In a world of increasing globalisation, contemporary society experiences change at a rate so rapid that it is essential that one becomes easily adaptable to keep up and survive. Such unprecedented speed of transformation thus affects and challenges how institutions work, and more importantly (for the scope of this essay) how we perceive ourselves. Ulrich Beck is a contemporary sociologist whose work examines this changing relationship between the modernisation of self and society. He speaks of the concept of a second modernity and how the shift from the first to this current epoch of second modernity has produced changes in social structures thus resulting in the concepts of reflexive modernity and individualisation (Atkinson 2007; Beck 2007; Lewis 2006). Hence, this essay will discuss how reflexive modernity and individualisation contributes to an understanding of selfhood by also exploring the concept of a risk society under Beck’s temporal concept of second modernity. These concepts are crucial in understanding how Beck formulates selfhood in contemporary society. This essay will also explore counter-arguments to Beck’s theory of individualisation that discredits the concept of social institutions when constructing selfhood.
Underlying Beck’s concept of second modernity (the contemporary) is the shift from structure to agency of the individual (Atkinson 2007; Beck 2007; Lewis 2006). Second modernity is the contemporary period that succeeds the periods of (first) modernity whereby the concept of identity and selfhood is no longer a collective experience but one that is based on the individual himself (Atkinson 2007; Lewis 2006). The notion of selfhood during the period of first modernity was built on fixed structures and soc...
... middle of paper ...
...s selfhood in contemporary society – a stand that controversial especially amongst class theorists.
(951 words)
Bibliography
Atkinson, W. 2007. ‘Beck, individualisation and the death of class: a critique’. The British Journal of Sociology. 58(3). Pp 350-366.
Beck, U. 2000. ‘Living Your Own Life in a Runaway World: Individualisation, globalisation and politics’. In W Hutton and A Giddens (eds). On The Edge: Living with Global Capitalism. London:Vintage. Pp 164-174.
Beck, U. 2007. ‘Beyond Class and Nation: Reframing social inequalities in a globalizing world’. The British Journal of Sociology. 58(4). Pp 679-705.
Lewis, T. 2006. ‘DIY Selves? Reflexivity and habitus in young people’s use of the internet for health information’. European Journal of Cultural Studies. 9(4). Pp 461-479.
Sennet, R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character. New York: WW Norton Press.
Weber, M. (1968) Status Groups & Classes, in G. Ross and C. Wittich (eds.) Economy and Society, Berkeley: University of California Press, (pp 302-307). Handbook SGY14, (2007/1). Social Sciences in Australia, Reading 5 (pp17-18). School of Arts, Media and Culture Faculty of Arts, Griffith University, Brisbane.
Individualism is a school of ethic that can be defined by various perspectives of intelligent mindsets. Nathaniel Brenden (1994) defined individualism as two different concepts: 1) ethical-psychological and 2) ethical-political. Under ethical-psychological concept, he stated that a human being should be able to judge independently and think, while respecting the jurisdiction of his or her mind. In addition, Brenden stated that individuals should uphold its command of individual rights under ethical-political concept (Brenden, 1994). On the other hand, Ayn Rand (1964), the inventor of Objectivism and the strong individualist, defined individualism as follows:
“A human being’s sense of self is established in the context of their ethics and morals. The concept of identity is related to ‘who I am’. Individuals situate themselves in a contextual environment that may include their relationships with family and friends, and their abilities and the occupations in which they are, or have been. This identifies what is ultimately important to an individual and how that relates to where their identity is in relation to this.” (Thomas, 2013)
Today’s contemporary society is a risk society, as Ulrik Beck defines it. This involves constant change, bigger risks through globalisation and a bigger focus to live up to the individualisation and structural circumstances that involve being an individual.
The traditional Marxist explanation of class inequality in the contemporary UK is based on Marx. Marx saw society as a structure divided into two major parts - the first and most important structure is the economic base referred to as the infrastructure. The second major part consists of the rest of society, such as political, legal and education systems, beliefs and ideas. This part is referred to as the superstructure. Marx claimed that the infrastructure shapes the superstructure as the economic system shapes the rest of society. For example, the education system in a modern industrial society has been shaped by the requirements of a capitalist economy for a literate and well-disciplined workforce. Marx saw social class in two major social groups - a ruling class and a subject class. The power of the ruling class, the Bourgeoisie comes from their ownership of the means of productive, including the land, raw materials and machinery used to produce goods. The Bourgeoisie oppress the subject class. The subject class, the Proletariat is made up of workers who own only their labour which they hire to the Bourgeoisie in exchange for wages. Marx believed that the relationship between the classes in one of
Social class has existed in our society since its foundation. Working class, middle class, upper middle class, or upper class, whatever your standing, social class can affect your place in society. Social class can be defined by where you live, who you talk to, where you get an education, even by the clothes you wear. These may not be definite determinants of social class, but categorization of people becomes easier when looking at these factors. In previous papers, I have claimed that social class is a result of capitalism. Though, I still believe this to be true, there are many factors that can affect social class and vice versa. Theorists have looked at different aspects of how these can affect social class. In my paper I am going to explore capitalism, stratification, racism, segregation, and education and their relationship with social class and how this can cause social conflict; I will have a primary focus of how Weber, DuBois, and Marx views this relationship.
