Postmodernism Flashcards
Theories of Late Modernity
Giddens and Beck
Theories of Postmodernism
Baudrillard
Lyotard
Modern society characteritsics: the nation state
The nation-state state is the key political unit in modern society
- a bounded territory ruled by a powerful centralised state, whose population usually shares the same language and culture. We tend to think of the modern world as made up of a series of separate societies, each with its own state.
The state is the focal point of modern society, organising social life on a national basis. Modern states have created large administrative bureaucracies and educational, welfare and legal institutions to regulate their citizens’ lives. The nation-state is also an important source of identity for citizens, who identify with its symbols such as the flag.
modern society characteristics: capitalism
Capitalism The economy of modern societies is capitalist
- based on private ownership of the means of production and the use of wage labourers. Capitalism brought about the industrialisation of modern society, with huge increases in wealth. However, wealth distribution is unequal, resulting in class conflict. The nation-state becomes important in regulating capitalism and maintaining the conditions under which it operates. Scott Lash and John Urry (1987; 1994) describe this as ‘organised capitalism’.
In modern industry, production is organised on Fordist principles (after the Ford Motor Company’s system): the mass production of standardised products in large factories, using low skilled labour. Cheap, mass produced consumer goods lead to a rising standard of living.
modern society characteristics: rationality, science and technology
Rationality, science and technology Rational, secular, scientific ways of thinking dominate and the influence of magico-religious explanations of the world declines.
Technically efficient forms of organisation, such as bureaucracies and factories, dominate social and economic life. Science becomes increasingly important in industry, medicine and communications.
modern society charactertsics: individulaism
Individualism Tradition, custom and ascribed status become less important as the basis for our actions. We experience greater personal freedom and can increasingly choose our own course in life and define our own identity.
However, structural inequalities such as class remain important in shaping people’s identity and restricting their choices.
Globalisation
Until recently, the nation-state provided the basic framework for most people’s lives. However, many sociologists argue that we are now increasingly affected by globalisation - the increasing interconnectedness of people across national boundaries. We live in one interdependent ‘global village’ and our lives are shaped by a global framework. Four related changes have helped bring this about.
technological changes
economic changes
political changes
changes in culture and identitgy
1.
Globalistion: 1 Technological changes
We can now cross entire continents in a matter of hours, or exchange information across the globe with the click of a mouse. Satellite communications, the internet and global television networks have helped to create time-space compression, closing the distances between people.
Technology also brings risks on a global scale. For example, greenhouse gases produced in one place contribute to global climate change that leads to a rise in sea levels and flooding in low-lying countries. Ulrich Beck (1992) argues that we are now living in ‘risk society’, where increasingly the threats to our well being come from human-made technology rather than natural disasters.
Globalistion: 2 Economic changes
The global economy is increasingly a ‘weightless’ or electronic economy. Instead of producing physical goods, much activity now involves the production of information, such as music, TV programmes and data processing. These commodities are produced, distributed and consumed through global electronic networks.
In the electronic economy, money never sleeps. Global 24-hour financial transactions permit the instantaneous transfer of funds around the world in pursuit of profit. This too contributes to the ‘risk society’.
Another major economic force pushing globalisation forward is trans-national companies (TNCs). These companies operate across frontiers, organising production on a global scale.
Most TNCs are Western-based. Some, such as Coca-Cola, are colossal enterprises, and the largest 500 together account for half the total value of the commodities produced in the whole world. So powerful are the small elite who control these companies, that Leslie Sklair (2003) argues they now form a separate global capitalist class.
Globalisation: 3 Political changes
Some sociologists claim that globalisation has undermined the power of the nation-state. For example, Kenichi Ohmae
(1994) argues that we now live in a ‘borderless world’ in which TNCs and consumers have more economic power than national governments. States are now less able to regulate the activities of large capitalist enterprises, a situation Lash and Urry describe as ‘disorganised capitalism’.
Globalistion: 4 Changes in culture and identity
Globalisation makes it much harder for cultures to exist in isolation from one another. A major reason for this is the role of information and communications technology (ICT), especially the mass media.
Today we find ourselves living in a global culture in which Western-owned media companies spread Western culture to the rest of the world. Economic integration also encourages a global culture. For example, TNCs such as Nike, selling the same consumer goods in many countries, help to promote similar tastes across national borders. In addition, the increased movement of people as tourists, economic migrants, refugees and asylum seekers helps to create globalised culture.
Globalisation also undermines traditional sources of identity such as class. For example, the shift of manufacturing from the West to developing countries has led to the fragmentation and decline of working-class communities that previously gave people their class identity.
