- Anthony Giddens' 1991 book "The Consequences of Modernity" argues that modernity created unprecedented discontinuities from traditional societies due to the pace, scope and nature of changes in institutions like the state and urban settlements.
- Giddens analyzes modernity's "double-edged" impacts of both opportunity and danger due to developments like industrialization, totalitarian states and industrialized war.
- He critiques classical sociological perspectives for limiting understanding of modern institutions and argues for analyzing how modernity separates and recombines time and space in ways that dynamize social relations.
1) The document discusses key sociological theories around the relationship between agency and structure, including structuration theory proposed by Anthony Giddens and the morphogenetic approach of Margaret Archer.
2) Giddens' structuration theory aims to reconcile structure and agency by arguing they mutually constitute each other in a duality. Archer critiques Giddens for not separating structure and agency enough and emphasizes their independence.
3) The document outlines the basic concepts in structuration theory including duality of structure, and in Archer's approach including analytical dualism and cultural elaboration through the process of morphogenesis.
George Simmel was a German sociologist born in 1858 who received his PhD from the University of Berlin. Despite being a popular lecturer supported by Max Weber, he was considered an outsider academically. Simmel focused on social interactions and published works on topics like the metropolis and mental life, philosophy of money, poverty, and the stranger. He took a dialectical approach to sociology looking at social relations, conflicts, and contradictions. Simmel viewed the individual in modern society as being in trouble due to things people produce taking on a life of their own externally coercing the actor.
Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) was a German-American philosopher, social theorist, and political activist. He was a prominent figure associated with the New Left movement of the 1960s. Marcuse developed a critical theory of modern capitalist societies that analyzed how they exert social control and undermine opposition. He called for liberation from repression and the creation of a non-repressive society focused on freedom and happiness. Marcuse's work influenced political radicals and social movements during the 1960s and remains an important contribution to critical social theory.
This presentation provides you the basic information of who Max Weber is. From his birth to his death Weber's life is the showcase of intellectual discipline and scholarly pursuit. His short life brings us lessons that scholars of today should consider in order to have a fruitful and happier life.
Karl Marx- An Introduction: https://youtu.be/b97jZWS2DpQ
Emile Durkheim- An Introduction: https://youtu.be/nEs0OD6-SGc
This document discusses the concept of intersectionality, which examines how social identities like gender, race, and class intersect and overlap. It was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw to explain how these identities are linked and can experience compounded discrimination. An intersectional lens is important for feminism to consider how experiences differ based on other social factors beyond just gender. Categories like class, age, sexuality, and more are socially constructed and viewed differently cross-culturally. A truly inclusive feminism must acknowledge these intersecting identities.
Phenomenology is the study of experience from the perspective of individuals. It aims to illuminate specific phenomena through how they are perceived by people in a situation. Phenomenology involves carefully describing lived experiences through qualitative methods like interviews and observation. Edmund Husserl developed transcendental phenomenology, arguing we should study experience rather than assume knowledge from Descartes and Locke. Husserl believed we must suspend natural attitudes and reflect purely to understand phenomena as they are independent of prejudices. Phenomenology describes both the intentional processes of consciousness and the objects of consciousness. Later philosophers like Heidegger disagreed with Husserl's method, believing meaning is formed through relationships between events and people rather than detaching
The document discusses social constructionism and social constructivism. It notes that they are sociological theories that consider how social phenomena develop in social contexts. Social constructionism focuses on reality, knowledge, and learning being dependent on social and cultural factors, while social constructivism refers to individuals constructing meaning from knowledge within a social context. The document explores the underlying assumptions of social constructivism and how reality, knowledge, and learning are viewed through this lens.
Historical Institutionalism as Method: Applications and Uses at the Micro, Meso, and Macro Levels of Analysis. Historical institutionalism is one of the three New Institutionalisms. As a research method, the approach typically involves archival research and semi-structured interviews - employing the research techniques of both the historian and the political scientist - to understand the impact of institutional legacies on the present. I have used historical institutionalism to analyse industry policy over time for cross-national comparisons of transport and telecommunications policies and have found the approach effective at the meso-level of analysis. Recently, however, I have applied this approach to the macro-level in geopolitics (to understand institutional exhaustion), and I am currently developing a research project focused on the micro-level to understand how institutions influence the development of military doctrine through a case study of operational tactics. This presentation will demonstrate the analysis of political phenomena over time, drawing on my model of path dependent, punctuated equilibrium. It will outline how to recognise and analyse exogenous and endogenous critical junctures in applying the model to temporal comparative and institutional studies. In doing so, I will share some of the unique insights I have developed as both a practitioner and an academic.
1) The document discusses key sociological theories around the relationship between agency and structure, including structuration theory proposed by Anthony Giddens and the morphogenetic approach of Margaret Archer.
2) Giddens' structuration theory aims to reconcile structure and agency by arguing they mutually constitute each other in a duality. Archer critiques Giddens for not separating structure and agency enough and emphasizes their independence.
3) The document outlines the basic concepts in structuration theory including duality of structure, and in Archer's approach including analytical dualism and cultural elaboration through the process of morphogenesis.
George Simmel was a German sociologist born in 1858 who received his PhD from the University of Berlin. Despite being a popular lecturer supported by Max Weber, he was considered an outsider academically. Simmel focused on social interactions and published works on topics like the metropolis and mental life, philosophy of money, poverty, and the stranger. He took a dialectical approach to sociology looking at social relations, conflicts, and contradictions. Simmel viewed the individual in modern society as being in trouble due to things people produce taking on a life of their own externally coercing the actor.
Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) was a German-American philosopher, social theorist, and political activist. He was a prominent figure associated with the New Left movement of the 1960s. Marcuse developed a critical theory of modern capitalist societies that analyzed how they exert social control and undermine opposition. He called for liberation from repression and the creation of a non-repressive society focused on freedom and happiness. Marcuse's work influenced political radicals and social movements during the 1960s and remains an important contribution to critical social theory.
This presentation provides you the basic information of who Max Weber is. From his birth to his death Weber's life is the showcase of intellectual discipline and scholarly pursuit. His short life brings us lessons that scholars of today should consider in order to have a fruitful and happier life.
Karl Marx- An Introduction: https://youtu.be/b97jZWS2DpQ
Emile Durkheim- An Introduction: https://youtu.be/nEs0OD6-SGc
This document discusses the concept of intersectionality, which examines how social identities like gender, race, and class intersect and overlap. It was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw to explain how these identities are linked and can experience compounded discrimination. An intersectional lens is important for feminism to consider how experiences differ based on other social factors beyond just gender. Categories like class, age, sexuality, and more are socially constructed and viewed differently cross-culturally. A truly inclusive feminism must acknowledge these intersecting identities.
