Modernity and Self Identity - Essay Example

Modernity and Self Identity Modernity and self identity Introduction According to Giddens 1991 the modern life has affected people’s interactions and behaviours as compared to the past eras. He illustrates that societies’ which are modernised, leads to the inevitable change of self identity. He outlines that even the people who deny about changes in their identity due to social change, at one point they must have been compelled to change. The effect can come in the form of change of lifestyles, clothing, leisure, general appearance, relationship decisions, occupations and change of beliefs. Structuration theory Based on Giddens 1991 the theory depicts creating and reproducing the social systems based on the analysis between the structure and the agent without the accordance of primacy in either of each. It outlines that the macro and micro focus alone, do not provide sufficient information analysis. He defines agency as the human action whereby in order to be an agent, one has to be human. However, not every agent is human. Agency is vital in the transformation and reproduction of the society. The approach explains that there is duality in the society’s structure. At one side, there exist individuals who are players in specific situations. They engage in knowledgeable activities where they participate and interact in these situations. Giddens (1991) illustrates the social environment is made of social structures and systems which necessitate the interactions. They consist of social relationships, rules and resources where the players or actors reproduce or produce during their interaction. Additionally he explains that structuration involve the relations between space and time in regards to the duality of the structure. The physical bodies, space, time in relation to social interactions, form a basic part of socialization. Space and time form the basic components in the social life. He points out that every person lives a normal life and even though there exists social constraints, every person is affected at a given space in time. The interactions of space and time with people have dramatically changed over the recent years, in comparison to people’s interaction to them, in earlier times. People nowadays are more integrated with distant geographical events, people and global issues than in earlier times (Giddens, 1991). Reflexivity Giddens (1991) defines the theory as a bidirectional relationship between the cause and effect which affect each other and can neither be separated as individual cause or effect. He uses reflexive modernity to imply that the society is increasingly changing in terms of self awareness, reflective hence leading to reflexivity. Reflexivity is the core pillar for social structures. There is a circular feed-back loop between thoughts and actions. People constantly review what they have done in the past with their current basic knowledge, in order to establish their future thoughts and actions in reference to their reflections. Therefore, the self identity ends up becoming a reflexive project. This is solely because; people constantly manoeuvre to improve their beliefs and behaviours through reflection. It forms a biographical narrative which explains where they were initially and their present situation (Giddens, 1991). Self identity is not constructed as a set of observable traits and characteristics, but it is an individual’s reflexive evaluation of their biography. Self identity is a continuous process whereby it cannot have a permanent state. The continuous process is only executed by the individual’s beliefs regarding his or her personal biography (Giddens, 1991). Based on Giddens (1991) self identity is evaluated based on the individual’s actions, personal life and influences which explicitly creates sense to them and can easily be explained to other people with less effort. The identity outlines the person’s past and its focused on the unknown future. An individual’s identity does relate to the person’s behaviour or from other people’s reactions, but rather, from the individuals created narrative. If a person maintains frequent interaction with others, his or her biography cannot be considered as completely fictive. The individuals have to incorporate activities that happen in the external environment, in order to be integrated in the ongoing biography so as to define self. Epistemology The concept refers to the evaluation of human nature, their relations and the study of other things that have survival. People are not kept safe because of a systems order, but because of the relationships, practices and intuitions as species that they share with one another (Elliott, 2008). Tact and trust form the basis of the basic security framework between individuals. The concept is realised through the routine social reproduction, where agents organize it with outward skills. Alteration of the basic security can be influenced by the social actions which promote social reproduction. Hence, social order and stability is therefore not static. The uncertainty is influenced by dialects possessed by agents which allow them to move away from normative actions. Elliott (2008) confirms that the social structure can shift based on the present social factors. An example is when citizens and politicians use the term patriot, which even though minute in nature, has a huge impact on the security of the nation. The term supports national norms and structures for the example the police which can in turn lead to a greater good. Organizational Action The theory regulates the actions of the actors. The approach stimulates the performance, production and enactment of social actions. The concept highlights on the social action patterns. That is, the institutions are made up of regular patterns for example the family while the structures patriarchy or class (Elliott, 2008). Ireland (2005) outlines that social actions are made up of enacted social conducts, the local production praxis, social and reproduction practices. The approach examines the conditions in which the social actors interact, and the environment that foster or prevent social actions from happening. Space which constitutes distance and proximity is influenced by technological changes and social structures. Time is influenced by the organization’s activities, discontinuity and continuity of the social processes. Even though praxis is locally placed due to the presence and interactions of actors locally, it influences social lives in other geographical and global regions. Praxis provides the social medium where societal institutions and structures can be produced and subsequently be reproduced. Due to the continuous nature of practices, it promotes the reproduction of social structures and systems. Contemporary Issues Examples, Causes and Consequences of Self Identity Modernity has led to the change in courtship and relationships status. For example, in modern society intimacy perspective has been changed significantly. In the UK alone, there are numerous numbers of divorces every month due to changes in norms, attitudes and values in the society. This is due to changes in constitutional laws which allow and grant benefit to victims in the effect. The