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is a major intellectual movement that has emerged since the 1970s. It has been influential in many areas, including sociology. Postmodernists argue that we are now living in a new era of postmodernity. Postmodernity is an unstable, fragmented, media-saturated global village, where image and reality are indistinguishable. In postmodern society, we define ourselves by what we consume. It is not a continuation of modernity, but a fundamental break with it. For postmodernists, this new kind of society requires a new kind of theory - modernist theories no longer apply.
Knowledge
Drawing on the ideas of Michel Foucault (see Box 3.12), postmodernists argue that there are no sure foundations to knowledge - no objective criteria we can use to prove whether a theory is true or false. This view - known as anti-foundationalism - has two consequences:
- The Enlightenment project of achieving progress through true, scientific knowledge is dead. If we cannot guarantee our knowledge is correct, we cannot use it to improve society.
- Any all-embracing theory that claims to have the truth about how to create a better society, such as Marxism, is a mere meta-narrative or ‘big story’ - just someone’s version of reality, not the truth. Therefore there is no reason to accept the claims that the theory makes.
Postmodernists also reject meta-narratives such as Marxism on the grounds that they have helped to create oppressive totalitarian states that impose their version of the truth on people.
For example, in the former Soviet Union, the state’s attempt to re-mould society on Marxist principles led to political repression and slave labour camps.
Rejecting meta-narratives that claim absolute truth, postmodernists take a relativist position. That is, they argue that all views are true for those who hold them. No one has special access to the truth - including sociologists. All accounts of reality are equally valid. We should therefore celebrate the diversity of views rather than seek to impose one version of the truth on everyone.
But if knowledge is not about the truth, what is it about?
According to Jean-Francois Lyotard (1992), in postmodern society, knowledge is just a series of different language games’ or ways of seeing the world. However, in his view, postmodern society, with its many competing views of the truth, is preferable to modern society, where meta-narratives claimed a monopoly of truth and sometimes sought to impose it by force, as in the Soviet Union. Postmodernity allows groups who had been marginalised by modern society, such as minority groups and women, to be heard.
Baudrillard: simulacra
Like Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard (1983) argues that knowledge is central to postmodern society. He argues that society is no longer based on the production of material goods, but rather on buying and selling knowledge in the form of images and signs. However, unlike signs in past societies, those today bear no relation to physical reality.
Instead, signs stand for nothing other than themselves - they are not symbols of some other real thing. Baudrillard calls such signs simulacra (singular: simulacrum). For example, tabloid newspaper articles about fictitious soap opera characters are ‘signs about signs’ rather than about an underlying reality.
Baudrillard describes this situation as hyper-reality: where the signs appear more real than reality itself and substitute themselves for reality. However, because the signs do not represent anything real, they are literally meaningless. In this respect, Baudrillard is particularly critical of television, which he sees as the main source of simulacra and of our inability to distinguish between image and reality.
Culture, identity and politics
Postmodernists argue that culture and identity in postmodern society differ fundamentally from modern society, especially because of the role of the media in creating hyper-reality. The media are all pervading and they produce an endless stream of ever changing images, values and versions of the truth. As a result, culture becomes fragmented and unstable, so that there is no longer a coherent or fixed set of values shared by members of society.
This bewildering array of different messages and ideas also undermines people’s faith in meta-narratives. Confronted by so many different versions of the truth, people cease to believe wholeheartedly in any one version. Furthermore,given the failure of meta-narratives such as Marxism to deliver a better society, people lose faith in the possibility of rational progress.
In postmodernity, identity also becomes destabilised.
For example, instead of a fixed identity ascribed by our class, we can now construct our own identity from the wide range of images and lifestyles on offer in the media. We can easily change our identity simply by changing our consumption patterns - picking and mixing cultural goods and media-produced images to define ourselves.
Baudrillard is pessimistic about the postmodern condition.
Media-created hyper-reality leaves us unable to distinguish image from reality. This means that we have lost the power to improve society: if we cannot even grasp reality, then we have no power to change it. Political activity to improve the world is impossible, and so the central goal of the Enlightenment project is unachievable. It seems that, while we can change our identity by going shopping, we cannot change society.
From a Marxist perspective, Philo and Miller (2001) make several criticisms of postmodernism:
- It ignores power and inequality. For example, the idea that media images are unconnected with reality ignores the ruling class’ use of the media as a tool of domination.
- Similarly, the claim that we freely construct our identities through consumption overlooks the effect of poverty in restricting such opportunities.
- Postmodernists are simply wrong to claim that people cannot distinguish between reality and media image.
- By assuming all views are equally true, it becomes just as valid to deny that the Nazis murdered millions as it does to affirm it. This is a morally indefensible position.