Phenomenology is the study of experience from the perspective of individuals. It aims to illuminate specific phenomena through how they are perceived by people in a situation. Phenomenology involves carefully describing lived experiences through qualitative methods like interviews and observation. Edmund Husserl developed transcendental phenomenology, arguing we should study experience rather than assume knowledge from Descartes and Locke. Husserl believed we must suspend natural attitudes and reflect purely to understand phenomena as they are independent of prejudices. Phenomenology describes both the intentional processes of consciousness and the objects of consciousness. Later philosophers like Heidegger disagreed with Husserl's method, believing meaning is formed through relationships between events and people rather than detaching
The document discusses social constructionism and social constructivism. It notes that they are sociological theories that consider how social phenomena develop in social contexts. Social constructionism focuses on reality, knowledge, and learning being dependent on social and cultural factors, while social constructivism refers to individuals constructing meaning from knowledge within a social context. The document explores the underlying assumptions of social constructivism and how reality, knowledge, and learning are viewed through this lens.
Historical Institutionalism as Method: Applications and Uses at the Micro, Meso, and Macro Levels of Analysis. Historical institutionalism is one of the three New Institutionalisms. As a research method, the approach typically involves archival research and semi-structured interviews - employing the research techniques of both the historian and the political scientist - to understand the impact of institutional legacies on the present. I have used historical institutionalism to analyse industry policy over time for cross-national comparisons of transport and telecommunications policies and have found the approach effective at the meso-level of analysis. Recently, however, I have applied this approach to the macro-level in geopolitics (to understand institutional exhaustion), and I am currently developing a research project focused on the micro-level to understand how institutions influence the development of military doctrine through a case study of operational tactics. This presentation will demonstrate the analysis of political phenomena over time, drawing on my model of path dependent, punctuated equilibrium. It will outline how to recognise and analyse exogenous and endogenous critical junctures in applying the model to temporal comparative and institutional studies. In doing so, I will share some of the unique insights I have developed as both a practitioner and an academic.
BAB 2 membahas globalisasi dan dampaknya terhadap perubahan sosial di tingkat lokal atau komunitas. Globalisasi telah menyebabkan perubahan sosial seperti urbanisasi dan kesenjangan sosial ekonomi di komunitas lokal. Dokumen ini juga membahas strategi pemberdayaan masyarakat seperti perencanaan, aksi sosial, dan pendidikan untuk mengurangi ketimpangan sosial akibat globalisasi.
Participatory Action Research PresentationMike Scott
#curiouscolab Presentation about research methods for CEnR project connecting minority families with their children's schools for increased student success
Postmodernism (Foucault and Baudrillard)John Bradford
This document provides an overview of postmodernism and some of its key thinkers. It discusses:
- Postmodernism emerged as a critique of modernity and challenged ideas like universal truths, objective knowledge, and historical progress.
- Key postmodern thinkers included Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard. They analyzed how power shapes knowledge and questioned foundations of knowledge.
- Foucault argued that knowledge is a form of power and that what counts as truth is determined by prevailing power structures in society rather than objective facts. He analyzed how power operates in subtle ways through social institutions and practices.
This document discusses ethnography as an invaluable research method. It defines ethnography as the scientific description of peoples and cultures with their customs, habits, and differences. Ethnography uses both qualitative and quantitative methods in a holistic and interpretive way to study cultural systems from emic and etic perspectives. It is a flexible and iterative process that relies heavily on fieldwork through daily recording of field notes. Ethnography presents case studies of host populations in human contexts. It implies formulating questions, collecting and testing data, and drafting conclusions while leaving room for doubt. Ethics in research require avoiding falsification and acknowledging others' work to prevent plagiarism.
The fifth presentation in the series called Political Ideologies. It is suitable for History and International Relations from Year 9 to university level. It contains the following: Marx, The Capital, Communist Manifesto, dialectical materialism, socialism, forms of Marxism, classical Marxism, the utopians, Hegels, mode of production, Hegel's thesis, Hegelian dialectic, Marx theory of history, stages of Marxism, communism, classless society,
class conflict, exploitation, capitalism, proletariat, the proletarian revolution, orthodox communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, reification, Frankfurt School.
Michel Foucault was a highly influential 20th century French philosopher and historian known for his analyses of discourse, knowledge, truth and power. Some of his major works examined the history of systems like madness, medicine and punishment. A key aspect of his project was using genealogical methods inspired by Nietzsche to uncover how power operates through discourse and the production of truth. In his work Discipline and Punish, Foucault analyzed how power has shifted from sovereign forms focused on the body to more subtle disciplinary power operating through surveillance, normalization and self-regulation.
This document provides a biography and overview of the major works and ideas of Emile Durkheim, a founding father of sociology. It notes that he was born in 1858 in France, studied philosophy and science, and went on to establish the first university course in sociology. Some of his most important works examined how societies transition from simple to complex forms held together by different types of solidarity. He is known for establishing sociology as a science and demonstrating how social forces can influence even individual acts like suicide.
The document discusses structural-functionalism as a sociological theory. It describes how early functionalist anthropologists like Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski viewed society as a system of interconnected institutions that function to maintain stability. It outlines key concepts from theorists like Durkheim, Parsons, and Merton, such as manifest and latent functions. Structural-functionalism views each social element as either functioning to contribute to stability or dysfunctions that disrupt it. It became an influential paradigm in sociology for viewing society as an equilibrium-seeking system.
The conflict model focuses on inequalities that arise from competition over scarce resources and social structures rather than individual characteristics. It summarizes that social structures produce patterns of inequality in the distribution of scarce resources, which can lead to conflict, reorganization and social change.
1. Jean Baudrillard was a postmodern philosopher known for his concepts of hyperreality and simulations, where he argued that society has replaced reality with simulations and signs that no longer refer to any deeper reality.
2. Michel Foucault analyzed power relations and argued that knowledge is always produced through power, so what counts as truth depends on social relationships and changes over time and place.
3. Postmodernism more broadly questions universal truths and meta-narratives, emphasizes marginalized groups, and sees history as non-linear rather than progressive. It influenced fields like philosophy, literary criticism, and cultural studies.
Jurgen Habermas is a German philosopher and social theorist born in 1929. He is known for his work on the foundations of social theory and analysis of advanced capitalist societies. He challenged social science by arguing that humans have the ability for rational communication. His major achievement was developing the theory of communicative rationality, which rests on the idea that humans possess communicative competence developed through evolution. However, he believed contemporary society has suppressed this competence. He had hope for the future in the development of an active public sphere in political communities. Habermas' defense of modernity and civil society has provided an alternative to poststructuralism.
The document summarizes Banuazizi's analysis of the Iranian Revolution of 1977-1979. Banuazizi argues that the revolution was a mass-based social revolution involving both modern and traditional forces. It was driven by structural factors like cultural divisions produced by modernization, as well as the unique nature of Shi'ite religion. Banuazizi also critiques views that see Islamic resurgence as extremist, noting the revolution drew on multiple Islamic ideologies and values can adapt to different groups' interests. The revolution shows tradition is not an obstacle to change and modernization does not necessarily lead to secularization.
