. Similarly Rostow published
a theory of Modernisation which took the terminology of aviation and
proposed various stages of development.

This theory talks of a primitive society moving on to get preconditions for

the pre “take – off” onto the “take- off stage”, the drive to maturity and
finally to a mass consumption society. Thus for Rostow (Rostow, 1960)
economic development goes through various stages and that this is universal
to all societies, and that Modernisation is a process of homogenisation, of
Europeanization, irreversible progressive, evolutionary and transformative.
This theory has some questionable implications. Thus following this theory
it is implied that the nations which are traditional have as their ultimate
model western advanced societies which they must emulate in every way to
themselves reach an advanced state/modern state. This in itself implies that
the capitalist state and ideology is the path to be followed by the under
developed states. Thus Modernisation and theories explaining it accept
167
Issues of Modernity without hesitation that American policies of trade and foreign policy, and
that of international relations have to be accepted and subscribed to because
they are at the core of the modernising process.

29.3 Implication of Modernisation Theories

As you will have noticed that there is a heavy western bias in these theories
and their implications. Modernisation theory itself is mostly a western product
and sets up these societies as an ideal that the less developed countries
must follow without hesitation including capitalist ideology because this
‘‘works’’ and works best. However dependency theory takes a wider global
perspective. It points out that the problems faced in development are not
just those of social structure in traditional societies but in large part due to
world wide structures imposed by the Western world, or the North.

Reflection and Action 29.1

Do you think that the “metropolis-satellite” relationship between countries
of north and south still exists? Give reasons for your answer.

Thus Andre Gunder Frank has pointed out that relations between North and
South are arranged as a chain described by him as “metropolis – satellite”
relationships. Thus we can see that there is an underlying hierarchy in world
relations (Foster-Coster, 1985). At the top of the chain is the metropolis (US)
that has no strong dependence on other regions. We then go on to the
strong dependencies but are dependent on the USA (or other well developed
Western societies) for aid or any other kind of help. The downward chain
continues and culminates right down to states (nations) which are very
highly or even totally dependent on the nations higher up in the hierarchy
of dependencies for almost everything in food, fertilizers, clothes,
automobiles, machines etc.

According to Frank such dependencies become a problem when a State

wants to develop itself economically and socially. Thus such moves often call
for sanctions against the satellite states by the metropolises on which the
satellite is dependent. This means also that dependency of this sort stems
the freedom to chose by the satellite states, and to try and evolve in their
own way because whatever they have by way of economic wealth is consumed
by the nations higher in the hierarchy.

This theory is readily witnessed in international relations and the aid to the
third world by the North have the most exploitative terms and conditions,
which ensure that the satellite states can never be free of the donor in
economic terms. Frank opines that the dismantling of such relations can
alone lead to development along the lines that the third world nations want.
Thus dependency theory is opposed to Modernisation theory, but it is
definitely an alternative explanation. Further such an explanation exposes
some harsh realities of contemporary societies across the globe. Modernisation
theory is more of an ideology whereas dependency theories exposes the
harsh economic international realities. Neither of them has produced any
specific development just attributable to them. It may be noted however
that Modernisation has since the 17th century has had an affect, beginning
with the Western countries, impacted all over the globe. To give an example
let us turn to the field of communication. Thus Modernisation theories shed
light on how the media is affected by these relatively recent changes both
168 in relatively traditional and postmodern societies we may note that the
Modernisation theories we have been discussing can be seen to have evolved Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
in three relatively distinct phases. The first phase of these theories began
in the 1950s and 1960s and tried to explain how Western styles of living
gradually spread all over the globe (world). These was also a spread of
technological innovations and the ideology of individualism.

29.4 Phases in Modernisation Processes

The economic aspect where the mass media helped to spread technological
innovations that were at the core of Modernisation.
Cultural development including education and literacy rates. This too was
aided by the mass media which can promote modernity.
Identify development especially a rational identity was also helped by the
media including the process of nation building and elections.

However a basic shortcoming of these approaches to Modernisation was

their Western bias. Now the second phase of Modernisation was linked to
critical theory that held away in the 1980s. These theories are in fact a
critique of the western impact of Modernisation. Thus according to the
media dependency theory there was a dependence of the developing countries
on the mass media of the western world. That is to say the peripheral
countries depended upon the core. Now we come to the third phase of the
development of Modernisation theory beginning in the 1990s. These theories
attempted to be neutral in their approach. Thus according to Giddens modern
society (Giddens, A. 1991) and culture is marked by time space distantiation
and disembbeding features or characteristics. Thus while traditional society
involves much face to face interaction by those living in proximity to each
other in modern cultures and societies the space across which interaction
occurs using mass media. Thus the disembedding process such as currency,
symbols, the internet and english language all help bring the North and South
into a clearer focus. We now term to another area of Modernisation which
has its presentation and analysis based on work in India.

29.5 Modernisation: The Asian Syndrome

Yogendra Singh points out at the beginning of his analysis that prior to
Modernisation the traditions of India were based on the various principles
of hierarchy, holism, continuity and transcendence. These were the basic
aspects of tradition. These factors to some extent existed also in the
traditional west. However as Singh notes Indian and Western tradition were
in fact divergent to each other. This arose specifically from their own differing
historical background their specific social and cultural heritage and overall
social situation. Singh asks whether despite these differences would it lead
to a universal model of Modernisation? Singh distinguishes between social
change perse and Modernisation. Social change as such need not necessarily
imply Modernisation. However the changes which were ortho-genetic and
hetero- genetic were pre-modern. Thus the Islamic tradition in India was
heterogenetic and was established by conquest. Thus endogenous change in
Hinduism were confined to Sanskritisation. This in itself was based on a
historical process which took many generations and was positional alone not
structural. Modernisation in India commenced with its contact with the
west which brought about vast changes in the Indian social structure. However
it cannot be said that all contacts led to Modernisation. In fact Singh notes
that in the process of contact with the west certain traditional institutions
169
Issues of Modernity also got further strengthened. Thus as Singh notes it would be misleading
to think of a clear polarity between tradition and modernity, and he feels
this is more theoretical than actual.

Box 29.2: Changes in Traditional India

The changes which thus occurred were confined to differentiation within the
framework of traditional social structure and values; structural changes
were way few, and those which took place were limited in respect of the
type of roles ….Similar development in religious role structure and
organisations partially followed the emergence of other traditions. But these
changes by no means could be called structural, since differentiation of roles
was segmental and did not alter the system as a whole. (Yogendra Singh,
1986, The Modernisation Of Indian Tradition: p:193).

During the British period Modernisation was selective and sequential. It was
not in synchronisation with family caste and village. These areas were not
of much concern by the British, more so after the revolt of 1857. British
administration felt that these structures were not dynamic and were
autonomous, especially the village and caste system. Caste was considered
in the army and beaurocrasy, and in the national movement of a communal
electorate was introduced. Singh feels these factors influenced the post
colonial Modernisation process. The process of Modernisation found expression
and ground in the freedom struggle of India led by Mahatma Gandhi whose
actions and mobilisation of the masses led to what Singh calls a new political
culture of Modernisation. However, Gandhi was not able to avert the partition
of the nation into two because the historical background of Islam and Hinduism
was different.

Singh asks how Modernisation can lead to an integrative pattern which is

rather a complicated one whether this is overt or convert. How can a society
avert a structural breakdown. From here on in the answer we are on familiar
ground (discussed earlier in this unit) as Singh turns to the main theories of
Modernisation, that is the structural and the evolutionary theories of
Modernisation. These approaches have been adequately discussed earlier
and we will not repeat them again. The student can at this point go back
to the beginning of the unit before reading further.

29.6 Modernisation Process as a Whole

In this analysis Singh now turns towards a discussion of Modernisation as a
whole. He points out that Modernisation did not lead to institutional and
structural breakdown because of the characteristics of society in India. One
of these characteristics was the political structures. Further the caste system
itself was also independent of the political system. Thus the various which
village areas had their own councils (panchayat) through which they
attempted to solve village level problems. This type of inter structural
independence was a great facilitator of Modernisation, but as pointed out
earlier did not lead to societal breakdown. Thus Singh notes that modernity
developed as a sub-structure and sub-culture rather an over arching entity.
Over time however this segmental presence of Modernisation became
‘encompassing’ and the structural autonomy was no longer the prime ‘shock-
absorber’. Again changes in political systems made this pervade on society
and stratification cultures. In its wake there are stresses on the entire
cultural system. However it is clear that Modernisation requires adaptive
170 changes in value systems which are non traditional in terms of values and
norms. Singh gives the example of the process of secularism and untouchability Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
which are definitely part of the Modernisation process in present day India
which is resisted by the traditional value system (Singh, 1986).

Reflection and Action 29.2

To what extent does Modernisation lead to the breakdown of inequality? Give
reasons to support you’re your answer.

Singh asks again whether society in India be able to avoid “structural

breakdown” in what he refers to as the “second phase” of Modernisation?
Further the absence of the structural autonomy creates serious problems or
“bottlenecks” for the transition to modernity? Thus Singh opines that in the
cultural area legislations have altered the overall landscape since they have
been made with a view to terminate social inequality and its attendant
exploitation and alienation, and pave the way towards democratic rights and
other commitments made in the constitution of India. Such processes have
pushed society in India away from the positional changes of Srinivas’s theory
of Sanskrilisation. In place of this process these has been a creation of new
identifies, caste associations and tribes. This process in itself is speeded up
by the Great Traditions of Modernisation eg education, industrialisation and
urbanisation. Further Singh notes that traditional structures are being
mobilised for modern objectives and protest movements. Paradoxically tradition
itself is strengthened because media and transport processes spread ritual
structures, and help organise further the various religious groups and
activities. Again religious sects and other religious groupings employ the
bureaucratic approach and this is in part responsible towards the integration
of sects from the overarching religious order. However Singh is careful to
point out that in the post colonial period of Modernisation there have been
several structural changes. Thus caste, family, village, and community retained
their traditional identity. Caste especially has been witnessed to be extreme
fluid and adaptive to new situations and has in no way been abolished so
far as the ground reality is concerned. Further caste has adopted to the
modern era in India by involving itself in many different areas such as
democratic participation, politics and trade unionism, and is tenacious in its
persistence more so in the area of joint family groups.