“The real reason seems to me now this. Does personal identity just consist in bodily and psychological continuity, or is it a further fact, independent of the facts about these continuities? Our reactions to the ‘problem cases’ show, I believe, that we believe the latter. And we seem inclined to believe that this further fact is peculiarly deep and is all-or-nothing---we believe that in any describable case, it must hold completely or not at all. My main claim is the denial of this further fact” (Robinson).
Globalisation’s Time is Up (The Guardian Weekly, 12-18 Aug. 2005), by James Howard Kunstler, starts off with a direct contradiction of Thomas Friedman’s statement, that globalisation1 is here to stay. Kunstler argues that globalization is not “a permanent fixture of the human condition” (1) and only persists under specific circumstances; the presence of “relative world peace” (1) and “reliable supplies of cheap energy” (1). The essay begins with Kunstler stating the premises for globalization’s stability and evolves into a superficial analysis of what Kunstler intends to be historically analogous examples. The audience is taken back to a productive phase of globalization (1870s-1914) as Kunstler illustrates a world possessing relative peace
From the second you are born, you become. Infamously referenced in William Shakespeare’s play script, Hamlet, “To be, or not to be: that is the question” (III.I.56), this state of being has been discussed throughout all time and disciplines. Like the main character, Hamlet, it is common for an individual to contemplate their state of existence and its very worth as they approach critical points of identity and purpose. Our lowest points do not only serve as markers of crisis, rather, they too reveal the state of our identity. Written and sang about, a universal event of identity crisis is the dissolution of a romantic relationship—a breakup. Such was the case for my best friend, whom in attempt to maintain her anonymity I will refer to as Blue
In this paper I will be focusing on Erikson’s Theory mainly about identity versus role confusion. Finding one’s identity is not always an easy task. Everyone at some point in his or her life has had, as Erikson puts it, an identity crisis. Everyone experiences different struggles that can have either a positive or negative impact on their identity. On my path to identity, I have reached identity achievement, which means I have explored and made commitments. I will also be focusing on two articles highlighting a fifth possible outcome regarding identity and looking at identity statuses as developmental trajectories.
Globalisation refers to the shift toward a more integrated and interdependent world economy. It has several factors, including the globalization of markets and the globalization of production (Charles W.L. Hill, 2011). Inequality on the other hand, refers to the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities (Oxford Dictionary). Globalization is argued to be the root cause raising the unequal distribution of status, rights and opportunities around the globe. The main problems connected with this 'inequality of distribution' is argued to occur at many different levels, including; inequality between genders, nations, within-nations and others. The main focus of this essay, however, will be based on the impact that globalization may have on gender equality. It would begin with an overview of the common beliefs or arguments of those in favor
In conclusion, the formation of one’s identity has many components. Beginning at the onset of adolescence and continuing to expand, grow and form and reform as we live through the struggles or success of life. Many theorists have endeavored to clarify the development of identity formation. However, Erik Erickson offered one significant theory involving the formation of one’s identity. Expounding on Erickson theory, Marcia developed his Identity Status Model according to the existence or absence of crisis and commitments. These four statuses, diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium and achievement can combine in various ways to produce a self. One’s sense of identity is determined largely by the choices and commitments made, therefore, having a well-developed sense of self can provide an individual with insight to their strengths, weaknesses, and individual uniqueness. An individual that finds themselves
From looking at various historians opinions regarding E.P.Thompson’s book The making of the English Working Class, it is quite evident that there are many opposing views about his work that have led to many criticisms as well as many appraisals. The topic of class is highly debatable due to the fact there is no specific definition of it. It is also debateable where it originated from and so we cannot just look at one historian’s interpretation of the subject but we need to look at many in order to come to our own conclusions of the concept of ‘class consciousnesses and ‘class identity’. Thompson has produced an ‘outstanding’ interpretation of his theories on what made the working class and many historians have made valid criticisms that allow us to question some of his main arguments within the book, meaning that the notion of class is still a contested concept for which there is no specific answer.
In today's society, with the advent of modern digital communication and an increased focus upon global society and diversity, humans have a golden opportunity to evaluate themselves and how they identify both individually and in their broader culture. Although the question of “who am I” is perhaps one of the classical questions of the human cognizance of identity, our identity as both groups and individuals is directly related to the culture we are a part of, especially in regards to whether that culture is determined to be individualistic or collectivist. These differing mindsets have an inherent connection to the way that we view ourselves and the impact of interactions between different cultures.
The world that we live now is the place that time before was witnessed of a great transformation of society and life overall. A lot of changes have made us and our life better. A great transformation has lead us to a new way of living, new opportunities and experiences which has made our life better, by this making us more eager to look forward for new things and explore its advantages. This transformation occurred mostly in the 19-20 th century and this phase was named as modernity. A plurality of changes faced out the people life’s, making them satisfied with those changes and in the same time confused. In commons sense, we as humans are not always in favor of changes, and sometimes we refuse to deal with them. “To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world – and, at the same time, that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, and everything we are. Modern environments and experiences cut across all boundaries of geography and ethnicity, of class and nationality, of religion and ideology: in this sense, modernity can be said to unite all mankind.”(Berman 1).Meaning that, in order to be modern and basically to live through this phase we have to adopt this changes and follow them, making them part of everyday life. By this in mind people know that their life will change in dramatically way .Some of those adventures will grow us together and some of them will put as apart. These changes of modernity are reflected a in the paper of Edgar Allan Poe “The Man of the Crowd” . A mysterious story which leads to an ambiguous reading, “The Man of the Crowd” tends to represent the new era of transformation. This manifesto t...