The document discusses several classical studies on modernization, including McClelland's work on achievement motivation, Inkeles' research on how modernization affects individual attitudes and values, Bellah's study of how Tokugawa religion contributed to Japan's economic growth, and Lipset's analysis of the relationship between economic development and democracy. The studies used empirical methods to investigate factors like entrepreneurship, education, religion, and social class that influence the modernization process.
This document discusses Karl Marx and conflict theory. It provides an overview of Marx's life and ideas, including his view that society is defined by conflicts between social classes competing over scarce resources. It outlines some of Marx's key concepts, such as how the division of labor leads to economic classes and class struggle. The document also discusses early and modern approaches to conflict theory, how it explains social change and inequality, and provides an analysis of how Marx viewed religion in relation to social conflicts.
Postmodernism rejects the idea that reality is objectively mirrored in human understanding, and instead believes that realities are socially constructed and subject to change. It takes a micro view of how individuals construct their own realities rather than analyzing entire societies. For their music video and digipak set in Tokyo, the document discusses how postmodernism influenced their ideas by focusing on the city's diversity of building shapes and sizes rather than uniform mass production, and helped them find an internet image incorporating different urban styles to represent the city from a high angle view.
Historical setting in which Sociology appeared as a discipline.Guannu Kuluku Dezon
Sociology emerged in the 19th century in response to industrialization and other social changes arising from the Industrial and French Revolutions. Auguste Comte coined the term sociology and established it as the systematic, scientific study of human society and social behavior. Other prominent early contributors included Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Mead and Du Bois who developed theories to better understand topics like class conflict, social order, authority and power structures. Contemporary sociology employs theoretical perspectives like functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism to examine social issues at both the macro and micro levels.
The core values and guiding principles of community action include human rights, social justice, empowerment and advocacy, and participatory development. Community action aims to promote awareness of human rights in communities and appraise the value of social equity and gender equality through participatory development strategies that empower communities and promote advocacy.
THE STRUCTURE OFSCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION -Thomas Kuhn Nouran Adel
Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts."
Harold Garfinkel was a sociologist who founded ethnomethodology. He was interested in how people make sense of their social world through their everyday practices and accounts. Garfinkel studied jury deliberations and developed breaching experiments to disrupt social norms and uncover taken-for-granted rules. He was influenced by phenomenology and rejected Parsons' view of objective rational action. Ethnomethodology examines the methods people use to produce and maintain social order in their interactions.
Globalisation, Modernity & Postmodernity EssayBeth Lee
- Postmodernists argue that society has entered a new postmodern era due to globalization and rapid technological and cultural changes that undermine modern theories. However, theories of late modernity assert that these changes are just an intensification of modernity rather than a fundamental break.
- Marxists also reject that postmodernity represents an entirely new era, instead arguing that it is merely the latest stage of capitalism, characterized by flexible accumulation and global production, which fragment opposition to capitalism.
- While postmodernists believe objective truth is impossible and we must celebrate diversity of views, late modernists and Marxists still believe in achieving progress through objective knowledge and potentially transforming society.
BAB 2 membahas globalisasi dan dampaknya terhadap perubahan sosial di tingkat lokal atau komunitas. Globalisasi telah menyebabkan perubahan sosial seperti urbanisasi dan kesenjangan sosial ekonomi di komunitas lokal. Dokumen ini juga membahas strategi pemberdayaan masyarakat seperti perencanaan, aksi sosial, dan pendidikan untuk mengurangi ketimpangan sosial akibat globalisasi.
Participatory Action Research PresentationMike Scott
#curiouscolab Presentation about research methods for CEnR project connecting minority families with their children's schools for increased student success
Postmodernism (Foucault and Baudrillard)John Bradford
This document provides an overview of postmodernism and some of its key thinkers. It discusses:
- Postmodernism emerged as a critique of modernity and challenged ideas like universal truths, objective knowledge, and historical progress.
- Key postmodern thinkers included Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard. They analyzed how power shapes knowledge and questioned foundations of knowledge.
- Foucault argued that knowledge is a form of power and that what counts as truth is determined by prevailing power structures in society rather than objective facts. He analyzed how power operates in subtle ways through social institutions and practices.
This document discusses ethnography as an invaluable research method. It defines ethnography as the scientific description of peoples and cultures with their customs, habits, and differences. Ethnography uses both qualitative and quantitative methods in a holistic and interpretive way to study cultural systems from emic and etic perspectives. It is a flexible and iterative process that relies heavily on fieldwork through daily recording of field notes. Ethnography presents case studies of host populations in human contexts. It implies formulating questions, collecting and testing data, and drafting conclusions while leaving room for doubt. Ethics in research require avoiding falsification and acknowledging others' work to prevent plagiarism.
The fifth presentation in the series called Political Ideologies. It is suitable for History and International Relations from Year 9 to university level. It contains the following: Marx, The Capital, Communist Manifesto, dialectical materialism, socialism, forms of Marxism, classical Marxism, the utopians, Hegels, mode of production, Hegel's thesis, Hegelian dialectic, Marx theory of history, stages of Marxism, communism, classless society,
class conflict, exploitation, capitalism, proletariat, the proletarian revolution, orthodox communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, reification, Frankfurt School.
Michel Foucault was a highly influential 20th century French philosopher and historian known for his analyses of discourse, knowledge, truth and power. Some of his major works examined the history of systems like madness, medicine and punishment. A key aspect of his project was using genealogical methods inspired by Nietzsche to uncover how power operates through discourse and the production of truth. In his work Discipline and Punish, Foucault analyzed how power has shifted from sovereign forms focused on the body to more subtle disciplinary power operating through surveillance, normalization and self-regulation.
This document provides a biography and overview of the major works and ideas of Emile Durkheim, a founding father of sociology. It notes that he was born in 1858 in France, studied philosophy and science, and went on to establish the first university course in sociology. Some of his most important works examined how societies transition from simple to complex forms held together by different types of solidarity. He is known for establishing sociology as a science and demonstrating how social forces can influence even individual acts like suicide.
The document discusses structural-functionalism as a sociological theory. It describes how early functionalist anthropologists like Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski viewed society as a system of interconnected institutions that function to maintain stability. It outlines key concepts from theorists like Durkheim, Parsons, and Merton, such as manifest and latent functions. Structural-functionalism views each social element as either functioning to contribute to stability or dysfunctions that disrupt it. It became an influential paradigm in sociology for viewing society as an equilibrium-seeking system.
The conflict model focuses on inequalities that arise from competition over scarce resources and social structures rather than individual characteristics. It summarizes that social structures produce patterns of inequality in the distribution of scarce resources, which can lead to conflict, reorganization and social change.
1. Jean Baudrillard was a postmodern philosopher known for his concepts of hyperreality and simulations, where he argued that society has replaced reality with simulations and signs that no longer refer to any deeper reality.
2. Michel Foucault analyzed power relations and argued that knowledge is always produced through power, so what counts as truth depends on social relationships and changes over time and place.
3. Postmodernism more broadly questions universal truths and meta-narratives, emphasizes marginalized groups, and sees history as non-linear rather than progressive. It influenced fields like philosophy, literary criticism, and cultural studies.