Modernisation in the colonial era was relatively homogenous in the elite

structures. Thus the elite from industry, military and politics came from a
background in caste and class stratum. These elite had access to modern
education and had similar ideologies. It is clear then that the base for such
elites was fairly delimited. In the post independence era this narrow base
has increased. The result of this that there is a differentiation between the
elites themselves, broadly the political and the non political elite. Singh
points out that the political elite is less Westernized and identify much more
with traditionality and symbols related to it. Singh also notes that the federal
structure of a one party system has given way to a multiparty system, with
the subsequent divergence in ideologies. Further the income created by the
various FYPs has mainly benefited those who are already rich rather than the
poor, especially rural masses. Thus the attempt to plan has accentuated the
divide between the rich and the poor. Again the fast rate of growth in
population has itself created structural tensions. Thus till recently the
industrialisation process India remained what Singh calls a ‘rural-peasant’
type of society, except for pockets such as the metropolitans of India of
which there are few in India.
171
Issues of Modernity These structural inconsistencies arise therefore from a variety of sources;
these are:
Democratisation without appropriate civic culture
Bureaucratisation without universalistic norms
Growth of the mass media.
Aspiration growth without increased resources and distributive justice.
Stress on welfare ideology only at the verbal level.
Over urbanisation without inadequate and proper charges in the social
strata.

Singh cites Gunnar Myrdal according to whom nationalism and democracy

have grown in an uneven way in Asia. In western societies an independent
state, effective government and adequate law enforcement proceeded
nationalism and democracy. In contrast in South Asia this was not the case
and therefore this imbalance also created a economic dependence on
developed countries. It also meant slow economic development and extremely
tardy changes in institutions.

In India especially with a larger percentage of intellectuals and middle classes

which are important for a real democracy, Modernisation did not proceed
unimpeded. As Myrdal notes the “soft–state” approach meant a serious blow
for social change which can be “circular” or “cumulative”. Myrdal does not
subscribe to evolutionary stages of growth which he feels is a teleological
and conservative ideology. Thus the Modernisation process in India is moving
towards a critical phase. However Singh is of the view that these stresses
and contradictions will not lead to institutional breakdown. He feels that a
‘constant coordination of Modernisation’ is absolutely essential for a
democracy based Modernisation in India. He is also of the view that
Modernisation is not a single monolithic process and can and does differ
from one society to another.

29.7 The Phenomena of Modernity

Let us now turn to a related concept and a related process to Modernisation
viz. the phenomena of modernity. Thus the term modernity is a term employed
to discuss the stage of a society that is more developed than another
society. This term is usually employed to describe a society that uses world
wide capitalism as the model to overall world development. Thus when a
society is has the characteristics of modernity it is named a modern society.
On the other hand the process of becoming a modern society is called
Modernisation (as we have seen earlier). The defining features of such modern
societies is:
Emergence of nation state
Industrialisation and capitalism
Rise of democracy
Heavier dependence on technological innovation
Attendant urbanisation
The overall development in mass media

In western Europe some of the defining features include:

Renaissance and enlightenment
172
 Reformation and counter reformation Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
French Revolution and American Revolution
The Industrial Revolution

Many attempts have been made is sociology to try and define modernity.
Some of the factors used to define modernity include:-
Disenchantment of the world
Rationalisation
Mass society
Secularisation
Democratisation, and so on

Thus modernity is often contextualised by comparing modern societies to

pre or post modern societies. This in itself creates some problems in terms
of being able to define modernity. This is especially difficult when we try to
construct a three stage model from pre modern to modern, and then onto
post modernity. The features we have noted is a movement from somewhat
isolated communities to more large scale integrated societies. In this sense
Modernisation could be understood as a process which is not unique to
Europe alone.

Box 29.3: Cultural Crystallisation

One of Germay’s leading social philosophers in the Adenauer period following
the second world war, Gehlen (1963) proposed the theory of “cultural
crystallisation” to describe the modern situation. According to Gehlen in a
famous phrase, “the premises of the Enlightenment are dead, only their
consequences remain”. In his view the institutional complexes of modern
society have separated themselves from cultural modernity which can now
be discarded… cultural ideas are no longer able to produce the “new” that
was central to modernity (Genard Delanty 2000, Modernity and Postmodernity,
p:73).

Thus large scale integration implies that there is a vibrant economy which
reaches out to all parts of a nation state. This in itself is possible when
mobility in the society has increased. Further these developments imply
specialisation with is a society and linking up of sectors. However these
processes can sometimes appear to be paradoxical. Thus a unique local culture
loses its identity by these increasingly powerful influences of cultural factors
eg. Folktales, popular music and homogenisation of cultures, food recipes.
These factors are found to exist in a greater or lesser extent in all local
cultures, and helps to diversify them. This is found to a greater extent in
the metropolitan towns where mobility is higher.

Thus bureaucracy and hierarchical aspect of governments and the industrial

sector are the areas which grow in power in an unprecedented manner.
However the role of the individual still exits in such a society where there
is dynamic competition and individualism, both exist side by side. This is
then quite different from societies where the role of the individual is
ascriptive. That is to say the individual in modern societies is influenced by
more than family background and family preoccupations.

Now it is necessary to point of that such social changes are found at different
173
Issues of Modernity levels of social integration, and are not simply the features of European
society at any particular point of time. These changes can happen when two
communities merge together. Thus when two individuals develop a
relationship the division of roles also tend to merge. Again in the process of
globalisation we find the international flows of capital change the ground
situation. Thus while it can be said that modernity has some apparently
contradictory elements in reality these can be reduced to several simple
concepts related to social change.

How then does this view of modernity explain the world wide influences of
West European and American societies since the Renaissance. Initially, we
can say that the internal factor is that only in Europe, that rational thinking
began to substitute intellectual activities that were shrouded in superstition
and religion.

Secondly, there was an external elements as well, and this was the factor of
colonisation, which created an exploitation nexus between these societies,
which were exploited and others which exploited the societies.

However we find that there are many traces of ancient societies which
coexist within the umbrella of modernity. This includes joint families, small
scale enterprise, vast income diversity and so on. It has however been
argued that features many in fact be regarded as aspects of modernity itself
rather than any threat to it.

Modernisation was very beneficial to society in many ways, especially in the

field of health and in the field of nutrition. Thus fatal diseases were controlled
or eliminated, and the values of egalitarianism began manifesting themselves.

However some drawbacks are also there and the picture is not just positive.
This not only did technological advantages breed greater economic wealth
but also developed nuclear bombs two of which were dropped on Nagasaki
and Hiroshima. Nuclear technology still evokes negative responses, when it
is proposed to be used for military purposes. Similarly the degradation of
environment and overall pollution are well known. However decreasing
biodiversity , climate change all result from a hyper individual society.
Psychological problems and laxity of morals also create problems of modernity.

29.8 Approaches to Modernity

Thus as Taylor points out there are at least two approaches for the
comprehension of how modernity came into being. These are ways of
comprehending what makes the existing society so very different from that
which enveloped man before modernity arose.

One method looks at the differences in contemporary western society and

culture and medieval Europe as similar to the difference between medieval
Europe and medieval India. So we can think about and analyse difference
between civilizations, and their attendant culture. On the other hand the
situation can be looked at from the viewpoint of change involving the end
of one type of traditional society and the coming into being of modern
societies. The latter perspective is the more influential one and it provides
an analysis that gives a different perspective. The approach mentioned first
is a cultural approach and the second an a-cultural approach. In the cultural
174 approach there are many cultures, which have in them language and cultural
practices that help us to understand the self the other psychological sets, Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
religion, morality and so on. These factors are specific to a culture and are
often non comparable. Keeping the above in view a cultural theory of
modernity outlines first and then analyses the transformation into the new
culture. The present day world can be seen as a culture with specific
comprehension of the self and morality. Thus this model of modernity can be
seen and used analytically to contrast with the earlier aspects of civilization
(Taylor, 2004). On the other hand, an acultural theory describes the entire
process in terms of some culture neutral analysis. This implies that the
entire process is not analysed in terms of culture that existed and then
transformed into modernity. Rather it is considered too general an approach
that can be seen as the process any traditional society would undergo. Thus
acultural theory conceives of modernity as the rise of reason in different
ways such as the growth of scientific consciousness, development of secular
thought ways, instrumental rationality, fact finding and evolution.

Modernity can also be explained and accounted for in socio-cultural terms

and also intellectual shifts. Thus transformation social, cultural, individual
can be seen to arise from increased mobility, demographic changes,
industrialisation and so on. In such cases as mentioned above modernity is
conceived of as transformations which all cultures can go through and will
undergo in due course of time.

Such changes are not defined in terms of individualism, morality, good and
evil. They are instead talking of cultures and civilizations as a whole.

Box 29.4: Explanations of Modernity

...Explanations of modernity in terms of reason seem to be the most popular.
Even social explanations tend to invoke reason. Social transformations, like
mobility and industrialisation are thought to bring about intellectual and
spiritual changes because they shake people loose from old habits and beliefs
__
religion or traditional morality __ which then become unsustainable because
they lack the kind of independent rational grounding that the beliefs of
modernity __ such as individualism or instrumental reason __ are assumed to
have (Charles Taylor, 2004, Two Theories of Modernity).

