Confused Identities and Diffused Diversities - Essay Example

Impact of Modernity – Confused Identities and Diffused Diversities “In our quest to express our true identities, we searched for a real reflection of our identities, searching inside rather than outside where everything else is happening in isolation. Being true to who we are also acknowledges the many centuries of social and political heritage. We can't just erase that.” Gregory Maqoma (2002:6) Introduction How did the Italian pizza gain so much popularity the world over in recent times and how has the African rap music come to be heard in the Fareast Singapore? Why was the funeral of Princess Diana telecast live in India, and how did the H1N1 Mexican swine flu spread across the globe within a few weeks? The answer probably lies in ‘globalization’ the modern phenomenon that appears to have changed the world much more than did the telegraph or the steam engine! Although cross-cultural movements and interactions may have existed since early times, it is only recently that they have been studied in relation to their diverse races or ethnic identities. This essay shall dwell into the concept of modernity and discuss the different explanations given by sociologists, and analyze the effect it has had on individual and collective identities, and its effect on diversities. In the process the essay shall consider some of the related theories and argue that modernity has resulted in the deterioration of values and confused identities. As regards diversity, modernity and its child globalization may have made accessibility of different cultures and cultural products easier but, it has also simultaneously accentuated the differences between diverse populations. Appropriate citations from Giddens, Bauman, and other sociologists, and empirical studies, shall be cited to point to the above. Modernity and Globalization So what is ‘modernity’? How does it impact individuals? How is modernity connected with globalization? It is pertinent to briefly consider the various theories associated with modernity here, before defining identity and diversity. Modernization may be explained as a period in time in which some particularly qualitative changes have been brought about to the society as a whole; for example, the industrial revolution brought about changes as to ho work was viewed; at the thought process level, reflexive questioning came into being, and in the political level the nation states came into existence. Harris and Rapsomamikis (2005) in their explanation of Giddens’ theories, state that, it is “dynamic and it intrudes into the personal as well as the global dimensions. It is both a self determined and determining movement; It features reflexivity in its maximum, with a substantial development of social science and the growth of life style manuals and guides” (p.1). And ‘Modernism’ is used to denote infusing aesthetics into everyday walks of life, like paintings and art, in literature, in architecture. According to Zygmunt Bauman (2001) Modernity has “exposed the fragility and unsteadiness of things and threw open the possibility of (and the need for) reshaping them.” (p. 122) Fragmentation of the society is a typical phenomenon of modernity, just as wars and strife, the migration towards cities are all characteristic of modernity; quintessentially put, modernity came to signify the end of the enlightenment period and everything associated with the period was viewed a s ‘new’. Elaborating on the transformation of identities in the present condition of globalization, Bauman (2001) states that “Anxiety and audacity, fear and courage, despair and hope are born together” (p.122). Thus, in the process, the new modernity has its set of new problems such as individualization of the members of the society; Globalization is the child or product of Modernity, in the sense that modernization eventually led to globalization. As Giddens (1991) observes, Modernity produced the differentiation between space and time, and money to predominantly symbolize any control of time or space. In simple terms, due advancements in technology and new inventions, expediting modes of transport and facilitating communications, modernity made human beings exploit everything around them more; with emphasis on the profitability. Due to the growing focus on economic gains and profitability, the movement of people from one place to another, businesses, processes and commodities too were shifted leading to what is called ‘globalization’. Globalisation, Giddens states has far greater implications than merely facilitating contacts between one nation state and another. It is something like a junction of some things in their presence and their absence, enabled "at a distance" (1991:21) and adapted to suit the local demands of social norms; to illustrate this with an example - the outsourcing of Business processes to countries like the Philippines and India. The staff located ‘at a distance’ in their respective countries, yet provide solutions to the local insurance queries in the U.K. Some of the economic benefits of globalization are difficult to refute, as in the above example the benefits of our sourcing to third-world nations has now become a common phenomenon. As the consequence, argues Giddens (1991), 'Trust often merges with pragmatic acceptance' (p. 23). Identity and Diversity Central to the discussion of globalization is the concept of identities; as Bauman aptly puts it, identity has “‘identity’ has become by now a prism through which other topical aspects of contemporary life are spotted, grasped and examined” (2001:121). This is because sociologists have always tended to perceive identity as a symbol of the exchange the social interactions between the individual and the society (Gleason 1983:918). Also, identity is related to the concept of diversity and thus it is pertinent to take a closer look, in order to understand the transformation it has undergone under the impact of