Jurgen Habermas is a German philosopher and social theorist born in 1929. He is known for his work on the foundations of social theory and analysis of advanced capitalist societies. He challenged social science by arguing that humans have the ability for rational communication. His major achievement was developing the theory of communicative rationality, which rests on the idea that humans possess communicative competence developed through evolution. However, he believed contemporary society has suppressed this competence. He had hope for the future in the development of an active public sphere in political communities. Habermas' defense of modernity and civil society has provided an alternative to poststructuralism.
The document summarizes Banuazizi's analysis of the Iranian Revolution of 1977-1979. Banuazizi argues that the revolution was a mass-based social revolution involving both modern and traditional forces. It was driven by structural factors like cultural divisions produced by modernization, as well as the unique nature of Shi'ite religion. Banuazizi also critiques views that see Islamic resurgence as extremist, noting the revolution drew on multiple Islamic ideologies and values can adapt to different groups' interests. The revolution shows tradition is not an obstacle to change and modernization does not necessarily lead to secularization.
The document discusses several classical studies on modernization, including McClelland's work on achievement motivation, Inkeles' research on how modernization affects individual attitudes and values, Bellah's study of how Tokugawa religion contributed to Japan's economic growth, and Lipset's analysis of the relationship between economic development and democracy. The studies used empirical methods to investigate factors like entrepreneurship, education, religion, and social class that influence the modernization process.
This document discusses Karl Marx and conflict theory. It provides an overview of Marx's life and ideas, including his view that society is defined by conflicts between social classes competing over scarce resources. It outlines some of Marx's key concepts, such as how the division of labor leads to economic classes and class struggle. The document also discusses early and modern approaches to conflict theory, how it explains social change and inequality, and provides an analysis of how Marx viewed religion in relation to social conflicts.
Postmodernism rejects the idea that reality is objectively mirrored in human understanding, and instead believes that realities are socially constructed and subject to change. It takes a micro view of how individuals construct their own realities rather than analyzing entire societies. For their music video and digipak set in Tokyo, the document discusses how postmodernism influenced their ideas by focusing on the city's diversity of building shapes and sizes rather than uniform mass production, and helped them find an internet image incorporating different urban styles to represent the city from a high angle view.
Historical setting in which Sociology appeared as a discipline.Guannu Kuluku Dezon
Sociology emerged in the 19th century in response to industrialization and other social changes arising from the Industrial and French Revolutions. Auguste Comte coined the term sociology and established it as the systematic, scientific study of human society and social behavior. Other prominent early contributors included Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Mead and Du Bois who developed theories to better understand topics like class conflict, social order, authority and power structures. Contemporary sociology employs theoretical perspectives like functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism to examine social issues at both the macro and micro levels.
The core values and guiding principles of community action include human rights, social justice, empowerment and advocacy, and participatory development. Community action aims to promote awareness of human rights in communities and appraise the value of social equity and gender equality through participatory development strategies that empower communities and promote advocacy.
THE STRUCTURE OFSCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION -Thomas Kuhn Nouran Adel
Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts."
Harold Garfinkel was a sociologist who founded ethnomethodology. He was interested in how people make sense of their social world through their everyday practices and accounts. Garfinkel studied jury deliberations and developed breaching experiments to disrupt social norms and uncover taken-for-granted rules. He was influenced by phenomenology and rejected Parsons' view of objective rational action. Ethnomethodology examines the methods people use to produce and maintain social order in their interactions.
Globalisation, Modernity & Postmodernity EssayBeth Lee
- Postmodernists argue that society has entered a new postmodern era due to globalization and rapid technological and cultural changes that undermine modern theories. However, theories of late modernity assert that these changes are just an intensification of modernity rather than a fundamental break.
- Marxists also reject that postmodernity represents an entirely new era, instead arguing that it is merely the latest stage of capitalism, characterized by flexible accumulation and global production, which fragment opposition to capitalism.
- While postmodernists believe objective truth is impossible and we must celebrate diversity of views, late modernists and Marxists still believe in achieving progress through objective knowledge and potentially transforming society.
Contemporary theories of Modernity_.pptxNathanMoyo1
This document discusses several key theories of modernity. It describes Anthony Giddens' theory of the "juggernaut of modernity" which identifies capitalism, industrialization, and surveillance as the three basic institutions of modernity. It also summarizes theories by Ulrich Beck on the "risk society," Manuel Castells on the "informational society," and Jurgen Habermas' view of modernity as an "unfinished project."
Varieties of capitalism, varieties of modernityMarcus Leaning
This document summarizes Dr. Marcus Leaning's analysis of Ulrich Beck's theory of secondary modernity and its relationship to varieties of capitalism. Beck argues that modernity has radicalized into a reflexive secondary modernity. However, critics argue that Beck presents a naive Eurocentric view and fails to account for non-Western experiences. Leaning proposes understanding modernity as having local configurations that are linked through global processes, representing varieties of modernity rather than being completely separate.
The document is a review of recent works by prominent social theorists Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck, and Zygmunt Bauman on the topic of globalization. It summarizes their key perspectives as follows:
Giddens argues that globalization is a complex process involving political, technological, and cultural forces in addition to economic factors. It creates both risks and opportunities for local autonomy. He advocates for greater democracy and civic participation to manage risks of the "runaway world."
Beck believes globalization undermines expert knowledge through its unintended consequences. This leads to a state of uncertainty and new "subrationalities." He critiques the notion of "globalism" and argues we have entered
This document provides an overview and analysis of Anthony Giddens' Structuration Theory. It begins with an introduction to Giddens and his rejection of views that see social structures as either completely determining human agency or views that see humans as completely free. It then examines key aspects of Giddens' theory, including the duality of structure, the types of social structures, and the concepts of agency and the relationship between micro and macro levels of analysis. Finally, it discusses connections between Structuration Theory and human geography, particularly in understanding urban environments and the complex relationships between individuals and social forces within cities.
The document summarizes four major theories of social change: evolutionary theory, functionalist theory, conflict theory, and post-modernism. Evolutionary theory views social change as moving in a single, progressive direction based on Darwin's work, seeing societies evolving from simplistic to more complex forms. Functionalist theory assumes societies become more complex and interdependent over time to function more effectively. Conflict theory argues social change results from conflicts within society. Post-modernism questions the idea of researchers objectively analyzing other cultures, emphasizes understanding customs in context, and sees globalization and technology driving new forms of social organization.
This document discusses theories of modernization from the 1950s. It describes Marxist and capitalist theories that emerged during the Cold War, with the Marxist view proposing communism as the path for developing nations and the capitalist view arguing democracy would result. Other theorists like Rostow proposed stages of development and Huntington emphasized social mobilization and economic growth leading to democratization. Critiques noted development was not always linear and different challenges existed for third world countries. The document outlines assumptions of modernization theory and implications for policy.