Thus any culture would be impacted by the increase in scientific

consciousness, secularisation of religion and the growth of instrumental
thinking. Modernity then, in this approach/theory issues from rationality
which is culture-neutral. This is despite the fact that the theory can account
for why modernity arose in one society rather than another; or why it arose
in some societies first and other later. In fact the theory does not lay down
specific points or stages into modernity but as something general that can
take any particular culture as its input. So this operation/transformation is
not to be seen as a perspective about human values or shared meanings. In
the case of social explanations, causality is assigned to developments like
industrialisation that do impact on values. Considering then the explanations
in terms of rationality, this is thought to be the exercise of a “general
capacity” which was ripe for maturing and unfolding. Given specific conditions,
people see scientific thinking as having a place in society. They will also see
that instrumental rationality is beneficial. Again religious beliefs are by no
means universal or undisputed, and require a leap of faith. Finally facts and
values are separated.

175
Issues of Modernity Now these transformations are facilitated by the presence of certain values
and understandings and are hindered by other types of cultural values if
they happen to be the dominant ones. These transformations are defined
by the whole social and cultural context existing at any point of time.

We can see then that the dominant theories of modernity over the last few
centuries have been of the acultural type. Modernity also involves a shift in
the individual and community perspective. This is because until the viewpoint
changes the society concerned cannot move from a pre-modern to modern
and onto post modernity. On the other hand Weber paradoxically argues that
the rationalisation (an important aspect of modernity) is a steady process,
which was cultural general rather than culture specific. Similarly the process
of pre- modern to modern in society was explained by Durkheim in terms of
the transformation from mechanical to organised forms of social solidarity.
This is an also the aspect of Tocqueville’s concept of “creeping democracy”
in which there was a move towards greater sense and actualisation of equality
among the various strata of society. These are all different but at the same
time related activities.

29.9 Conclusion
Given all these types if explanations Taylor still feels that explanations and
analyses of modernity focusing on reason are the most accepted ones.
Explanations focusing on the social still tend to talk of reason transformations
that are social. Thus the factors of mobility and industrialisation are felt to
bring about intellectual and spiritual changes since they tend to create new
layers of conditioning which by pass the old layers. That is they loosen old
habits and beliefs, whether religion or the old morality including individualism
and instrumental reason. There is however the question of negative theories
of modernity which do not have the positive or beneficial view of modern
developments and see society going into a decline with the onset and the
maturing of modernity. Thus rather than seeing modernity as having unleased
many capacities in different directions, negative theories, see it as a
dangerous development. These too are essentially acultural theories. Thus
modernity is characterised by a loss of perspective, an erasure of roots,
dependence on history or even God. Thus the negative theories of modernity
see it as a loss of the previous state of overall well being.

That is to say that the arrival of modernity and all its various facets has to
be seen as a mixed blessing. On one side are the positive socially relevant
areas and technological development. On the other are the problems
associated with the arrival of and settling down of modernity. Here the
negatively oriented theorists point of that modernity has its own problems
created by a fast developing technology that has its impact on the overall
life of the people.

Thus while modernity began in the sixteenth century at the time of

Enlightenment, it continued to develop until the beginning of the 20th century.
In other words modernity has its “discontents” as well. Let us briefly mention
what these are.

Firstly we must realise that modernity does have problems as we pointed

out. The belief in development and progress, forward looking attitude, the
dependence on rationality and reason have also given rise to optimism that
176 was betrayed by doubts raised by post traditional thought. However we
must note that modernity achieved a lot of social structural changes. Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity

Thus the routine behavior on day to day basis alters and changes as technology
develops. This is because technological innovations and inventions since
Enlightenment have altered the entire fabrics of the world, restricting itself
to large well developed towns, cities, and metropolitans. It is capitalism
which has basically been the power behind the innovations and inventions.

The airplane and motor car have from an initial slow start become integral
parts of daily life the world over. Thus time and space have conceptually
receeded and nothing can be done in the modern world with precise timing
and adequate space. Thus mechanical solidarity has given way to organic
solidarity to use the terms coined by Durkheim. Weber’s concept of
rationalisation has pervaded the modern world and given rise to precise type
of thinking. Further urbanism saw large scale migrations. Discipline, secularity,
alienation, anomic and the iron cage of bureaucracy are all parts of the
organic structure of beaurocratic organisation in the modern world.

29.10 Further Reading

Delanty Gerard 2000, Modernity and Postmodernity: Knowledge, Power and
The Self. London, Sage

Lyon, David, 1999, Postmodernity. Bnckingham: Open University Press

Singh Yogendra, 1986, Modernisation of Indian Tradition. Jaipur , Rawat

Publications

Wagner, Peter 2001, Theorizing Modernity; Inescapability and Attainability in

Social Theory. London, Sage

29.11 References
Giddens, A (1991) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford : California.

Foster-Carter, Aidan 1985, The Sociology of Development. Canseway Press,

California

Rostow W.W. 1960, The Stages of Economic Growth : A Non Communist

Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Semlser N.1969, “Mechanisms of and Adjustment to Change” in T.Buns (ed)

“Industrial Man”, Perguin 1969.

Rojas Robinson, 2004, Modernisation Theory and The Law of Change Retrieved
From http://www.Rrojasatabank.org/Capital8.html.

Singh Yogendra 1986, The Modernisation of Indian Tradition. Jaipur Rawat .

Taylor Charles 2004, Two Theories of Modernity. Retrieved :Taylor X. html.

177
 Unit 30
Tradition and Modernity
Contents
30.1 Introduction
30.2 Tradition Society and Culture
30.3 Tradition and Modernity
30.4 Modernity as a Juggernaut
30.5 Ontological Insecurity and Modernity
30.6 Modernity Rationality and Norms
30.7 Conclusion
30.8 Further Reading
30.9 References

Learning Objectives
After reading this unit you will be able to
describe the concept of tradition
define modernity
outline the “juggernaut” of modernity
discuss modernity and rationality

30.1 Introduction
In this unit we will take up the topics of tradition and modernity. At the very
outset it is pointed out that tradition and modernity are not contradictory
or competing concepts. Rather they represent different faces of meaning
and are in fact symbiotically related to each other. As such tradition (s) is the
ground from which all manner of modernity arises. Further we may point out
that as it stands tradition has to be qualified, which it is to say it could be
a local tradition or an all-society tradition. Thus these are many different
strands to the thinking on tradition and there are very many differing
interpretations. Thus tradition is a live and vital factor in many cultures and
could be:
Tradition of food and edibles
Tradition of music and dance
Scriptural tradition
Artistic tradition
Martial arts tradition
Sociological tradition
Tradition and attire

Thus the terms ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’ do not exist in isolation of each
other but are in fact related to each other. While these terms concepts and
processes exist, they exist and function dialogically. Thus modernity is an
economic force while tradition is fundamentally cultural and social.

What is the role of tradition is a pertinent point here. Tradition is basically

178 a series of attitudes, languages, music, art, scholarship and so on which have
been developing since ages past. Over the passage of time tradition becomes Tradition and Modernity

more or less entrenched in the body politic and we have even traditional law
and scriptures in any case are an aspect of tradition. Now why is tradition
so important to the individual and society? This is because it provides a
continuity to social process and garners the creative and improvisational and
transmits these traditions to the forthcoming generations of the members
of a given society and thereby assuring survival of the society itself. Tradition
is, therefore, a repository of survival mechanisms without which a society
would fail to cohere. It would set fragmented and break up, the result of
which would be anomic. Let us consider the music tradition in India. In this
particular tradition of classical music there are “gharanas” or groupings, and
each of these has a lineage comprising the singers who had commenced or
inaugurated the gharana and all those who have passed their talent down
the line producing maestros who would take over charge once the older
musicians went on into retirement.

Now, once there is an example to work upon we can see that tradition also
implies a life-style, a way of living. As such the training in music, art, drama
is very rigid and within the confines of tradition which often passes by vote
and repetition of movement, notes, or other exercise which any particular
training may require. Usually with the teaching of traditional music and
dance are an endless series of do’s and don’ts which is what tradition is all
about. Thus tradition refers to a body of knowledge that has a structured
inventory of actions and ideology that comprise its legitimate domain.
Thereafter it is a question of pinpointing what area of tradition is it that we
are referring to. Thus on examination we find that tradition itself has a
reasonably long duration for which it has established itself; further there are
many different strands or what we may call “varieties of tradition.” Then to
continue with the example of music gharanas in India we find that there is
a basic division between north Indian classical music and South Indian classical
music. Each of these two basic divisions has numerous subdivisions and so
on. It is, therefore, a misnomer to treat the concept of tradition as a term
which covers everything in society and culture. Thus if it is held that the
tradition of music is very strong in India, it may also be asked “what type
of music tradition is it that is being referred to? ’’

Clearly then tradition also represents a rubric under which all little traditions
can be assimilated. If it is considered in depth tradition can be seen to
involve various different types of activities within it which would need some
brief elaboration. Tradition thus encompasses and embodies:
a particular process or legacy
sub traditions which from the field from which required contributions
can be made
a historical aspect, either oral or scripted
a certain concept of the supernatural
economic structures of sustainance
aspects of indigenous art
facts of architecture
scholarship in all areas of social concern
literature both scriptural and others
technological structures
military for self defense or offence 179
Issues of Modernity Thus tradition is clearly a type of structure and ideology that has a past and
charges over time to absorb developments in that field so that tradition
remains itself, but at the same time recreates and expands itself.

30.2 Tradition, Society and Culture

Tradition then is “accreted” over time and its boundaries become increasingly
well defined. This means that tradition expands or contracts depending
upon the social and cultural situation. Further it would be wrong to assume
that traditions constantly expand and that progress is always linear. It is
quite possible that there is non linear retrogression as well. A third situation
arises when tradition develops an entropic tendency and stagnates for some
time before once again addressing progression (linear forward movement) or
retrogression.

Thus tradition begins when a particular action or activity is seen to be of

significance to the society. However, as we have pointed out that there are
many types of tradition (music, art, architecture) and many strands within
each one of them. As such it is possible to study some of these strands but
to study them in totality would imply many years of research and might still
be lacking sufficient data to be able to come to a holistic and synoptic point
of view (Rojas, 1966). Thus what we are talking about is the fact that there
is no such thing as a total vision of any society which is pluralistic, since
members from different races and ethnicities will have different traditions.
Thus the tradition that peoples and societies inherit from their forefathers
is available to them in various forms. Any process over several generations
becomes by itself a particular tradition or a sub tradition.