Postmodernism can be criticised on logical grounds. For example, Lyotard’s theory is self-defeating: why should we believe a theory that claims that no theory has the truth?
Postmodernism can be criticised on logical grounds. For example, Lyotard’s theory is self-defeating: why should we believe a theory that claims that no theory has the truth?
Moreover, Best and Kellner (1991) point out that postmodernism is a particularly weak theory:
while it identifies some important features of today’s society (such as the importance of the media and consumption), it fails to explain how they came about.
Postmodernists are criticised for their pessimism about the Enlightenment project - their view that objective knowledge is impossible and that nothing can be done to improve society.
David Harvey (1989) rejects this pessimistic view.
David Harvey (1989)
He argues that political decisions do make a real difference to people’s lives and that knowledge can be used to solve human problems. Even if our theories cannot guarantee absolute truth, many sociologists argue that they are at least an approximation to it. As such, they are the best guide we have to improving the world.
While postmodernism has identified some important features of today’s society, it is poorly equipped to explain them. By contrast, recent sociological theories have offered more satisfactory explanations of the changes society is undergoing. The remainder of this Topic looks at some of these sociological theories.
Theories of late modernity
Unlike postmodernism, theories of late modernity argue that the rapid changes we are witnessing are not the dawn of a new, postmodern era. On the contrary, these changes are actually a continuation of modernity itself.
However, theories of late modernity do recognise that something important is happening. In their view, key features of modernity that were always present have now become intensified. For example, social change has always been a feature of modern society, but now the pace of change has gone into overdrive. In other words, we are still within modernity, but we have entered its ‘late’ phase.
In this view, if we are still in the modern era, then the theories of modernist sociology are still useful. Unlike postmodernism, theories of late modernity do subscribe to the Enlightenment project - they still believe we can discover objective knowledge and use it to improve society.
Giddens: reflexivity
According to Giddens, we are now at the stage of late or high modernity. A defining characteristic of modern society is that it experiences rapid change - often on a global scale. This is because of two key features of modernity: disembedding and reflexivity.
Giddens defines disembedding as ‘the lifting out of social relations from local contexts of interaction’. In other words, today we no longer need face-to-face contact in order to interact - disembedding breaks down geographical barriers and makes interaction more impersonal.
Giddens argues that in high modern society, tradition and custom become much less important and no longer serve as a guide to how we should act, and we become more individualistic. For example, sons are no longer expected to follow the same occupation as their fathers but are free to pursue their own individual goals instead.
Because tradition no longer tells us how to act, we are forced to become reflexive. That is, we have to constantly monitor, reflect on and modify our actions in the light of information about the possible risks and opportunities that they might involve.
Consequently, reflexivity means that we are all continually re-evaluating our ideas and theories - nothing is fixed or permanent, everything is up for challenge. Under these conditions, culture in late modern society becomes increasingly unstable and subject to change. logether, disembedding and reflexivity account for the rapid and widespread nature of social change in high modernity.
in particular by enabiling social intercation to spread rapidly across the globe, they help to drive globalisation
Modernity and risk
According to Giddens, in late modernity we face a number of high consequence risks - major threats to human society.
These include military risks such as nuclear war, economic risks such as the instability of the capitalist economy, environmental risks such as global heating, and threats to our freedom from increased state surveillance. All of these are ‘manufactured’ or human-made rather than natural risks.
However, Giddens rejects the postmodernist view that we cannot intervene to improve things. He believes we can make rational plans to reduce these risks and achieve progress to a better society.
Beck: risk society
lrich Beck (1992) is in the Enlightenment tradition. That is, he believes in the power of reason to create a better world. However, he believes that today’s late modern society - which he calls risk society’ - faces new kinds of dangers:
* In the past, society faced dangers as a result of its inability to control nature, such as drought, famine and disease.
* Today, the dangers we face are manufactured risks resulting from human activities, such as global warming.
Also like Giddens, Beck sees late modernity as a period of growing individualisation, in which we become increasingly reflexive. Tradition no longer governs how we act. As a result, we have to think for ourselves and reflect on the Possible consequences of our choice of action. This means we must constantly take account of the risks attached to the different courses of action open to us. Beck calls this reflexive modernisation.
As a result, risk consciousness’ becomes increasingly central to our culture - we become more aware of perceived risks and seek to avoid or minimise them. For example, we read of the dangers or benefits of this or that food and change our eating habits accordingly. However, a great deal of knowledge about risks comes from the media, which often give a distorted view of the dangers we face.