The document discusses several sociological theories and perspectives, including:
1) Conflict theory, which sees society as characterized by inequality and power struggles rather than consensus and stability.
2) Feminist perspectives as forms of conflict theory that view gender inequality as inherent to societies.
3) Pragmatism, which views humans as active agents who interpret and define their environments through language and reason.
4) Postmodernism challenges notions of objectivity and determinism, seeing individuals as able to navigate mass culture and constructed realities.
California State University Northridge SOC 370 The Runaway World Discussion.docxwrite31
1. The document discusses a reading by Anthony Giddens called "The Runaway World" about globalization. Giddens argues that globalization is a complex process with economic, political, technological, and cultural dimensions, not just an economic phenomenon.
2. Giddens says we are moving from a world of external risks from tradition/nature to one of manufactured risks from human intervention. This creates more uncertainty. Giddens advocates further democratizing global institutions to gain more control over risks.
3. The document contrasts Giddens' view of reflexive modernization with Ulrich Beck's view, noting they use the term differently and have different views on expert knowledge and the consequences of modern
This document discusses collective gender identity as represented in various media such as magazines, television advertisements, and music videos. It examines how media helps shape and reinforce ideas of gender identity and stereotypes. Some key points made include:
- Media such as ads in magazines and television portray and help create a collective sense of gender identity.
- Different media sources reinforce gender identities and stereotypes in similar ways.
- Considering media as a whole, what identities or stereotypes does it suggest for different genders?
The document then discusses concepts like collective identity and how participating in social activities can provide individuals a sense of belonging and identity beyond their individual selves. It examines the rewards and risks of social networking and participation
This document discusses the origins and history of globalization from different perspectives. It describes five main views on defining when globalization began: 1) As a natural human tendency dating back thousands of years, 2) As a cyclical process with multiple "waves", 3) Through six major epochs starting in ancient times, 4) Key events like European colonialism and modern technology, 5) Recent changes in the late 20th century including US global dominance, rise of multinational corporations, and end of the Cold War. The document analyzes each view in detail and references debates among scholars about defining the start of globalization.
TCW - MODULE 1 - THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD.pdfYmerTiburcio1
This document provides an overview of a chapter on the introduction to globalization. It discusses definitions of globalization, traces its historical evolution from prehistoric to contemporary times, and outlines five distinct historical periods of increasing global connections. The chapter aims to differentiate competing conceptions of globalization, identify underlying philosophies, agree on a working definition, and trace the process from limited early human contact to today's highly interconnected world.
This document discusses Gandhi's critique of modernity and whether he can be considered a proponent of pre-modernity, modernity, or post-modernity. It examines different scholarly perspectives on how Gandhi's views have been interpreted. Gandhi criticized aspects of modern civilization like its materialism, individualism, and impacts of technology. Some see this as wanting to return to pre-modern times, while others argue he sought to modernize India in political and social ways. The document also analyzes Gandhi's views on celibacy, rural life, and alternatives to modern systems through this lens.
M a n u e l Castells Toward a Sociology of the Network Soc.docxsmile790243
M a n u e l Castells
Toward a Sociology of the Network Society
Manuel Castells
The Call to Sociology
The twenty-first century of the Common Era did not
necessarily have to usher in a new society. But it did.
People around the world feel the winds of multi-
dimensional social change without truly understanding
it, let alone feeling a grasp upon the process of change.
Thus the challenge to sociology, as the science of study
of society. More than ever society needs sociology, but
not just any kind of sociology. The sociology that people
need is not a normative meta-discipline instructing
them, from the authoritative towers of academia, about
what is to be done. It is even less a pseudo-sociology made
up of empty word games and intellectual narcissism,
expressed in terms deliberately incomprehensible for
anyone without access to a French-Greek dictionary.
Because we need to know, and because people need
to know, more than ever we need a sociology rooted
in its scientific endeavor. Of course, it must have the
specificity of its object of study, and thus of its theories
and methods, without mimicking the natural sciences
in a futile search for respectability. And it must have a
clear purpose of producing objective knowledge (yes!
there is such a thing, always in relative terms), brought
about by empirical observation, rigorous theorizing,
and unequivocal communication. Then we can argue
- and we will! - about the best way to proceed with
observation, theory building, and formal expression of
findings, depending on subject matter and methodo-
logical traditions. But without a consensus on sociology
as science - indeed, as a specific social science - we
sociologists will fail in our professional and intellectual
duty at a time when we are needed most. We are needed
because, individually and collectively, most people in
the world are lost about the meaning of the whirlwind
Source: Contemporary Sociology, 29, 5, September 2000:
693-9.
we are going through. So they need to know which
kind of society we are in, which kind of social processes
are emerging, what is structural, and what can be changed
through purposive social action. And we are needed
because without understanding, people, rightly, will
block change, and we may lose the extraordinary
potential of creativity embedded into the values and
technologies of the Information Age. We are needed
because as would-be scientists of society we are posi-
tioned better than anyone else to produce knowledge
about the new society, and to be credible - or at least
more credible than the futurologists and ideologues
that litter the interpretation of current historical
changes, let alone politicians always jumping on the
latest trendy word.
So, we are needed, but to do what? Well, to study the
processes of constitution, organization, and change of
a new society, probably starting with its social structure
- what I provisionally call the network societ ...
This course provides an introduction to sociology and rural sociology. It aims to help students understand complex human behaviors and conceptualize key sociological definitions and theories. The course covers the emergence and development of sociology as a discipline, key theoretical perspectives, and research methods. It also defines and discusses the scope and importance of rural sociology. Several topics will be examined, including culture, social groups and organizations, social structure and institutions, and socialization. The overall objective is for students to gain foundational knowledge of sociology and rural sociology.
Sociology and development report neo evolutionaryClenette Escoto
1. Evolutionary and modernization theories from the 1950s-1960s sought to explain how traditionally organized societies progressed into modern industrial societies.
2. Theories such as neo-evolutionism proposed that social change occurs through a quasi-biological process of differentiation and specialization of social structures from simple to complex.
3. Critics argued these theories oversimplified by treating tradition and modernity as opposites, without recognizing the complexity of how traditional societies integrated modern influences through history.
Postmodernism Essay
Essay On Postmodernism
An Overview of Postmodernism Essay
The Impact Of Postmodernism
Essay on Postmodern condition
Postmodernism Essay
Postmodern Art Essay
UIMP Visiones Internacionales desde España y Nuevos escenarios estrategicos s...
Giddens 1991 chapter-1_arvanitakis
1. Anthony Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity,
Polity Press, Cambridge
- an analysis and discussion by James Arvanitakis, PhD
Anthony Giddens, I believe, is one of the most important figures in contemporary
sociology and cultural studies. In his small volume, Consequences of Modernity
(published 1991) he presents us with important insights into contemporary society.
This is an important book because Giddens presents us with a view of our
contemporary society in all its complexity – from what believe that we are seeing a
decline in trust of the very structures that are at the foundations of our society, but
also what the results of this are. In so doing, Giddens forces us to reflect on both the
structures that exist and also the relationships that form around them – arguing,
when one changes, so do the rest. In this way, we are encouraged to reflect on the
way we are in the world – what we think and feel – and how we fit in it.