Box 30.1: The Accretion of Tradition

Thus tradition:
accumulates over decades/centuries. Consider for e.g. the scriptural
tradition of India which is itself a plurality. Thus in the shift from oral
tradition to the scripting tradition there is a formalisation of knowledge
and as this process goes on the society that is subjected to it develops
not just one but pluralist traditions.
the field of art and architecture is replete with the traditions that have
emerged from it. Thus in India there are several traditions in art and
architecture including. The (i) Classical (ii) medieval and, (iii) traditional.

In each of these areas artists and architects have been responsible for
development of classical medieval and traditional art and architecture. These
traditions developed in India over centuries of accretion. Further the
economic structures are such that they begin from centuries earlier and
tend to be well fixed until Industrialisation begins in the 1800’s. In the
Indian tradition the exchange of goods and services commenced and worked
in terms of physical exchanges of services which could be provided to the
landlords by the hoi polloi. This was a traditional system and exploited the
landless labourers by underpaying and making them work for long hours. For
doing this the sharecroppers as they were known, were given at the end of
the agricultural season a certain amount of grains to help them to subsist.
Such examples can be found globally and feudalism was yet another iniquitous
system. The point is that it is rather difficult to say with any degree of
certainty that tradition(s) are ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ On examination, however, it
is clear that though Indian tradition has sanctity yet sati and dowry is part
180 of this very same tradition. Thus it is a weeding of tradition which alone can
make it work efficiently and not flow over into negative directives. Over a Tradition and Modernity

span of time (usually centuries) any specific tradition begins to coagulate

into a specific conglomeration of beliefs and rities. These beliefs and rities
are specific to any tradition and apply equally to sub traditions within and
subordinate within it.

Traditions then cover the entire ideological gamut and are also applicable to
the material culture. What then is tradition? Tradition is a particular approach
to social reality which it influences and provides a direction to individual and
social reality. Thus it would be better to talk in terms of the plural traditions
than to mention some overarching condition which would be a false construct
as reality is not entirely apprehended under it.

Traditional technology is another area which has been extensively used and
improved upon. Thus in agriculture the use of the tractor or combine harvester
has brought matters to a confrontation. Thus while the situation (harvesting)
has changed, the attitudes are still traditional, both in the family and at
work. Thus at a particular time in the flow of tradition non-traditional, modern
machines, are used. This means now that there is a contradiction between
the technology and the attitudes of the workers and their beneficiaries. Age
old customs and tradition’s often get non functional and sometimes changes
have to be introduced to make the two compatible. Tradition then is what
holds a society together. However, there are factors within a tradition which
may go out of circulation. Thus in some metros in India the scriptural and
popular level of celebrating festivals, like Holi, Diwali, and so on is such that
tradition battles with culture and many changes have occurred in these
festivals in cities including plastic lighting on the house and a few burning
candles to observe traditional candle lighting in Diwali.

30.3 Tradition and Modernity

In such and other activities tradition comes head on with the whole concept
of modernity. The question of course is in which way modernity relates to
tradition. Is modernity a different type of tradition? Do tradition and modernity
have anything in common and how are they related to each other?

Tradition has a tendency to become entropic and inward looking. This is true
of many local level traditions and sub traditions are stamped out and disappear
without leaving much of a trace. The pertinent question here is why does
tradition disappear, change, ameliorate or attempt to coexist with modernity?
The fact of the matter is that the vectors or chief characteristics of a tradition
are themselves set to develop, change, or become stagnant. Thus tradition
has many sub traditions and it is these that often linger on, indefinitely, in
various geophysical territories within a specific culture area.

Reflection and Action 30.1

Discuss the concept of tradition ? Does tradition change or does it remain
static?

At some point in the development or spread of a tradition tends to become

less influential and is capable of dealing only with local traditions. At the
some time tradition sees the necessity of dynamism and various religious
traditions themselves find it difficult to sustain themselves. Thus when a
tradition becomes entropic it becomes clear that the tradition is now stagnant
181
Issues of Modernity and in being so is quite capable of calcifying and becomes superficially
related to rities, rituals, ceremonies while the essential communication
remains obfuscated and confused.

Thus tradition is dynamic and records accretive changes. We must also keep
in mind that social changes are part of the process of society. However, it
is equally clear that beyond a point tradition is not able to deal with a new
set of situations and the new institutions, At this point if the society is not
to become anarchic, it will require that traditions ameliorate and try to
change. Yet a tradition can only follow its ontology and find itself as
inadequate in the face of modernity. Thus the forces of modernity tend to
choke tradition or at least make it relatively insignificant and even innocuous.
However, tradition though it becomes quiescent it is not really banished by
modernity because modernity is evidenced only in the advanced countries
of the West and in the metropolitans of the East. This is made clear when
we compare architecture of the North and the South. Thus a luxury hotel
in metropolitan of a developing country is virtually no different than that of
an advanced country. Thus tradition is never really banished but is pushed
back as the forces of modernity take root.

Box 30.2: Aspects of Modernity

Some aspects of modernity include:
emergence of nation-state and nationhood
industrialisation and capitalism
democracy
increasing influence of science and technology
the phenomena of urbanisation
expansion of mass media

There are, however, other defining characteristics of modernity which include

disenchantment with the world
secularisation
rationalisation
commodification
mass society

Modernity, however, means different things in the North and the South.
Thus modernity indicates a type of society that is more developed relative
to other societies. So, a society characterised by modernity is described as
a modern society.

We can compare modern society with societies that are pre-modern or those
that are post-modern. However neither of these approaches is fully
satisfactory. The social structure of modernity is such that it defines the
transition from isolated communities to mass scale society. Referred to in
this manner modernity is found, therefore, not just in the West. This process
can be seen as working all over the world rather than just in the advanced
nations.

Thus mass society implies:

large scale movement of goods, people, and information among separate
areas
standardisation of many aspects of society which are helpful for mobility
182
 increased specialisation and interdependence of different parts of the Tradition and Modernity

society

Thus modernity can be apparently contradictory, but these features listed

above are different parts of the overall ontology of this process. When the
elements or products of modernity “invade” another culture through popular
processes such as various cultural aspects such as folktales and cinema there
is a widespread ‘overhaul’ of cultural and social ontology and these tend to
change a society and prepare it for further changes. This results in a
homogenisation of culture and creates widespread diversification at the
local level. There are other features, such as democratic government and the
hierarchical structures within it. So also does the private sector grow greatly
in influence (Genard Delanty, 2000). This sometimes creates a friction and
modernity can be perceived as being totalitarian. However, the individual in
modernity belongs to those subsystems, and is part of the competition,
liberty, and individualism. This is all the more true for comparisons of
modernity with societies that are traditional.

Modernity brought with it many blessings to the people including much

better health and economic prospects. However, there are also some problems
which have emerged with modern society e.g. the nuclear bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki during world war II; and the arms race thereafter.
Other problems include environmental degradation e.g. air and water pollution.
Modernity also creates great stress on people and alienation or being without
specific interest in anything (malaise). At the present point the debate is
still on whether modernity is socially positive or not, whether it has proved
beneficial or not to world society.

30.4 Modernity as a Juggernaut

Giddens position conflicts with the contention that society has entered into
a post modern world. Thus modernity witnesses tremendous increases in the
scope, pace and depth of change relative to systems that preceded it.
Further the path or trajectory of change is not linear, going forward step by
step. For Giddens modernity implies
capitalism
industrialism
surveillance programs and activities
military power

Giddens theory of structuration and its basic components adequately describe

modernity. These elements are:
distanciation, or separation in of time and space
disembedding
reflexivity

While in pre-modern societies time and space were totally interconnected.

However, with the onset of modernity time and space were no longer closely
linked, and this interconnection became very weak. Now, this fact is important
so far as modernity is concerned.

Distanciation helps in the establishment of organisations and bureaucracy,

and makes possible the nation-state which is international. That is it is 183
Issues of Modernity possible to connect local and global arenas. Again the modern society is
within the matrix of history and it takes from that to influence the present.
Finally such distanciation makes possible the second of Giddens factors of
modernity that is disembedding. Disembedding itself is the process of
transcending the local context and it’s reorganising itself along indefinite
stretches of time and space. According to Giddens there are two varieties
of disembedding factors. These are:
symbolic tokens e.g. money. This allows for time-space distantiation and
allows money transactions with those who are widely separated in time
and space.
systems of professional expertise. These are very useful because they
help create the environment. Some such experts include doctors and
lawyers. Other experts affect everyday commodities and even property.
Thus expert systems provide reassurance across time and space. Again in
abstract systems, trust is fundamental not only to modern societies also
because the symbolic tokens and expert systems serve to dissembed the
society in the modern world.

Thus an economy based on monetary transactions and the legal system work
because the members have trust in them.

Again another basic characteristic of modernity is the phenomena of

reflexivity. Thus all social and psychological aspects, processes, events, can
be reflected upon, understood better and working as an activity which
influences the further development of a phenomenon. The fact of
disembedment indicates
the need for trust
the need for expert systems

Trust according to Giddens is socialised into children and then reinforced by

behaviour that conforms to this expectation of mutually reliable behaviours.
However, this is also accompanied by destabilising factors, risk factors that
threaten trust and create ongoing lack of security in people. Thus the risk
of nuclear wars are neither fought nor won. The risk factor in global or local
war is such that several danger points have arisen and disarmament of military
of nuclear warheads could easily be one of the international projects to
increase the sense of security for the subjects.

Giddens points out that the risk factor extends into the material environment
and what can be done to prevent its degradation (forests, rivers, rural and
urban habitats). Again global investments existing in institutional settings
are also risky. The subjects take notice of risks while taking action. Religion
receded and only those facts are believed in which the subjects can realise
and turn into reality. The awareness of the different risk factors is increasing
in the modern world and is one of the facts of modernity. Again the subjects
and the ‘public’ are aware that even experts cannot handle certain risks and
risk-situations.