women are entitled to half of the property owned jointly by the husband, promoting the on-going number of divorce cases present (Ireland, 2005). Ireland (2005) points out that there are also changes in perspectives which have come as a result of modernity. There are a variety of one sex marriages and relationships which in the early times were minimal and secret. Due to increased freedoms and laws that protect their rights, the minority groups nowadays express their love and status outwardly which signals the moral decay. The cause of such diversities cannot be evaluated on the individual level alone, but the situations are brought about by the macro and micro forces. The forces for example include the decrease in religious authorities’ (macro) participation and the exponential increase in rationality (micro). The social change is promoted by the difference in how individuals nowadays perceive life, stemming from observations and influences. Sexuality and marriage deviations have been spearheaded by the women egalitarianism and lobby groups (macro) who faced dissatisfactions from the current life (micro). This demonstrates how societal changes arise from the macro and micro factors. Stones (2008) explain that the media has further changed people’s perspectives. The modern society’s events and activities have been significantly affected by the Medias influence. For example, majority of the youths today have changed their lifestyles due to what see or hear on the media platform. The youths are continuously changing their clothing lines due to the celebrities they watch on analogue or digital media. The music icons are the most imitated people by the youths based on what they perceive good to them. If a celebrated music artist dresses differently no matter how awkward, the youths will imitate the same due to the influence of the media. The media cannot censor the wave or movement leading eroding of the social change. Strengths of Giddens Theory The objectivist concept highlights the role of individuals in effecting change. The concept illustrates change as a phenomenon that cannot be expressed in systematic logic due to the lack of systematic design to implement change. That is, the change is inevitable and unpredictable caused by the interactions of human behaviours and strategies (Stones, 2008). According to Stones (2008) the theories explain the nature of social actions in relation social change. The individuals’ strategies and the exogenous factors are distinctively evaluated in regard to their contextual environments. Gaddens theories portray the interrelation of the variables which cannot be interpreted separately. Therefore, they have to be interpreted under a unified framework. Giddens theories assist in the integration of the two distinct traditional approaches. The theories help to synthesise the traditional subjective and objective components of the social phenomena. The structuration theory acts as meta-theory which does not pre-empt the traditional theories, but rather synthesises the theories in order to illustrate the continuous interrelation between social processes, social structures, and human activities in their basic context. Therefore, the theories reconcile the two traditional theories which conflict each other regarding specific perspectives (Ppelrouth & Edles, 2008). The theories affirm the reflexive system of the power dynamics. The control of information is evaluated based on the power concept as an element and attribute emanating from the actors. Weaknesses Unification vs. Fragmentation Modernity leads to the fragmentation and unification of the social structures. In regards to self identity, the challenge of unification protects and reconstructs the self identity narrative in the due to extensional and intentional changes brought about by modernity. In the pre-modern context, fragmentation was not the cause of anxiety. Based on Ppelrouth & Edles (2008) trust was localised through personal ties even though intimacy lacked in the modern society. In the post modern society, a variety of infinite possibilities exist. The world’s openness and human behaviour, contradict in terms of time and space. The world does not stretch away from the person but it intrudes into the individual’s life through varies channels. Powerlessness vs. Appropriation Individuals experience a state of powerlessness due to the diverse and global social culture. Contrary to the traditional world, individuals had control over the variables that influenced their lives. In today’s society, the control has been moved to the external agencies. When the production forces develop, especially in the capitalistic production, the individuals lose control over their lives due to the inevitable influence of the markets and machines. What was initially termed as human ends up being termed alien. Furthermore, when the modern systems continue to become more comprehensive, the more the individuals are faced out from the autonomy (Ppelrouth & Edles, 2008). Authority Vs Uncertainty The more the modernity continues to prosper in respect to self identity, the further the authorities tend to be outshone. The traditional society was symbolic as it was authority in its own nature. This is because it was not located within any specific institution but it however pervaded many aspects of the social life (Ppelrouth & Edles, 2008). Personalised Vs. Commodified Experience Modernity creates self project which is however strongly governed by commodity capitalism. The theories fail to affirm that capitalism is a major dimension to modernity. In addition, it fails to illustrate that capitalist accumulation provides one of the basic factors towards modern institutions (Ppelrouth & Edles, 2008). Alternative Analysis by Craib According to Craib the tension and intersections between varied social systems have significantly been neglected. Craib evaluates the managerial agency that is primarily contradicted between varied social systems. He provides solution whereby managerial change can be implemented through the organizational symbolism, the management’s strategic choice and managerial leadership (Ppelrouth & Edles, 2008). Conclusion The essay provides Giddens theories: structuration, organizational action, epistemology which shape self identity in the modern society. The theories further illustrate the existing loopholes subject to subsequent research. The theories outline the causes and differences in social changes between the traditional and the modern societies. The theories are significant because they try to merge the variance between the two societies, in order to have a common balance and understanding. References: Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, Calif, Stanford University Press. Elliott, A. (2008). Concepts Of The Self. Cambridge, Uk, Polity. Ireland, C. (2005). The subaltern appeal to experience: self-identity, late modernity, and the politics of immediacy. Montréal, McGill-Queens University Press. Stones, R. (2008). Key Sociological Thinkers. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Ppelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2008). Classical and contemporary sociological theory: text and readings. Los Angeles, Calif, Pine Forge Press. Read More