This is a major theoretical statement, and I believe even 20 years on, Giddens offers
a new and provocative interpretation of institutional transformations associated with
the many changes that we define as ‘modernity’.
Modernity is a word we often throw around without thinking about it – it is a simple
word that refers to the many complex changes in social life or societal organisation
that emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards. These
influences, for better and for worse, are now worldwide in their influence.
I wrote this summary and analysis of Gidden’s book because, I believe, he has
developed a fresh understanding of the nature of modernity – which I believe is still
relevant. This is because he develops on themes such as security, danger, trust and
risk: all aspects that I believe remain under-studied. Giddens reminds us that
modernity is a double-edged phenomenon: creating great opportunities for us to
enjoy but it also has a dark side: from degrading nature to the development of military
that continues to threaten our existence.
What follows is a summary of the first chapter of Gidden’s book – I hope you enjoy it
and it helps you with your own research As always, feedback is welcome.
James Arvanitakis, 2010
Anthony Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge – James Arvanitakis 1
2. Chapter 1: Introduction
This book is about an institutional analysis of modernity with cultural and
epistemological (theory of method or how we gain and learn knowledge) overtones.
Modernity refers to modes of social life and organisation that emerged in Europe
from about the 17th century onwards and subsequently have became worldwide
(more or less) in their influence.
Today, some argue that we stand in a new era that is taking us beyond modernity:
post-modernity – but Giddens remains unconvinced. Much of the discussion here
centres on institutional transformations, whereby we are moving from a system
based on the manufacture of material goods to one concerned centrally with
information. More common however, these controversies are focussed largely upon
issues of philosophy and epistemology (again, the way we take knowledge in.)
Post-modernity, which has been attributed to Jean-Francois Lyotard, is a condition
distinguished by the evaporating of the ‘grand narrative’ (which are the over-reaching
story lines by means of which we have placed history). The post-modern outlook
sees a plurality of heterogeneous claims to knowledge. Here, science does not play a
privileged part. It is a shift away from attempts to ground one epistemology as well as
a shift away from faith in human engineered progress.
A standard response, such as that presented by Jurgen Habermas (1987), is to
demonstrate that a coherent epistemology is possible. But Giddens wants to take a
different track: stating that this push by the post-modernists exists because we are
caught up in things we neither understand nor can control.
To explain how this has come about, we need to go beyond inventing new words
(such as post-modernity), and instead look at the nature of modernity itself that,
Giddens argues, is poorly grasped. Rather than entering a phase of post-modernity,
we are moving into one whereby the consequences of modernity are becoming more
radicalised and universalised.
He believes that beyond modernity, there are contours of a new and different order,
which is post-modern: which he distinguishes from post-modernity.
2
3. The origin of Giddens’ interpretation is a ‘discontinuist’ interpretation of modern social
development: that is, modern social institutions are unique – and therefore different
from the traditional. To understand this we need to review what modernity is.
The discontinuities of modernity
The idea that human history is marked by certain ‘discontinuities’ and does not have
a smooth developing form is not new: it is stressed in most versions of Marxism.
Gidden’s focus is to accentuate and emphasise the discontinuity (or discontinuities)
associated with the modern period.
Modes of life brought into being by modernity have swept us away from all traditional
types of social order in an unprecedented way. In both their extensionality (or the
way we are expected to live in the world) and intentionality (or the things we want to
achieve), the transformations involved in modernity are more profound than most
sorts of change characteristics of prior periods.
On the extensional plane, we have social interconnection globally: That is, we now
no longer are tied to our locality but spread all over the world. We have also seen
changes on intentional terms – the way we have altered some of our intimate day-to-
day existence.
Giddens then goes on to present us with a vary dense section of his work, stating
that: While there are continuities between the traditional and the modern (and
contrasts can be misleading), the changes of the past 400 years are so vast, that we
get limited assistance from our knowledge of prior periods of transition in trying to
interpret them. What I believe he is stating here is that the changes over the last 400
years are so incredible, it is different to attempt to understand any previous period –
because it is something that we cannot really understand. So while parts of the pre-
modern and modern period are continuous, most of it is involves a massive leap –
and we should be very careful in interpreting previous periods with our ‘modern’
eyes.
The long-standing influence of social evolutionism is one reason why the
discontinuity-type character of modernity is not appreciated. We, therefore, need to
displace or deconstruct any evolutionary narrative so we can analyse modernity and
debate the post-modern.
Anthony Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge – James Arvanitakis 3
4. History does not have a ‘totalised’ form attributed to it by evolutionary conceptions.
Deconstructing social evolutionism means that we do not have to accept history as
having a unity, or as reflecting certain unifying principles of organisation and
transformation. Neither does it imply chaos, as there are definite episodes of
historical transition.
There are several features that separate modern social institutions from the
traditional social orders:
1. The sheer pace of change which the era of modernity sets in motion –
most obvious in technology but pervades other spheres;
2. The scope of change, as different areas of the globe are drawn into
interconnection with one another, waves of social transformation crash
across the earth’s surface; and
3. The intrinsic nature of modern institutions: some modern forms are not
found in prior historical periods (such as the state) or only have a
specious continuity with pre-existing social orders (such as urban
settlements which are only related by location but not order).
Security and danger, trust and risk
Modernity is a double-edged phenomenon: The development of modern social
institutions and their worldwide spread has created opportunities but modernity also
has a sombre side. It is this “opportunity side” that has been stressed by the founders
of sociology: Giddens’ discusses how Marx and Durkheim saw the modern era as a
troubled one, but the positive side outweighed its negative characteristics. While Max
Weber, in contrast, was more pessimistic, he never grasped how extensive the
darker side of modernity can turn out.
Giddens outlines a number of examples including: While industrial work was
acknowledged as having degrading consequences, the impact on the environment
was never predicted; The consolidation of political power into totalitarianism was
never expected, as despotism seemed to be a characteristic of the pre-modern state
(totalitarian rule connects political, military and ideological power in a more
concentrated form than was possible before the emergence of the modern nation-
state); and, the industrialisation of war was not given a great deal of attention by the
4
5. founding fathers of sociology (who could never has predicted the development of
nuclear weaponry).
The world today is a fraught and dangerous one that has done more than just blunt
the assumption that the emergence of modernity would lead to the formation of a
happier and more secure social order. Giddens’ argues that there is more at stake
than ‘history goes nowhere’, as we have now institutionalised this double-edged
nature of modernity. To overcome this, we must look at the limitations of classical
sociological perspectives that limit us.
Sociology and modernity
Giddens begins this section by noting that sociology is a broad topic and
generalisations are questionable. There are, however, three widely held conceptions
that inhibit satisfactory analysis of modern institutions:
1. Institutional diagnosis of modernity
The most prominent traditions of sociology tend to look to a single overriding
dynamic of transformation in interpreting the nature of modernity: for Marx it is
capitalism. The restless nature of modernity is explained as an outcome of the
investment-profit-investment cycle, which, combined with the tendency of the rate
of profit to decline, brings about a constant disposition for the system to expand.