30.5 Ontological Insecurity and Modernity

According to Giddens ontological insecurity has been created within
modernity itself and suggests that
design faults in the construction of the modern world
184 operator failure of those who run the modern world
 unintended consequences Tradition and Modernity

reflexivity of the modern society

Thus according to Giddens in modern society ‘control’ becomes an important

issue because new knowledge is continuously cropping up and superceding
the old, and giving it a different direction altogether. As an answer to this
Giddens suggests utopian realism.

That is utopian ideals and social reality should be taken together as a single
unit rather than aim for just the one or the other. Giddens is critical of the
postmodern theories and feels that were systematic knowledge impossible
the intellectual activity/academics would come to a standstill. He feels that
postmodernism would involve a world in which
there are post scarcity systems
multilayered democracy
demilitarisation
humanisation of technology

However, it is clear that post modernity cannot be predicted in such simple

parameters which need not appear at all.

Giddens notes that the reflexive modern world pushes the self into becoming
a “reflexive project.” Thus the self becomes an area to be reflected upon
with a view to ameliorating it and bringing it into tune with itself and
society. Thus he points out that the subject is a result of inner search and
also the body must be controlled and socially projected in a specific manner
in the relevant physical spaces. There are formulas how which define we
interact. In fact reflexivity has led to a body-obsession and a social neurosis.
Modernity and modern society are also characterised by setting apart some
areas of deviance from the normal day to day living. This has been termed
the “Sequestration of experience” by Giddens. Thus phenomena like madness,
sickness, death and sexuality are sequestered and delineated as areas that
should be hidden from the attention. The reason that the phenomena of
sequestration comes about is because abstract systems have controlled large
segments of society. Though sequestration brings with it a sense of penacling
security it is quite clear that there is an avoidance of basic truths, such as
the processes of death, sickness, madness etc.

Thus modernity has brought with both positive and negative consequences.
One of the negative consequences is that there tends to be a sort of malaise
or what Giddens terms “personal meaninglessness.” This is because important
areas of daily life have been sequestered, and repressed. The light at the
end of the tunnel is reflexivity of modern life which as it increases will
ensure that such sequestration does not take place and processes that have
been swept under the carpet will one day be the most significant and
important. While Giddens is concerned with modernity we find that Beck is
interested in the new modernity. Thus Beck and Giddens feel that we are
living in a modern world rather than a post modern one. What is the risk that
accompanies the new modernity? Beck labels the new modernity as “reflexive
modernity.” Beck feels that relationships in such a society are increasingly
reflexive and individuals are forced to make wide range of individual decisions
so far as relationships are concerned, and how they can be begun and
maintained.
185
Issues of Modernity According to Beck, within modernity itself there is a change from industrial
society to the risk society which is different from industrial society but not
totally. Thus the classical modernity was centred on producing wealth and
equal distribution of the same. On the other hand the advanced modern
societies the main issue is the reduction and canalisation of risk. Thus the
main concern in classical modernity believed in equality, the concern of
advanced modernity is a safety. These risks come from wealth produced in
industry. This includes the nuclear industry and bombs whose effects and
side effects can be devastating.

Box 30.4: The Risk Factor

Even industrial pollutants are themselves a source of risk and have most
dangerous effects on health. This kind of risk, including nuclear annihilation,
is not simply localized but global. Again risk and class intermesh to some
extent. Thus in industrial society it is clear that the wealthy classes can
avoid risk or reduce it simply because they have the wealth to purchase
safety. And this helps to strengthen the class society. On the other hand
poverty is full of risks. Beck extends his analysis and states that the truth
about social classes applies to the nation-states as well.

Thus the rich nations are able to minimize risks, the poor or poorer nations
find that risk is centred in and around them. Again richer nations make
further wealth and profit by catering to the poorer nations in order to build
technology that will help to control the risks in poor nations and try to
ameliorate them to some extent. It is pointed out, however, that no nation
is completely safe from risks, nor are individuals. However, the nations that
profit from the risk factor in poor nations find that there is a ‘boomerang
effect’ and factors associated with risk tend to become proactive and try to
eliminate or control the areas where risk reduction technologies are being
made in the wealthy nations. However, though advanced modernity creates
risks we find that accompanying these risks is reflexivity and makes those
that produce risks themselves begin to think about the situation and how
to alter it. But this is also in the case of those nations that are poor and
face these risks. According to Beck it is science and the scientists that are
responsible and a protector of global “contamination” of nature and culture,
and accuses science and scientists for being illogical.

Reflection and Action 30.2

Discuss the aspects of risk taking in modern society. Is there some way in
which this can be reduced or removed?

Again in classical industrial society we find that nature and culture were
separate entities in the case of advanced modernity they go hand in hand
are deeply interlinked and interrelated to each other. This linkage means
that changes in either nature or culture feedback onto each other. Thus
Beck points out that nature and society are related to each other almost
symbiotically. This has led to the facts of nature being made political and so
scientists, including social scientists are now in the domain of and being
effected by politicisation. According to Beck the governments are losing
their powerful control because of sub political bodies like research institutes.
Subgroups of people are more responsive relative to the government. We
can say advanced modernity has generated both hormones risks and also
ways to deal with it. Ritzer evaluates modern society using the concepts of
hyperrationality, Mcdonaldization and Americanization. Let us begin with
186
hyperrationality. Ritzer points out that the concept of hyperrationality draws Tradition and Modernity

heavily on rationality as conceptualised by Weber. For Weber we live in an

increasingly rational world. Formal rationality is seen to be used for system-
usage than Weber’s other types of rationality: Substantive, theoretical and
practical. Thus we see that formal rationality implies the increasingly felt
need and importance of institutions which force members to adhere to a
strict code of behaviour and conduct.

30.6 Modernity Rationality and Norms

On the other hand, substantive rationality implies dominance of norms and
values in making of rational choice. Thus theoretical rationality deals with
intellectual apprehension. On the other hand practical rationality defines
the context/situation so far as daily decisions are concerned.

Now, we can say that hyperrationality goes beyond formal rationality. Thus
a hyperrational system combines Webber’s forms of rationality which include,
formal rationality
substantive
intellectual
practical

The reason such a system is called hyperrational because it uses and combines
all four of Weber’s forms of rationality.

Formal rationality has four aspects which are:

efficiency
predictability
quantity rather than quality
Substitution of non human for human technologies

Box 30.4: The Irrationality of Rationality

Thus this form of rationality is also accompanied by the “irrationality of
rationality.” In this schema we find that efficiency is always with a view to
an end. And how we can use the best means to a goal. In fact food restaurants
the delivery system is made so convenient and automatic that there are
drive in facilities to help accelerate the process of food distribution and
consumption. Now, the next factor in formal rationality is that there is a
standardisation of processes and events and there are “no surprises”, and
the branches of fast food restaurants are very similar even across nations.
They all proceed along the assembly line, mechanised approach to food.
Further fast food restaurants pay greater attention to quantity rather than
quality. Such a formally rational system has intrinsic to it the generation of
“irrationalities”, such as making the “dining experience” most bizarre,
demystifying and dehumanising.

Ritzer indicates that this is the trend all over the modern world where the
emphasis is on quick turnover for business. Examining credit cards Ritzer
feels that each of the factors applied to Mcdonaldization are true for the
credit card industry. Loans are processed quickly. Again the credit card makes
consumption predictable. Credit cards come with different credit limits and
the transactions are relatively dehumanizing. Thus both the credit card and 187
Issues of Modernity the fast food restaurant can be seen to be an intrinsic aspect of the modern
world.

Ritzer also argues for the “Americanization” of modern society which was
evident in our discussion of fast food restaurants and credit card usage.
Thus America is perceived as practicing/living in a modern world and engaged
in the construction of the American way of life. Thus credit card usage is
part of Americanization. The major credit cards companies are based in
America. The Visa, MasterCard, and American Express are major cards relative
to those based in Britain (Barclay Card) and Japan (JCB). The credit card
companies are making a concerted effort to ‘globalize’ the credit cards. It
is noted, however, that credit cards are and can be used for indigenous
purchases. This both the credit cards and fast food restaurants have become
part of the modern world and is in part a reflection of a specific world era.
Let us now turn to some of the main ideas in the social theory of Jurgen
Habermas, concerning modernity. Habermas feels that modernity has yet to
play itself out and that there are many modern areas that can be developed
further, before thinking of a postmodern world. According to Habermas
modernity does have a number of paradoxes. Thus rationality that is a part
of the overall social system is contradictory and conflictual with the rationality
of the life-world as a whole. On the one hand social systems have multiplied
their complexity and use instrumental reason. Again the life-world has also
multiplied its diversity in terms of secularisation and the processes of
reflexivity.

Thus a rational society according to Habermas is one where the system and
the life-world exist together living an intermeshed but parallel existence.
This conjoining and interaction leads to a stage in society of abundance
economically, and environmental control due to rational systems being present
and employed to their optimum. The problem of the modern world is that
now the system begins to exercise power or to ‘colonize’ the life-world.
This leads to a situation where the rational system denies the freedom to
the life-world, a freedom that is necessary to allow the life world to grow
to further maturity. Thus for Habermas the ‘colonization’ of the life world
in modernity is its basic marker, and is, therefore, that he regards modernity
as an ‘unfinished project.’ To Habermas the fully rational society where the
rational system and the Life world(s) can exist and express themselves
satisfactorily. At the moment such a situation does not exist and the life-world
is greatly subdued and impoverished. This is the obstacle that has to be
crossed over. It does not mean a violent destruction of systems economic
or administrative, since they help life worlds to rationalize their existence
and ontology. How is this to be done? This requires that we examine the
relationship between system and life-world.