modernity. Distinctions between various groups exist in the world, in terms of race, ethnicities, social culture, gender, sex, religions, languages, economic and financial strengths and so on. Bauman in his work The Individualized Society (2001a) describes ‘culture’ as the “activity of making distinctions of classifying, segregating, drawing boundaries and so dividing people in categories - internally united by similarity and externally separated by difference; and of differentiating the different ranges of conduct assigned to the humans allocated to the different categories” (p.32). This is precisely what diversity is all about. For example, diverse ethnic populations exist in the aboriginal Australians like Mayali, Gupapuygu, Nyul Nyul and so on some pertaining to specific regions each with their own practices and cultural traditions (http://www.wadidge.com.au/didgeridoo-names.html). Going back to Bauman (2001a), each of them are culturally different, even though they come under the same classification of race – which is based on physiological features, like colour of the skin and eyes, and so on. This may be understood as an example of ethnically diversity, within the categorization of race. In their study entitled “Patterns of identity among ethnic minority people: Diversity and commonality” James Y. Nazroo and Saffron Karlsen (2003), remark that hitherto done empirical and theoretical research studies on the subject of ethnicity-race have been anchored to understanding and pointing out the social inequalities; and because of this the emphasis had always been on the “external process of identity definition, that which is imposed on a minority/less powerful group” reasons for ethnicity/race being used to symbolize “the ‘other’ as different and how this allows the construction and maintenance of boundaries of exclusion and hierarchical relationships” (p. 903). They further state that, in order to gain a more complete understanding of ‘ethnic identities’, it is important go deeper inside and examine “the ‘internal definition’, where individuals and groups define their own identity in addition to (and perhaps in response to) the ‘external definition’” (Nazroo and Karlsen 2003:903). The significance of identities, the individual identity and the group identity can be inferred from this. However, identity is a complex subject, and its definition is the centre of debates in sociology. Philip Gleason analyzes the concept of identity and self-identification in his article “Identifying Identity – A Semantic History” (1983), and offers a good understanding of the varied perceptions of sociologists on the subject of the self and identity. After studying Erikson’s posit on identity and linking it with ethnicity, Gleason cites Allport (1954) (with the illustration of a small boy accepting the father’s identification of “we” to his son denoting to what their identity was) to state that identity is “a sense of emotional merging of oneself with others” (Gleason 1983:916). The pertinent point here is that Gleason sums that identification is a method by which an individual understands the “significant” groups, the “concerning” attitudes, and the “appropriate” behaviour pertaining to the particular group (Gleason 1983:916). A significant explanation of identity is given by Jeffrey R. Jenkins (1996) which precisely binds identity and groups; elucidating that groups delineate the extent of inclusion which gives not only a feeling of identification to the individual, but also permits a variety of allowances like social resources to the individual that need not always be “hierarchical, exploitative and conflictual” (Jenkins 1996: 71). Thus, identification is a two-pronged development that uses both internal and external procedures that shall qualify the social interactions that are experienced by the individual and indirectly, to some extent the self- image of the individual. This will then form the basis of whether an individual identifies her/him self as positively or not (Nazroo and Karlsen 2003:903). The basis of all the perceived benefits and the evils to the society that are seen in today’s world may have their beginnings in identities – both individual and ethnic identities; the interaction of the individuals, groups or communities with the society, the constructs under which they operate altogether define cultural diversities, which in turn fill the world in their varied and numerous colours, shapes, and sizes. And yet, it is important to remember that individual’s cultural identity is not confined to stand purely in terms of race/ethnicity. It has other complex influences like sex, gender, social class, religion and generation, and not the least, “the tension between tradition and modernity” (Maqoma, 2002:5). So how exactly how does modernity cast it impact on this already complicated platform of identity and diversity? Impact of Modernity on Identity and Diversity Bauman explains in detail the transformation or the impact that modernity has had on identity. According to Bauman, while self-identification process is not only influenced by the society, “but the obverse of that truth needs to be repeated more often: the shape of our sociality, and so of the society we share, depends in its turn on the way in which the task of ‘individualisation’ is framed up and responded to” (Bauman 2001:124). In short, he states that modernity has ensured that there are no readymade identities that one is merely born into. “Modernity replaces the determination of social standing with a compulsive and obligatory self-determination” (Bauman 2001:124), meaning, one has to consciously decide what is it that one wants to be identified as and work towards acquiring the identity, since modernity has destroyed the construct of being born into or inheriting a class or specific identity, like for example, the bourgeois. The individuals have to constantly strive to form and retain their identities and this creates a sort of restlessness in