Durkheim traced the nature of modern institutions primarily to the impact of
industrialism. Durkheim did not see the changing order of modern social life
derive essentially from capitalism; rather from the energising impulse of a
complex division of labour, harnessing production to human needs through the
industrial exploitation of nature. Durkheim argued we live not in a capitalist, but in
an industrial order.
Weber spoke of capitalism with a view closer to Durkheim. The focus is, however,
‘rationalisation’ as expressed in technology and in the organisation of human
activities in the shape of bureaucracy. That is, Weber saw one of the main drivers
of change throughout modernity as the emergence of rationalised bureaucracies
that implemented a number of rational policies despite the consequences.
Examples we can think of here is the implementation of a national language:
while this makes rational sense for reasons of commerce and communication, we
Anthony Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge – James Arvanitakis 5
6. also lose many different dialects – something that can have profound
consequences on identity.
Giddens emphasises that all these are important and should not be seen as
mutually exclusive characteristics: modernity is multidimensional on the level of
institutions and each level specified here plays a part.
2. The prime focus of sociological analysis – ‘society’
The concept of society occupies a focal point in much sociological discourse and
Giddens defines it as ‘a distinct system of social relations’ which features in a
basic fashion in each of the dominant perspectives.
Traditional views state that sociology is the study of (modern) human societies.
This is a problem because it is focussed around the nation-state – a type of social
community that contrasts in a radical way with pre-modern states – a point that is
never fully acknowledged.
For Giddens, the second concern is the theoretical interpretation presented by
Talcott Parsons, who states that the pre-eminent role of sociology is to resolve
the ‘problem of order’. For Parsons, it is a question of integration that holds the
system together in the face of divisions of interest that would ‘set all against all’.
Giddens believes we should reformulate the question of order as a problem of
how it comes about that social systems ‘bind’ time and space. The problem of
order is one of ‘time-space distanciation’: that is, the condition under which time
and space are organised so as to connect presence and absence. This should be
conceptually distinguished from that of the ‘boundededness’ of social systems:
that is, modern societies (nation states) in some respects have a clearly defined
boundedness while still having connections that go beyond. In contrast, no pre-
modern society was as bounded as modern nation-states.
The level of time-space distanciation is much greater now than ever before: but it
is more than a simple expansion in the ability of social systems to span time and
space. We must look at how modern institutions become ‘situated’ in time and
space to identify some of the distinctive traits of modernity as a whole.
6
7. 3. The connections between sociological knowledge and the characteristics of
modernity to which knowledge refers
Often sociology is understood as generating knowledge about social life that can
be used for prediction and control – though Giddens argues this is simplistic.
Rather, the relation between sociology and its subject matter, which is the actions
of human beings in conditions of modernity, must be understood in terms of the
‘double hermeneutic’ (or what Giddens calls intepretation)
Giddens then turns to discuss ‘the model of reflexivity’: that is, the way
sociological knowledge spirals in and out of the universe of social life,
reconstructing both itself and that universe as an integral part of that process.
That is, learning about the world shapes us in the world’s image. Sociological
concepts and findings are constitutively involved in what modernity is: the
concepts actually develop modernity.
Sociology, however, does not develop cumulative knowledge as the natural
sciences often do. We have learnt that controlling knowledge is not possible.
To adequately grasp the nature of modernity, we must ask: what are the sources
of the dynamic nature of modernity? Giddens believes that the dynamism of
modernity derives from the separation of time and space and their recombination,
the disembedding of social systems, and the reflexive ordering and reordering of
social relations.
So what does this mean I hear you ask? Giddens is saying that we have broken
down the relationships between time and space and put then back together in
different ways. Think of this example: Melbourne to Sydney is a lot further away
than Sydney to Parkes (which is less than half the distance). Now, because of air
travel, we think of Melbourne as an hour away, whereas Parkes with mostly think
of driving (which is four hours away). Even if you decided to fly, flights to
Melbourne leave every 20 minutes or so – whereas there is only one or 2 flights
to Parkes per day. The cost is also almost one-third of the price to Melbourne
than Parkes.
We can also think about how much easier it is to get from Sydney to London
compared to getting to the Solomon Islands that are only a quarter of the
distance away.
Anthony Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge – James Arvanitakis 7
8. For Giddens, this has profound affects on the way we see the world – and alters
many of the relationships and structures around us.
Modernity, time and space
To understand intimate connections in the transformation of time and space, we must
draw contrasts with the pre-modern world. All pre-modern cultures possessed modes
of calculation of time, but this time was always linked with space – and was usually
imprecise and variable. The time of day was referenced with other socio-spatial
markers. Giddens describes the ‘when’ being connected with the where or other
natural occurrences.
The diffusion of the clock was key in the separation of time from space: it expressed
a uniform dimension of ‘empty’ time – allowing the precise designation of ‘zones’ of
the day (such as the working day). Time was connected with space and place until
the uniformity of time measurement by clock was matched by uniformity in the social
organisation of time: everyone has a calendar. This all coincided with the expansion
of modernity
The ‘emptying of time’ is in large part the precondition for the ‘emptying of space’ –
as it has causal priority and control over space. The development of ‘empty space’
may be understood in terms of the separation of space and place. Place was once
best conceptualised by the means of the idea of a locale – the physical settings. In
pre-modern times, societies, space and place largely coincided – the spatial
dimensions of social life for the majority of the population dominated by presence of
localised activities.
Modernity increasingly tears space away from place by fostering relations between
’absent’ others: locationally different from any given face-to-face interaction. In
conditions of modernity, place becomes increasingly phantasmagorical – locales are
penetrated and shaped by distant social influences.
What structures the locale is not just what is present on the scene – the visible form
of the locale conceals the distanced relations that determine its nature. Further, the
dislocation of space from place is not bound to the emergence of uniform modes of
measurement (like in time).
8
9. The development of ‘empty space’ is linked to two sets of factors: The first are those
allowing the representation of space without reference to a privileged locale that
forms a distinct vantage point. Secondly, it is those that make possible the
substitutability of different spatial units: that is, remoteness is no reason for
disconnection – any disconnection occurs for different reasons.
The ‘discovery’ of ‘remote’ regions of the world by ‘Westerners’ was the necessary
basis for both of these. Along with this came the development of maps – which, in
perspective played little part in the representation of geographical position and form.
Together this established space ‘independent’ of any particular place or region.
The separation of time and space should not be seen as an uni-linear development
for it provokes opposite characteristics. We see that time and space are recombined
in relation to social activity such as in the development of a timetable.
Giddens then turns to summarise the case for why this separation between time and
space is key to modernity:
- It is a prime condition for the process of disembedding (discussed below);
- It provides the mechanisms for distinctive features of modern life such as the
rationalised organisation; and
- The radical historicity associated with modernity depends upon modes of
insertion into time and space that were never available to previous
civilisations.