According to Habermas
“restraining barriers” should be erected to reduce colonisation of life world
“sensors” should be used to make a greater impact of life world on the
system

In this manner the two areas that is life world and system benefit each
other greatly. Habermas feels that until the above facts assert themselves
modernity’s project will take long to complete. Thus Habermas is squarely of
the view that modernity has much to offer and that we are not in a
188 postmodern society as yet.
30.7 Conclusion Tradition and Modernity

Finally to put the last word in Habermas has criticized postmodernism on

several grounds. Since our next unit is on post structuralism/postmodernism
this unit would serve also as a precursor of our discussion on the same. Thus
for Habermas:
It is very difficult to objectively evaluate the postmodernists because
one is not sure whether what one is reading is social theory or literature.
In the former case the problems arises in postmodernists erecting a
formidable fascade of jargon which is not in the mainstream of sociological
knowledge. Hence, one doesn’t know where to classify such theory.
Normative sentiments are concealed from the reader, but nevertheless
they offer normative critiques of contemporary society. However, these
are not exactly grounded and, therefore, not effective.
It has a totalising tendency despite the fact that postmodernists
themselves are against this phenomena.
Post modernists ignore the facts of daily life.

In short postmodernists are shut off from the very sphere (life-world) of
activity from which they deprive themselves. As such the source of social
data and the area of expression, that is everyday life is, cut off from them.

Thus in this unit we have examined and presented several theoretical positions
on tradition and modernity. We have covered the approach of Giddens to
modernity as also that of Beck and Ritzer. Finally, we considered the ideas
of Habermas. All this has set the stage for our next unit. To fully understand
and appreciate the units on post structuralism and postmodernism the
background provided in this unit will be of great use.

30.8 Further Reading

Bauman, Z(1989), Modernity and The Holocaust. Cambridge:Polity

Baudrillard, J (1994) The Illusion of The End. Cambridge:Polity

Castells, M (1996), The Information Age, Vol-1:The Rise of The Network

Society. Oxford Blackwell

30.9 References
Rojas (1966), Rojas Databamk.Org/Capital L8.htm

Gerard Delanty 2000, Modernity and Postmodernity Knowledge, Power and

The Self. London : Sage

189
 Unit 31
Post Structuralism and Post Modernism
Contents
31.1 Introduction
31.2 Critique of Structuralism
31.3 Post Structural Theories
31.4 Discourse Knowledge and Experience
31.5 Derrida and Deconstruction
31.6 Foucalt and the Archaeology of Knowledge
31.7 Jameson and Late Capitalism
31.8 Baudrillard and Post Modernism
31.9 Conclusion
31.10 Further Reading

Learning Objectives
After having read this unit you should be able to
outline post-structural theories
critique structuralism
describe deconstruction
explain “late capitalism”
discuss Baudrillard and postmodernism

31.1 Introduction
It is the intellectual trend in the ontology of ideas and schools of ideas, that
they are constantly superceded. The ideas or ideologies that are superceded
recede into the history of ideas. The new theories and ideas then occupy
centre stage in the national and international sociological and social scientific
world views. This cycle further repeats itself and though this fact is often lost
sight of in the heyday of a theoretical orientation that has become popular.

In the essay that follows we will first take up post structuralism and then
postmodern theory. We will see how there are several overlaps indeed
intermeshes between various strands of these two contemporary approaches
to the study of society and culture. Thus what we are dealing with are
strands of an overall approach. There is no one view on these approaches
and both post structuralism and post modernism are blanket terms containing
many strands of thought. Let us turn now to post structuralism first. What
does the term indicate? As is clear from the word “post structuralism”, these
approaches are those that came after ‘structuralism’. These theories and
approaches sought to seek insights into society by critiquing and deconstructing
social and cultural processes. The post modernism break with structuralism
was the fact that structuralism reduced everything into binary oppositions
and the interrelations between them. The structuralists held they could
analyse any phenomena with the help of their methodology. We must
emphasise that post structuralism is a number of approaches and not one
monolithic theory. However, these approaches have in common their point
of departure a critique of “structuralism”.
190
31.2 Critique of Structuralism Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism

Poststructuralists often point out in their various writings that meaning in

language is diverse and open to many different interpretations. Yet to get
to the meaning of a text it can be deconstructed and is different from its
apparent or surface meaning. That is different meanings can be assigned to
a single text depending upon the perspective taken. As would be clear by
now that post structuralism proceeds as a critique of structuralism which is
itself bounded by its own linguistic boundaries. Structuralism, however, was
found to be inadequate as an explanation of social process and phenomena.
Thus we find that
structuralism did not pay heed to historical processes and is a-historical
applied the rules of linguistics to societal processes which is a questionable
procedure
it is assumed that a work has meaning in itself and this persists even
before it is discovered and
the text is only a conduit between the subject and the structure of
rationality.

Thus the structuralists argue that it is language and its structure which itself
produces reality and since it is language that is responsible for thought it
determines mans perceptions whatever they may be. Further there is the
idea that meaning does not come from individuals but the rules of language
and the overall ‘system’ which controls individuals. Therefore, the individual
is subordinated and superceded by “the structure.” It is the structure which
produces meaning not the individual. It is specifically language which is at
the base of such domination over the individual.

31.3 Post Structural Theories

As can be seen post structural theories do not agree with the ‘structuralists’
in several key areas of analysis and understanding. We will now turn to these
and see how the two differ. However, before that let us look briefly at the
background to post structuralism. By the 1950’s the influence of structuralism
had set in. Saussure (1857-1913) was of the view that ‘meaning’ had to be
found in the “structure” of the whole language (Guller, 1976). It could not
be discovered in individual words, and had to have an overall linguistic
setting – that is the language as a whole. We find that around the 1960’s the
structuralist movement tried to amalgamate the ideas of Marx Freud and
Saussure. The structuralists were opposed to the existentialist movement
which put the individual and life experience at the centre. By contrast the
structuralists opined that the individual is everywhere being conditioned by
social psychological and linguistic structures which control and direct him,
rather than the individual doing the same. As you will have noticed this is
an extreme stand and the claim for universality of application of method also
drew attention to the fact that such claims of universal application did not
necessarily hold true. Also how is it that any two structural analyses of the
same field or phenomena would be different?

It was because of the short-comings of the structuralist approach that post

structuralism was developed by the intellectuals. This post structuralism is
based on a member of basic assumptions/positions. These include: 1) putting
all phenomena under one explanation, 2) there is a transcendental reality
which overarches all other reality. Post structuralism is also critical of the
191
Issues of Modernity concept of man as portrayed and developed by Enlightenment thought. The
Enlightenment view that the individual is separate and whole and that the
mind is the area where values evolve on the other hand the poststructuralists
felt that the individual was embedded in social interaction. Such symbolic
beings are referred to by the word “subject”. We can then say that the
subjects are intertwined with society and culture and occupy some place
within them, and sociologically based sites. Further subjects are the actors
in everyday reality. In fact it is the subjects that make up society and the
activities therein, include work and entertainment. We could add here that
the subjects meaning and values are embedded in the identities of groups
and the activities which lead them to having an identity.

Thus these approaches that we are discussing have often been dubbed
“anti-humanist” because post-structuralism is against the divine or
transcendental wholeness as was the humanist theories view. However, ‘anti-
humanist’ is a misnomer and is actually another way of looking at human
beings one that is essentially not against individual persons. Further we find
that while structuralism presents reality as relations between binary
oppositions post-structuralism’s vision of reality is a fragmented one. Social
process and cultural relations are not viewed as neat oppositions – on the
other hand social and cultural processes are seen in bits and pieces and the
nature of reality is not seen as being amenable to total understanding of a
whole process. Parts of social process can be focused upon and analysed.
Poststructuralists are completely opposed to grand narratives and Meta theory
feeling these are equivalent to a fiction and not really apprehending reality.
Thus post-structural theories are themselves looking at the specific. Further
the physical self (the body) is studied in the context of time and history,
and brought out of the closet so to speak. Similarly it is the details of
discourse and cultural actions that are now looked into. Further the role of
language in building social and cultural reality is also evident in the work of
the poststructuralists (Godelier, 1972). Thus the fact that society and the
individual are “linguistically bound” with each other and the relationship
between the two is complex. This stand clearly negates the earlier
assumptions of social scientists that language was easy to comprehend and
use and that there were no ambiguities regarding language – use. This the
post-structural theories negate as an erroneous assumption. In fact “reality’’
itself is constructed within the social matrix and continues to reproduce
itself over time.

31.4 Discourse Knowledge and Experience

The world of discourse and knowledge set the limits for our experience – and
the subject (ego) can only experience or describe what he has experienced.
That is to also say that there are experiences for which there is no language
or a language is slowly being pieced together, and certain words and concepts
gain ground and usage. This includes the usage of metaphor, metonymy and
irony. These usages lead by themselves to a concern with ideology which
provides an ingress and insight into relations of power and the world-view
of the subjects.

Again another area in which post structural theories focus upon in their
analysis on what are known as cultural codes which themselves provide an
understanding of our lives and how they work out within various contexts.
However, it needs to be pointed out that it is understood by the post
192 structuralists that construction of meaning implies that some aspects of
social process and individual life will be emphasised and others will be relatively Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism
reduced in importance. In other words “objectivity” as in the case of earlier
sociological theory is found to be an illusion. That is the analyses of
poststructuralists does not deny its subjective orientation. Yet poststructuralists
also hold that meaning in society can be deconstructed to open up new
ideas and practices. However, such an exercise leads to an understanding of
specifics rather than general constructions. Thus loops of meaning and process
of construction reveal more about the specific scaffolding of the subject
rather than an understanding of the whole. The world is mediated by
discourse, language and ideology all of which structure the experience of
the subject. According to post structural thinking it is the text which is the
repertoire of meanings and there is no meaning outside the text. Thus
meaning resides in the text itself in toto. An understanding resides in social
signs and discourses in particular fields of study. Again almost paradoxically,
every text exists only in relation to other texts. However, it needs to be
pointed out that man’s ability to perceive reality is not at stake. Nonetheless
what we know of reality is known through various processes of discourse
symbols and language. Yet it must be understood that discourse itself is very
varied in content. It is also a fact that discourse is sometimes sketchy and
abrupt. It originates through chance and disappears also through unspecified
reasons. Thus according to Foucault there is no question of predicting history
through grand theories and meta narratives (Foucault, 1969). History is thus
viewed by poststructuralists as happening by chance. Thus in history the
twists, turns, plots, subplots and important events and happenings cannot
be pinned down – that is it happens by chance.

