19 Modernity, Risk and Reflexivity: Anthony Giddens

Amiya Kumar Das

1. Introduction

It is widely agreed in the discipline of sociology that sociology emerged out of the process of modernization. The forerunners of sociology like Marx, Durkheim and Weber mostly have engaged themselves with the question of modernity. In later period while appreciating the contribution of modernism, its failure also widely acknowledged in the sociological literature. Among many, Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck and Zygmunt Bauman are the prominent thinkers who all are engaged with the ideas of risk, reflexivity, uncertainty and the fall out of modernism. Anthony Giddens is one of the leading sociologists of the contemporary time. Giddens is popularly known to the sociological world for his theory of structuration and his critical views on modern societies.

This module is divided into parts and includes some of the most influential works of Giddens which he developed with the ideas of Modernity, Risk and Reflexivity. He has covered most of his prominent ideas in his volume „Consequences of Modernity‟ (1990), in which he offers critical inputs on modern societies. In this particular work he shows the differences between traditional societies and modern societies. Giddens highlights the different aspects and facets of modernity, different institutions of modernity, and dynamics of modernity and finally the risk in modern societies and more emphatically the reflexive characteristics of modernity which differentiated modernity from pre- modern societies.

The sub sections of module are as follows:

– Modernity and Anthony Giddens

– Dynamism in Modernity

– Reflexivity and Modernity

– Risk and Modern Society

2. Defining Modernity 

In a simpler way of understanding, modernity is refereed to wide range of period and situation starting from late 19th century. Although, the initiation of modernity can be referred to age of enlightenment, where traditional ideas and dogmas were questioned as well rational ideas came into fore starting from 17th century. Enlightenment entirely changed the European mind with the discovery and invention of new theories and ideas which challenged the traditional notion of worldview in the domain of natural sciences and social sciences. Marx viewed modern society in terms of capitalist society; whereas Weber looks modern society in relation to the rise of rational institutions. On the other hand, Durkheim holds that organic solidarity with the weakening of mechanical (collective consciousness) is the initiation of modernity.

Modernity is generally associated with the following:

a. Rise of the nation state

b. Growth of tolerance as a political and social belief

c. Industrialization

d. Rise of capitalism

e. Discovery and colonization of the Non-Western world

f.  Rise of representative democracy

g. Increasing role of science and technology

h. Urbanization

i.  Proliferation of mass media

In addition, the 19th century can be said to add the following facets to modernity:

a. Emergence of social science and anthropology

b. Romanticism and Early Existentialism

c. Naturalist approaches to art and description

d. Evolutionary thinking in geology, biology, politics, and social sciences

e. Beginnings of modern psychology

f.  Growing disenfranchisement of religion

g. Emancipation

(Ref: http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/modernit.htm)

2.1 Modernity and Anthony Giddens 

Giddens defines modernity as „a shorthand term for modern society of industrial civilization. Portrayed in more detail, it is associated with (1) a certain set of attitudes towards the world, the idea of the world as open or transformation by human intervention; (2) a complex economic institutions, especially industrial production and a market economy; (3) a certain range of political institutions including the nation-state and mass democracy . Largely as a result of these characteristics, modernity is vastly more dynamic than any previous type of social order. It is a society- more technically a complex of institutions – which unlike any preceding culture lives in the future rather than in the past‟ (Giddens & Pierson 1988). In this sense, Giddens distinguished the modern society from the previous social order or from the traditional societies. In a simpler way he looks at modernity as “to modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence. This associate‟s modernity with a time period and with an initial geographical location, but for the moment leaves its major characteristics safely stowed away in a black box‟ (Giddens 1990). Thus modernity can be seen as a phenomenon originated in Europe in 17th Century onwards and spread to the other parts of the globe subsequently.

Marking the differences between pre-modern and modern social order, he talks about four basic features of modernity. These he refers as the institutional dimensions of modernity:

a. Capitalism

b. Industrialism

c. Surveillance and

d. Military power.

For Giddens, the creation of modernity is linked up with the new capitalist economic order. Capitalism is characterized by commodity production, private ownership of capital and property-less wage labour and class system. Capitalism depends on the productive competitive markets, consumer, prices etc. The second attribute to the modernity is industrialization. Modernity is a technology and machine-based civilization to produce goods for the market. Industrialism also affects other spheres of human life viz. communication transportation and domestic life. Giddens defines surveillance as „the supervision of the activities of subject populations in the political sphere- although its importance as a basis of administrative power is by no means confined to that sphere‟. Supervision may be direct and based upon control of information. The control of means of violence- the military power is a distinguished dimension of modernity which includes industrialization of war (See Section 6.2b).