Disembedding
The separation of time and space and their formation into standardised empty
dimensions cut the connections between social activity and its embedding of contexts
of presence. That is, social contexts now can now be free of specific places, local
habits and practices.
It is here that we can understand ‘disembedding’: which means the lifting out of social
relations from local contexts of interaction and their restructuring across indefinite
spans of time-space. This concept captures the shifting alignments of time and space
that are key to understand the social changes within modernity.
Anthony Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge – James Arvanitakis 9
10. There are 2 types of disembedding mechanisms involved in the development of
modern social institutions. The first are the creation of symbolic tokens. For example,
political legitimacy and money: these can be understood as the media of interchange
that can be passed around without regard to the specific characteristics of individuals
or groups that handle them at any particular juncture.
The second is the creation of expert systems. That is, systems of technical
accomplishment or professional expertise that organise large areas of the material
and social environments we live in today. Although we may only consult
professionals like lawyers occasionally, the systems in which the knowledge of
experts is integrated influence almost all aspects of what we do. Like symbolic
tokens, expert systems provide a guarantee of expectations across ‘distanciated’
time-space.
These are considered disembedding mechanisms by Giddens because they remove
social relations from the immediacies of context – creating a stretching of the social
system.
Trust
All disembedding mechanisms depend on ‘trust’ – which Giddens argues is
fundamental to the institutions of modernity. Trust here is vested in abstract
capacities (or systems) rather than individuals. For example, when we use monetary
tokens, we do so on the presumption that people will honour their value. We have
faith in the architect system that designs building. For the system, it is a public
confidence in the government or faith that the house I am sitting in will not collapse.
For the lay person, trust ensures we do not need mastery or initiation into expert
systems This should not be oversimplified, however: do we trust nuclear scientists?
Giddens’ argues there is a pragmatic element on experience, law and organisations.
Trust should be understood in relation to risk – which is a term that emerged in the
modern period. Trust presupposes awareness of the circumstance of risk.
So how do we understand trust? According to Giddens:
• Trust is related to absence in time and in space: the prime requirement for trust is
not lack of power but lack of full information;
10
11. • Trust is bound up with contingency: it carries the connotation of reliability in the
face of contingent outcome (in both individuals and systems);
• Trust is not the same as faith in the reliability of a person or system for it is what
derives from that faith. Trust is the link between faith and confidence;
• Trust rests upon faith in the correctness of principles of which we are ignorant –
not upon the good intentions of others;
• Trust can be defined as the confidence in the reliability of a person or system,
regarding a given set of outcomes or events, where that confidence expresses a
faith in the probity or love of another, or the correctness of abstract principles;
• Trust exists in the conditions of modernity in the context that: a) the awareness
that human activity is socially created; b) the transformative scope of human
action; and, c) an alteration in the perception of determination and contingency;
• Trust risk are intertwined: with trust serving to reduce or minimise the dangers to
which particular types of activity are subject;
• Trust is balanced with acceptable risk to provide security; and
• Trust has an opposite which is not mistrust – rather something darker: dread,
The reflexivity of modernity
Giddens begins his discussion about reflexivity with the point that inherent in the idea
of modernity is a contrast with tradition. There is a fundamental sense in which
reflexivity is a defining characteristic of all human action: this is because we all keep
in touch with what we are doing as an element of doing it. Giddens calls this the
‘reflexive monitoring of action’.
Human action involves a consistent and never-to-be-relaxed monitoring of behaviour
and its contexts – this is not reflexivity connected with modernity but a basis of it. In
modernity, reflexivity is introduced into the very basis of system reproduction: a
process has no real tie to the past unless it can be defended in a principled way in
the light of incoming knowledge – it cannot be sanctioned because of tradition alone.
The reflexivity of modern social life consists in the fact that social practices are
constantly examined and reformed in light of incoming information about those very
practices: in the process, this alters their character.
This ‘wholesale’ reflexivity that includes reflection upon the nature of reflection itself,
is distinct in modernity. Only in this century do we realise how unsettling this is, as
modernity saw reason replace tradition. This was to give us certainty – but promotes
Anthony Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge – James Arvanitakis 11
12. a sense of uncertainty, as we never know whether any given of element of
knowledge will be revised through this reflexivity. Under conditions of modernity,
knowledge does not exist in the ‘old’ sense, where to know is to be certain
In the social sciences, we see all empirical-based knowledge open to re-
interpretation (and ‘subversion’) because of the entry of social scientific discourse
into all contexts of analysis. This, according to Giddens, this is fundamental to the
reflexivity of modernity as a whole.
For example, decisions about marriage, property, divorce and so on are all based on
marriage statistics. As we collect the statistics to monitor behaviour, this reflexivity
changes our behaviour. Giddens argues that sociology is the same as modernity is
itself deeply and intrinsically sociological.
The thesis that the more knowledge we have about social life equals greater control
over our fate is false. This is because, as we collect knowledge, we change our
actions, and therefore our fate. The result is that the acquisition of knowledge fails
the very rationality goals of the Enlightenment. Giddens emphasises this by making
the following points:
- The appropriation of knowledge does not happen in a homogenous fashion – we
have differential levels of power;
- While values change, this does not happen independently of innovations in
cognitive orientation created by the shifting world. The result is that there are no
rational sets of values;
- The impact of unintended consequences: no matter how much we know, any
actions will always have unintended consequences; and
- 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.
Modernity or post-modernity?
In this section, Giddens defines post-modernity and reviews its claims – stating that it
does not exist. Rather, Giddens argues, it is merely modernity coming to understand
itself.
12
13. Giddens believes that the Enlightenment did not see replacement of the providential
but reshaped it: from divine belief in god to such a similar belief in reason. Modernity
is in the roots of the Enlightenment because reason states that truths are only true
until further notice (in principle). Anything else is seen as dogma – which is separate
from reason.
For Giddens, Nietzsche does not take us beyond modernity, he simply provides us
with a fuller understanding of the reflexivity inherent in modernity. Modernity is
unsettling because of the circularity of reason and the nature of this circularity is
puzzling: we justify a commitment to reason because of reason itself.
Modernity has also seen the evolution of ‘historicity’: that is, the use of knowledge
about the past as a means of breaking with it. The break of providential views of
history are radically different from the core perspectives of the Enlightenment as they
are a self-clarification of modern thought as the remnants of tradition and providential
outlook are cleared away, We are not moving beyond modernity, but a living through
its radicalisation.
The decline of the West is not an issue for modernity because it looks beyond one
civilisation. This declining grip over the rest of the world is not a result of the
diminishing impact of the institutions which first arose there, but a result of their
global spread. For Giddens, this is a result of globalisation. He concludes that this
explains why the radicalising of modernity is so unsettling and so significant.
---
This is the end of Chapter 1 – more to follow
James Arvanitakis - 2010
Anthony Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge – James Arvanitakis 13