31.5 Derrida and Deconstruction

This brief note on structuralism is important for our understanding of the
process of “deconstruction” initiated by Derrida. The basics of this
structuralism are:
positing of a centre of power or influence which begins and ends all
social processes. This could be ‘mind’ or ‘self’ or even ‘God’.
all structures are composed of binary pairs or oppositions one of which
is more important than the other and often signified thus: +/- . These
could be good/evil, god/man and so on.

Reflection and Action 31.1

Discuss what is “deconstruction”. How did Derrida deconstruct structuralism?

Thus post structuralism began with Derrida’s critique of structuralism or

rather this ‘deconstruction’ of language society and culture. The structuralists
felt that man was chained to structures which controlled him. In contrast,
however, Derrida feels that language can be reduced to writing which does
not control the subjects. According to him all institutions and structures are
nothing but writing and incapable of controlling the individual. The
structuralists saw order and stability in language, hence in all structures; the
poststructuralists on the other hand saw language as essentially changing
and quite unstable. This means that the language structure being itself in
flux cannot create structures that constrain, restrain, or punish people,
because language itself is disorderly, and the underlying laws of language
cannot be ‘discovered’. This is what is the process of deconstruction which
as the term suggests is a sort of conceptual dissection of the concept or
193
Issues of Modernity process being studied. Derrida who coined the term deconstruction felt
that logo centrism has dominated the Western countries. This way of
perceiving has meant that writing has always been suppressed historically
speaking. This has also meant that the freedom to analyse and think is taken
away in a logocentric system. Derrida wants to dismantle this type of approach
as it sets writing free from repression. Under these circumstances what
takes place in the art form of traditional theatre is a representation of real
life. Such a representation is extremely important, in fact a controlled
theological theatre.

Box 31.1: The Theological Theatre

Derrida contrasts ‘theatre of cruelty’ as against traditional theatre which
has representational logic and renders traditional theatre as theological.
Derrida writes: the stage is theological for as long as its structure, following
the entirety of tradition comports the following elements: an author creator
who, absent and from afar, is armed with a text and keeps watch over,
assembles, regulates the time or the meaning of representation …. He lets
representation represent him through representatives, directors or actors
….. who represent the thought of the “creator”. Finally the theological stage
comports a passive, seated public, a public of spectators, of consumers, of
enjoyers. (Derrida, 1978, Writing and Difference : p:235).

Derrida’s chosen alternative stage is one which will not be controlled by

texts and authors but fall short of disorder/anarchy. Thus Derrida wants a
fundamental change in traditional theatre/life which would mean a great
change from the dominance of the writer (God?) on the stage (theatre) or
in societal process as well leading closer towards freedom of the individual.
Derrida feels thus that traditional theatre needs to be deconstructed. In
this mode of suggestion is included a critique of society itself, which is, as
mentioned earlier ‘logocentric.’ Derrida feels that in theatre it is the writer
who puts together the script, and that this influence is so strong that it is
akin to a dictatorship. Similarly in social processes the intellectual ideas and
formulations are controlled by the intellectual authorities which create
discourse.

Further we may add that post structuralists believe in the process of

decentering because when these is no specific authoritarian pressure on
society it becomes open ended and available for ‘play and difference’. This
process is ongoing reflexive and open (Derrida, 1978 :297). Thus the present
alone exists and it is the arena where social activity takes place. Thus we
should try to find solutions by harking to the past. The future itself cannot
be precisely predicted. However, there is no precise solution that Derrida
provides except that in the end there is only writing, acting and play with
difference. At this point in our presentation it would be instructive to look
briefly at an example of post structural ideas and ideology in the case of
Michel Foucault one of the major poststructuralists. One critical difference
between Foucault and the structuralists is that while linguistics is the main
influence for the former, it did not occur exclusively as the domain of ideas
that have to be adopted or modified into a poststructuralist schema. That
is post structural thinkers use a variety of ideas and influence and are not
reduced to examining the relations between binary terms. This variety of
sources in presenting an argument is what puts Foucault into the group of
the poststructuralists.
194
31.6 Foucault and the Archaeology of Knowledge Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism

Foucault described his approach/methodology as the “archaeology of

knowledge.” Using this approach Foucault studied knowledge and discourse.
According to Foucault this approach provides better ingress to understanding
society and it is different from history, which he feels is portrayed in a
stereotyped linear progression, whereas the reality remains limited and
‘continuous.’

Box 31.2: The Archaeology of Knowledge

In his early work on methodology, Foucault (1966) is doing an “archaeology
of knowledge”. His objects of study are bodies of knowledge, ideas, modes
of discourse, he contrasts his archaeology of knowledge to history and the
history of ideas, both of which he regards as being too rational and as
seeing to much continuity in the history of knowledge…. This highly structural
approach in Foucault’s early work was later abandoned for a poststructuralist
orientation because it was silent on the issue of power as well as the link
between knowledge and power. Michel Foucault died in 1984 at the age of
58 as a leading sociologist. Among Foucault’s last works was a trilogy of
sexual study. There works indicated Foucault’s interest in studying sexuality.
These books were The History of Sexuality 1976, The Care of the Self 1984,
and The Use of Pleasure 1984. (From Ritzer, 1996 Sociological Theory,
p:604-5).

Foucault, however, moved away from this structural type of analysis and
began studying the ‘genealogy of power.’ His concern was to find out the
facts about governance through knowledge production. The nature of
knowledge as power should not be hierarchical and also that the higher the
knowledge (e.g. science) the greater the power it wields over the subjects.
Thus Foucault studied technique and process in science since this is what
exerts power over people through the medium of institutions. This is not to
say that the elites are scheming and manipulating power. Again Foucault uses
a non linear perception of progress in societies from the stage of barbarism
to the present civilisation. Thus history is seen instead as shifting patterns
of domination. However, knowledge/power is such that it is always opposed
and resisted. Thus Foucault’s post structural view is that while knowledge/
power are ubiquitous they are certainly not omnipotent and total in their
domination but their power/authority is always questioned and opposed. A
brief introduction to Foucault’s ideas would help us in completing the section
on post structuralism (Foucault, 1979). Thus according to Foucault
the mad have been misunderstood and mistreated over the course of
history, and subjected to moral control
power/knowledge are implicative of each other
technologies exert power e.g. the Panopticon a prison with the cells
around a large observation tower from which every thing that inmates do
is visible and observable. Such an institution is metaphoric of total societal
control of the prisoners, since it forces even the prisoners or inmates to
exercise self-restraint. Thus this is a direct relationship between
technology, knowledge and power. Thus the Panopticon is a prototype of
societal control and surveillance and the forerunner of intelligence services
and satellite observations over geophysical territories.

Post modernism is not the term for a single type of theory, metanarrative,
or grand theory. It is rather the term for an overall approach involving many 195
Issues of Modernity similar strands. There is thus no single position in postmodernism, but all the
thinkers in this approach share certain common features that separate it
from “modernism.” This has been both a feature that separates it from
‘modernism’ and the approaches all indicate that what they are doing is to
present, dissect, construct ideas that will be relevant to the postmodern
context. A large number of sociologists still tend to think that post modernism
is a passing fancy, however, it is now obvious that postmodernism cannot be
ignored both as fact and phenomena. However, it cannot be denied that
postmodernism is surrounded by diverse positions within the field itself.

Reflection and Action 31.2

Outline the common features of postmodern writers. How are these separate
from “modernism”.

It would be proper at this point to distinguish between some common terms

that are often confused with each other although they are quite distinct
from one another. Thus “post modernity” is the word used for the historical
epoch following the modern era. Further ‘post modernism’ itself refers to
cultural products which are different/separate from the modern cultural
products (in art, architecture etc.). Again ‘postmodern social theory’ refers
to a method of ideating that differs from modern social theory.

From the above it can be said that the post modern covers: 1) a new epoch,
2) new cultural products, 3) new theories about society. Further these new
realities are getting strengthened and there is a widespread feeling that the
modern era is ending and being superceded by another epoch. This was
evident in breaking up of buildings which were modern and complete.
However, the post modern theories themselves provide ready made solutions
in a general sense. However, it is questionable whether the birth of the post
modern era can be precisely dated though it appears to have transited, from
the modern in the 1960’s.

Post modernism indicates that in the cultural field postmodern cultural

products tend to replace modern products. Again postmodern social theory
has emerged from and has differences with modern social theory. Thus
postmodern theory rejects the notion of ‘foundationalism’ of the earlier
theories but itself tends to be relative, non relational and nihilistic.