order “to deploy their new powers and new right to self-determination in the frantic search of ‘re-embeddment’” (Bauman 2001:124). This state of ‘restlessness’ and the fickle nature of one’s goals, he remarks, is a common trait that impacts everyone, irrespective of the qualifications of illiteracy or erudition, technically developed or undeveloped, and enterprising or lazy. Not only are the goals of individuals ‘fragile,’ the values and the implicit constructions attached to them are easily changeable too, because modernity has given way to a consumer-addicted world. Precisely because the values of the society are not based on solid foundations as was in earlier times of pre-modernity, he terms it as “‘liquid’ modernity” – the present, “when not just the individual placements in society, but the places to which the individuals may gain access and in which they may wish to settle are melting fast and can hardly serve as targets for ‘life projects’” (Bauman 2001: 125). Bauman laments the deterioration in his work Liquid Modernity (2000) as “the search for identity is the ongoing struggle to arrest or slow down the flow, to solidify the fluid, give form to the formless” (p. 82). Empirical research carried out by Nazroo and Karlsen (2003) to study the diversity and commonality of the patterns of identity among the ethnic minorities in the UK, conclude with some important findings which are related to the subject of discussion here. In essence, some of the relevant findings are 1) There were remarkable similarities between the ethnic groups studied, in the patterns in the of structuring, probably “reflecting the social context of non-white post-war migrant groups”; 2) the visible variation in scores within the ethnic groups for each given identity factor “reflecting great diversity of identity within ethnic groups, perhaps as a consequence of how the factors that structure ethnic identity vary across demographic groups” – which in turn, indirectly leads to the reflection of “the transformations traditional identities are undergoing as a result of globalization” (p. 928). Thus, even though the ethnic minorities have brought in their ethnic culture and the process of globalization has enabled them access to symbols of their cultural productions, the diversities or differences they have with other ethnic communities have been highlighted or accentuated, according to the empirical study. Modernity, and its offspring globalization, rather than setting right the disparities and inequalities that exist between nation-states and regions, have selectively made use of the inequalities and thereby accentuated the differences, in terms of cultures, ethnicities, and other diversities, if the above can be taken as an indicator. Giddens views on modernity and its impact are similar to that held by Bauman, and states that globalisation brings about the “displacement of the old embedding mechanisms” explain Harris and Rapsomamikis (2005a), “and a possible re embedding, in a whole dialectic of displacement and re embedding, intimacy and impersonality, expertise and reappropriations, privatism and engagement” (p.1). Conclusion Modernity may be described as the point in time when changes came in simultaneously and symbolized permanent transformation of the society. The current phenomenon of globalization is an off-shoot of modernity, and has brought about perceptible changes in the process of identification and diversities. Identity formation is not merely external labelling or role-playing, but is a significant process that gets strength form both external procedures and internal reinforcement to the classification pertaining to the group of belonging. This is the basis of ethnic identity this itself becomes the criteria for distinguishing between groups which is nothing but diversity. Bauman and Giddens have both perceived the descent of value systems and order as the result of modernity, and globalization which is post-modern or late-modern occurrence. Empirical studies and theoretical research too more or less agree with the above theories of sociologists. Thus, it can be concluded that modernity has helped in confusing identities and sharpened the differences between the various groups. Methods of evening the effects and working a solution within the boundaries of globalization offer scope for future research. References Bauman, Zygmunt (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press .Pp. 72-90. Bauman, Zygmunt (2001). “Identity in the globalizing world - Plenary lecture, 6th EASA conference, Krakow, July 2000” in Social Anthropology (2001), 9, 2, 121–129. © 2001 European Association of Social Anthropologists. Bauman, Zygmunt (2001a). The Individualized Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pp.1-35. Giddens, Anthony. Giddens, Anthony (1991). Modernity and Self - Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press. Pp. 1-108 Gleason, Philip (1983). “Identifying Identity: A Semantic History” in The Journal of American History, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Mar., 1983), pp. 910-931. Harris and Rapsomamikis (2005). “Reading Guide to: Giddens, A (1991) Modernity and Self - Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press” online article retrieved on November 2, 2009. http://www.arasite.org/giddmody.htm Harris and Rapsomamikis (2005a). “Reading Guide to: Giddens, A (1991) The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press” online article retrieved on November 2, 2009. http://www.arasite.org/giddmod2.htm Jenkins, R. Jeffrey (1996). Social Identity. Routledge p.71. Maqoma, Gregory (2002). “IDENTITY, DIVERSITY AND MODERNITY IN URBAN CULTURAL COCKTAIL” online article retrieved on November 2, 2009. p.6 http://www.ybca.org/media/docs/09-10/performance/gregory-maqoma/gregory-maqoma.pdf Nazroo, Y. James, and Karlsen, Saffron (2003). “Diversity and Commonality” in Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 26 No. 5 September 2003 pp. 902–930. Read More