Risk, politics and progress
Postmodernists such as Baudrillard reject the Enlightenment project, with its belief in the possibility of progress through action based on rational knowledge. Beck disagrees with this position. Although he is sceptical about scientific progress because of the risks it has brought, he still believes in our ability to use rationality to overcome them. Because we are capable of reflexivity, we can evaluate risks rationally and take political action to reduce them. For example, Beck looks to new political movements such as environmentalism to challenge the direction of technological development.
Evaluation of theories of late modernity
The concept of reflexivity suggests that we reflect on our actions and then are free to re-shape our lives accordingly to reduce our exposure to risks. However, not everyone has this option. For example, the poor are generally exposed to more environmental risks because they are more likely to live in heavily polluted areas, but may be unable to afford to move to a healthier one.
Criticising Beck, Mike Rustin (1994) argues that it is capitalism, with its pursuit of profit at all costs, that is the source of risk, not technology as such.
Paul Hirst (1993) rejects Beck’s view that movements such as environmentalism will bring about significant change, because they are too fragmented to challenge capitalism.
However, theories of late modernity do provide a sociological alternative to postmodernism. They show that rational analysis of society remains possible. They also recognise that, while our knowledge may never be perfect, we can still use it to improve society and reduce the risks we face.
Marxist theory of postmodernity
Like Beck and Giddens, Marxists believe in the Enlightenment project of achieving objective knowledge and using it to improve society. For example, Marx claimed that his theory showed how a working-class revolution could overthrow capitalism and bring an end to exploitation. However, unlike Beck and Giddens, some Marxists such as Fredric Jameson (1984) and David Harvey (1989) believe that today’s society has indeed moved from modernity to postmodernity. They agree with postmodernists that there have been major changes in society, and they describe postmodern culture in similar terms, emphasising the importance of media images, diversity and instability.
However, Marxists offer a very different analysis of postmodernity to Lyotard or Baudrillard. Rather than seeing postmodernity as a fundamental break with the past, Marxists regard it as merely the product of the most recent stage of capitalism. To understand postmodernity, therefore, we must examine its relationship to capitalism.
For Harvey, capitalism is a dynamic system, constantly developing new technologies and ways of organising production to make profits. However, capitalism is prone to periodic crises of profitability, and these produce major changes. Postmodernity arose out of the capitalist crisis of the 1970s, which saw the end of the long economic boom that had lasted since 1945.
Flexible accumulation
This crisis gave rise to a new regime of accumulation - a new way of achieving profitability, which Harvey describes as ‘flexible accumulation’ or post-Fordism. This replaced the more rigid pre-1970s Fordist mass production system.
Flexible accumulation involves the use of information technology, an expanded service and finance sector, job insecurity and the requirement for workers to be ‘flexible’ to fit their employers’ needs. It permits the production of customised products for small, ‘niche’ markets instead of standardised products for mass markets, and easy switching from producing one product to producing another.
These changes brought many of the cultural characteristics of postmodernity, such as diversity, choice and instability.
For example:
- Production of customised products for niche markets promotes cultural diversity.
- Easy switching of production from one product to another encourages constant shifts in fashion.
Flexible accumulation also brought changes in consumption.
It turned leisure, culture and identity into commodities.
Cultural products such as fashion, music, sports and computer games have become an important source of profit. As Jameson argues, postmodernity represents a more developed form of capitalism because it commodifies virtually all aspects of life, including our identities.
Harvey argues that this more developed form of capitalism also leads to another feature of postmodernity - the compression of time and space. The commodification of culture (for example, foreign holidays), the creation of worldwide financial markets, and new information and communications technologies, all serve to shrink the globe.
Politics and progress
Harvey and Jameson argue that flexible accumulation has also brought political changes characteristic of postmodernity.
In particular, it has weakened the working-class and socialist movements. In their place, a variety of oppositional movements have emerged, such as environmentalism, women’s liberation, anti-racism and so on. However, Harvey and Jameson are hopeful that these new social movements can form a ‘rainbow alliance’ to bring about change.
Thus, Marxist theorists of postmodernity agree with postmodernists that we have moved from modernity to postmodernity. However, as Best and Kellner note, they differ from postmodernists in two ways:
* They retain a faith in Marxist theory as a means of explaining these changes.
* They argue that the goal of the Enlightenment project - to change society for the better - can still be achieved.
Evaluation of marxist theories of post modernity
Marx’s original view of the Enlightenment project was that it would be achieved by the working class leading a revolution to overthrow capitalism and create a better society. By contrast, by accepting that political opposition to capitalism has fragmented into many different social movements such as feminism and environmentalism, Marxist theories of postmodernity appear to abandon this possibility.
However, the strength of these theories is that by relating the recent changes in society to the nature of capitalism, they are able to offer a sociological explanation of them - something that postmodernists fail to do.