31.7 Jameson and Late Capitalism

Again the postmodern thinkers reject the nation of a grand narrative or
meta narrative. For example Lyotard contrasts modern knowledge which has
a grand synthesis e.g. the work of Parsons or Marx such narratives are
associated with modern science. Thus as Lyotard identifies modern knowledge
with metanarratives, then obviously postmodern approaches demand that
such theorising should be negated in its completeness. This is because
postmodern scholars such as Lyotard are not afraid to face the differences
and challenges of such a viewpoint. Thus post modernism becomes an
instrument that welcomes different perspectives under the same broad
umbrella. Let us now turn to look at some examples of postmodern theory.
A good illustration of the postmodern theory is clearly set out in the work
of Fredric Jameson. The point of departure is that modernity and post
modernity mark a radical break from each other and are hard to reconcile the
two. However, a middle position is taken by Jameson who writes that there
196 are some continuities between the two epochs. According to Jameson
capitalism is in its ‘late’ stages, but continues to be the main form of Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism
production the world over. However, this ‘late’ stage of capitalism has been
ushered in with post modernism. Thus while the cultural logic is altered, the
underlying structure remains the same as in the incipient forms of capitalism.
This is reflective of the Marxian framework. Jameson sees the postmodern
situation as possessing both positive and negative aspects of postmodernism.
Thus there is progress and chaos side by side. Thus according to Jameson
there are three stages in the progress of capitalism. The first is market
capitalism typified by national markets. Following this phase comes the
imperialist stage which is backed up by a global capitalist network. Then the
third phase is ‘late capitalism’ share capital is used to commodify new areas.
The effect of changes in the economic structure automatically create
appropriate cultural changes. Thus Jameson points out that we can see that:
realist culture is associated with market capitalism
modernist culture is associated with monopoly capitalism
postmodern culture and multinational capitalism

Box 31.3: Late Capitalism

…..aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity
production generally the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves
of ever more morel seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever
greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural
function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation. Such
economic necessities then find recognition in the institutional support of all
kinds available for art, from foundation and grants to museums and other
forms of patronage. (from Frederic Jameson, 1984 “Post-Modernism, or The
Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism”. New Left Review, p:57).

Jameson’s perspective, works mainly within a base and superstructure model.

According to Jameson postmodern society has some characteristics: firstly
there is superficiality, in the sense the cultural products keep to superficiality
and do not enquire deeply into the situation e.g. the soup cans and portrait
of Marolyn Munroe – both of which are simulacra as they are a “copy of a
copy.” Both paintings were painted from a copy of the photographs. Thus
the pictures are simulacrum – in which one cannot distinguish the original
from the copy (Jameson, 1984:86). These paintings are simulacrum and lack
in depth, and covers the surface meanings only. Further emotion or
emotionality is hardly to be found is the postmodern societies. Thus alienation
has been supplanted by fragmentation, which results in the impensonalization
of interaction. Again, and thirdly historicity is set aside and it is clear that
all that can be known about the past is textual and can spawn intertextuality
at the most. What this implies is that the postmodernists do not restrict
themselves to a single linear past but pick and choose from among the
available styles. That is to say there is a strong element of pastiche. This
implies that ‘truth’ about past history, is that we have no way of knowing
what happened. The historians then have to be satisfied with a pastiche
which in itself may not reflect much of past reality and there is no such
thing as linear historical development. Finally postmodernism has a new
technology available to it especially the computer and other electronic
machines not present earlier. What we can say then is that the post modern
societies are in deep flux and great confusion and many symptoms of this
have appeared especially with regard to certain kinds of affliction. Thus
whole new breeds of psychiatrists are busy trying to undo the stress and
197
Issues of Modernity tension that post modernism is clearly associated with. Thus there is a
problem of chaotic and disturbing trends of late capitalism. It is difficult to
cope with multinational economy and the according cultural impact of
consumerism. Jameson feels that cognitive maps are needed to deal with
postmodern realities. The maps can be put together by artists novelists and
working people. Thus Jameson’s schema tries to build bridges between
Marxian theory and post-modernism, but ended up antagonising both Marxists
and postmodernists. This was to be expected because despite Jameson’s
efforts to synthesise it was clear that a grand theory/metanarrative was
unlikely to bend backwards, and therefore, Jameson uses mainly its base/
superstructure dichotomy. Jameson’s postmodernism does try to maintain
some basic/tenous link with Marxian theory despite the fact that Marxism
is a grand narrative. However, in the case of Jean Baudrillard postmodernism
is presented as a maverick social theory of contemporary times. Thus Baudrillard
journey of ideas commences in the 1960’s, when he started out as a Marxist
critique of consumer society he was influenced by both linguistics and
semiotics. However, he soon left this orientation behind him and abandoned
both Marxism and structuralism.

31.8 Baudrillard and Post Modernism

In the 1970’s Baudrillard alleged that Marxists and their detractors both had
a similar beorgeoisie orientation which was conservative. He felt that an
alternative explanation was necessary. Thus Baudrillard put forward the notion
of “symbolic exchange” as an alternative to economic exchange. Symbolic
exchange itself involves a continuous process of a gift giving and gift taking.
It is clear that symbolic exchange was beyond and opposed to the logic of
late capitalism.

Such symbolic exchange implied the creation of a society based on the

same, but Baudrillard chose to be a-political. He studied contemporary society,
and saw that it is not production but the electronic media that characterises
it e.g. TV, computers, satellites. We have moved from societies under
different modes of production to a society that is more involved with the
code of production. Exploitation and profit motives have given way to a
domination by the signs/systems that produce them. Again signs referred to
something else but in postmodern society they become self referential and
characterised by “simulations” and ‘simulacra’ which are representations of
any aspect of consumption (Baudrillard, 1973).

For Baudrillard the postmodern world is “hyper reality.” Thus media becomes
more real than the reality itself, and provides news, views and events in an
exaggerated, skewed, and even ideological manner – thus the term hyper
reality. This is not without consequences as the real tends to be buried in
the hyper real and may ultimately be banished altogether.

Box 31.4: Catastrophe Management

In short, there is such distortion between North and South, to the symbolic
advantage of the South…..that one day everything will break down. One day,
the west will break down if we are not soon washed clean of this shame,
if an international congress of the poor countries does not very quickly
decide to share out this symbolic privilege of misery and catastrophe. (Jean
Baudrillard, The Illusion of the End, p:69).

198
For Baudrillard culture is undergoing a very deep change which makes the Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism
masses more and more passive, rather than increasingly rebellious. Thus the
masses encounter these changes with seeming ease absorbing each new
cultural idea or artifact. Thus for Baudrillard masses are not seen to be the
products of media. Rather it is the media which is observed to provide these
wants to the masses (for objects and entertainment). For Baudrillard society
is in throes of a ‘death culture.’ Thus it is death anxiety that pushes people
to try and lose this anxiety by using and abusing the consumerist culture.
There is no revolutionary silver lining to Baudrillard’s theory and the problem
is also that symbolic exchange societies may exist but how to bring them
about is not addressed to by Baudrillard. All in all Baudrillards brilliant and
unusual ideas make it a clear breakaway from the ideas and artifacts of
modernism. Baudrillard in deconstructing contemporary society shows just
how much sociological theory has moved forward and away from classical
thought. Thus we can see post modernism does display certain characteristics
and we can see below just what these are.

The first of these characteristics is that in postmodernism that is a multiplicity

of views, meanings and so on. Secondly the postmodernists are looking for
polysemic and alternative meanings. Thirdly there is a distrust of
metanarratives and grand narratives as found in classical sociological theory.
It also holds that since there a multiplicity of perspectives there will always
be many truths. Thus postmodernists regard concepts ideas as texts which
are open to interpretation. They also look for binary oppositions in the text.
Further, these binary oppositions are themselves shown to be false or at
least not necessarily true. Finally the post modernist identifies texts, groups
which are absent or omitted. This is regarded important to any
‘deconstruction.’

Now postmodernism is reflected in almost all areas of life including film, TV,
literature etc. which are deeply influenced by postmodern viewpoints. Let
us now turn to some postmodern aspects visible in other fields. Thus in
language words and forms are used and the concept of ‘play’ is basic to it.
Thus ‘play’ implies altering the frame which connects ideas – allowing the
troping of a metaphor. Thus the ‘text’ has a meaning which is understood
or interpreted by the reader and not the author. This ‘play’ or exercise is
the way that the author gains some significance in the consciousness of the
reader. The problem with this postmodern view about language is very difficult
to understand and is against the basis of communication where the author
communicates to the reader in as lucid a manner as possible.

In literature it is found that postmodern works is not so much opposed to

modernist literature. Instead it tends to extend it stylistically. Some post
modern literatures include David Foster Wallace and Thomas Pynchon both of
whom are critical of the vast system building of the Enlightenment modernity.
As you would have noticed post structuralism and postmodernism do have
an intermeshing quality. Indeed some authors straddle both fields e.g. Francois
Lyotard. Further structuralism tries to build models seeking out factor and
patterns that are stable, which is anathema to postmodernists and rejected
outright as a futile manoeuvre. Thus postmodernism has retained the cultural
dimension of structuralism but has rejected the claims to its scientificity.
Again post structuralism is a position in philosophy, it is not the name of an
era whereas postmodernism is associated with the post modern epoch.

199
Issues of Modernity
31.9 Conclusion
What then has postmodernism achieved? The answer is that postmodernism
has turned away the shroud over the analysis and demystified both
epistemological and ideological constructs. Further a deep look at ethnography
has to led to a reexamination and questioning of ethnography itself.
Postmodernism and its adherents point out that sociologist should analyse
the role of their own culture in the study of culture, and therefore, increase
the sensitivity of the subject. Postmodern approaches have been criticised
on several grounds. To begin with postmodernists are against theory. This
paradoxical since this is itself a theoretical position taken by the
postmodernists. Again the postmodernists emphasise the illogical or non-
rational aspects of a culture. Further, the postmodern concentrates on the
marginal which is itself evaluative. Then again the stress on intertextuality,
but do not always follow their own advice and often treat texts as standing
alone. Postmodernists also put away all assessment of theory – but this does
not mean that there is no means of assessment. Thus according to
postmodernists modernism is inconsistent but they themselves exercise it
as and which way they want. Finally the postmodernists are self contradictory
when they deny any claims of reality or ‘truth’ in their own writings. Finally
there is the issue of postmodernism not having any confidence in the scientific
method. But if sociology does follow this position, then it will turn into a
study of meanings, rather than causes which influence what it is to be an
individual in society.

31.10 Further Reading

Baudrillard, Jean 1976, Symbolic Exchange and Death. London : Sage

Derrida, Jaques 1978, Writing and Difference. Chicago, University of Chicago

Press

Foucault, Michel 1969 The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on

Language. New York : Harper Colophon

Jameson, Frederic 1991 Postmodernism or The Cultural Logic of Late

Capitalism Dusham, N.C. : Duke University Press

200