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.
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
Personhood – People follow because of who you are and what you are representing. (Maxwell, 1993, p. 13)
In the recent weeks, I have noticed a trend in our cultural beliefs regarding groups outside of our own. As a nation, while the United States has a strongly individualistic nature from a personal perspective, there is also a strong collectivist belief regarding everyone outside of themselves and their groups. Rather than believing that each member of an external group is responsible for their decisions alone (myth of individualism), separating them from a collective (one bad apple), the consensus is generally geared opposite. For example, the belief that all immigrants want to steal American jobs, when one is not an immigrant, or that feminists are actually misandrists, when one is not a feminist. What I believe we have
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:
Social inequality is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunity for various social positions or statuses within a given group or society. It is a phenomenon that has a long history as social inequalities has a wide range of varieties. From economic, gender, racial, status, and prestige, social inequality is a topic often disputed by classical theorists. Sociologists Karl Marx, Max Weber, W.I. Thomas, and Frederic M. Thrasher have formed varying thoughts on this recurring phenomenon. Marx believed that social inequality synthesized through conflicts within classes and in modern society those two classes were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In contrast, Weber disputes Marx’s simplistic view of the conflict and theorizes that social
It is stated by Michel de Montaigne that “the greatest thing in the world is to know how to belong to oneself”. Becoming more individualistic is not a goal that can be attained within a day, month, or even a year. This goal can only be completed within a lifetime of hard work and dedication towards focusing on the individual and less on or society’s influential voice upon the individual. Emily Dickson “Some Keep the Sabbath Going to Church” and Robert Frost “The Road Not Taken” implement the idea of the individual. Dickinson and Frost exhibit a perspective of individualism and the self-worth while explaining how individuality can relate to the individual today.
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
To begin, this critical response paper will provide a detailed explanation for the significant merit of globalization in context with work or services implementing the dominant western society of the world from other countries that have fewer resources compared to the first world countries. According to Ravelli and Webber (2015) in the textbook “Exploring Sociology,” Globalization initially emerged from Europe when the booming economic industries prepared colonies to transport cheap materials from global south countries to incorporate them with their own resources. This is known as eurocentrism and the help of European globalization has affected the working class or the bourgeois class in the entire world. Furthermore, globalization refers
The development of individual identity has long been scrutinized by scientists of all disciplines to determine the biological and cultural aspects of life which influence the creation of identity. The structure and agency debate within the social sciences was born from opinions considering the postmodernist social changes throughout history; and aims to determine the influential significance held by the structural institutions within a culture, compared to that which is obtained from social interactions and personal agency. Social structures within society range from the larger global structures; to the macrostructures or institutional organisations that govern certain aspects of the way we live, such as political, economic, and education systems; to the smaller microstructures of face-to-face interactions and behavioural patterns accepted within a society, such as etiquette and social norms (Furze et al 2012, p.5,6). Human identities are undeniably shaped by the social structures that govern the culture from which they belong. This essay aims to discuss the influences of structure and agency respectively, as well as the altering frameworks predetermined by social scientists during different historical periods, in an effort to assess the levels of influence that social structures and social interaction possess over establishing an identity in a cultural world.
Many historians and sociologists have identified a transformation in the economic processes of the world and society in recent times. There has been an extensive increase in developments in technology and the economy as a whole in the twentieth century. Globalization has been recognized as a new age in which the world has developed into what Giddens identifies to be a “single social system” (Anthony Giddens: 1993 ‘Sociology’ pg 528), due to the rise of interdependence of various countries on one another, therefore affecting practically everyone within society.
Wiley, Norbert. "The Post-Modern Self: A Retrospective." Society 49, no. 4 (July, 2012): 328-332. Accessed April 20, 2014. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12115-012-9556-6. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1022373336?accountid=14681.
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...
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.
Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Haralambos, Holborn and Heard (2004:12-14) defined a class as a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market economy, and by virtue of that fact receive similar economic rewards. Class in a modern society is perceived based on achieved criteria as oppos...