2.2 Modernity & Post Modernity 

Anthony Giddens in his book „The Consequences of Modernity‟ (1990) holds that we live in the age of modernity not in the age of post modernity, more emphatically in the age of late modernity. Different scholars argue that nowadays we stand in a new era and have coined it as the era of post modernity. Giddens does except the features of the present era as referred by different post modern scholars like Lyotard and labelling of the same as post modern era is refuted by him. Giddens opines that modernity is not over. For him the controversies on postmodernity and modernity are largely issues of philosophy and epistemology. Scholars like Lyotard, refers post modernity as a shift away from attempts to ground epistemology and from faith in humanly engineered progress. The modernity offers grand narratives and a continuity of past and present and predictable future; where post modernity sees multiple narratives of claiming knowledge. For post modernists, systematic knowledge about social organization can‟t be obtained. As opposed to such positions, Giddens argues that we are put in the universe of events where we have not fully understood and large parts are outside of our control, and new terminologies like post modernity is the outcome of such undefined spaces. On the contrary, it is necessary to look again the nature of modernity. Giddens thus, making a sharp contrast between early and late modernity, continues to insist the importance of using modernity in spite of post modernity.

2.3 Discontinuities of Modernity 

For Giddens, the modern institutions are unique and henceforth different from traditional one. To understand the same it needs to see the discontinuities of modernity. He gives the following features which distinguishes the discontinuities of modernity

a. The sheer pace of change: The rapidity of change in modern institutions are much more higher than the pre-modern societies; although changes are also seen pre-modern societies, but in terms of technology which also influences other spheres also are immense in modern societies.

b. The scope of change: Due to interconnectivity of different places and areas in modern time the scope of changes and social transformation are more rapid and touches the entire globe.

c. Nature of modern institutions: In the human civilization some institutions were never found which are existed in the modern social order; such as political system of nation state, dependence of production, commodification of products and wage labour.

3. Dynamism in Modernity 

Modernity is a complex process. It is different from the traditional societies. The modernity is given dynamism by three essential aspects:

1. Distanciation

2. Disembedding

3. Reflexivity

Distanciation refers to the time and space separation in modern time; where disembedding as Giddens refers is the „lifting out‟ of social relations from local contexts and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time and space. The third aspect is the reflexivity. For Giddens, modernity is a reflexive process. Let us discuss these three aspects in details below.

3.1 Distanciation: Modernity in Time and Space 

Giddens views that the time and space separation give dynamism to modernity. The „time‟ and „space‟ in traditional and modern society can be conceived differently. Time and space in pre-modern societies connected with physical place. In such societies time and space was linked together. For example, „when‟ was associated with „where‟. But in modern societies time is separated from space which he calls as distanciation. Giddens holds, „the time reckoning which formed the basis of day-to- day life, certainly for the majority of the population, always linked time with place- and was usually imprecise and variable. No one could tell the time of day without reference to other socio-spatial markers: “when” was almost universally either connected with “where” or  identified by regular natural occurrences‟ (Giddens 1990). Most of the pre-modern societies developed calendars to calculate time and ordering of space. To calculate time or any kind of day to day activities the pre- modern societies linked time with space. Reference to any „time‟ may be morning, evening, or night were tied to their local uses. Thus, before the invention of mechanical clock and diffusion of the same, time was always understood in relation to space only. From the late 18th century the mass diffusion of mechanical clock, time became separated from space. A half an hour or an hour became universal. It separated time from the space. It can be seen in calendars, railway timetables etc. The time became uniform and abstract as well both of them have become empty phenomena. The world in modern time having a unified calendar, dating system, globalized time zones which are quite different than the pre modern time. The separation of time and space and referring them without physical locale became abstract means of ordering social activity. The emptying of time took casual priority over  the emptying of „space‟. In pre-modern societies, space and place were interconnected. Most of the times both were used synonymously. Emptying of space refers to separation of space from place. „Place‟ as Giddens defines „is best conceptualized by means of the idea of locale, which refers to the physical settings of social activity as situated geographically‟. In pre modern societies space and place coincided as most of the population dominated by presence by localized activities. But with the coming of modernity and abstract time, space is torn out from the place and place became increasing phantasmagorical. Space became also abstract without associating of place. Thus, time and space in modern societies became more abstract and standardized.

3.1.1 Time-Space Separation and Modernity 

The separation of time and space is key to the development of modernity. Giddens offers three basic issues where time-space separation leads to modernity.

1. It is the prime condition of the process of disembedding, which Giddens says that the distanciation of time-space is the major pre-requisite for the second source of dynamism of modernity. (It will be discussed in details later)

2. The time-space separation gives the scope for the development of different rationalized organisations. Bureaucracy, nation state are such organisations. These modern rationalized institutions having inherent dynamism where they can connect the local and the global. This was not possible in pre-modern societies. The inherent dynamism of such institutions affects the lives of many people.

3. Time-space separation, according to Giddens, is related to „radical historicity, with modernity depends upon modes of “insertion” into time and space unavailable to previous civilisations‟. In this sense history is the systematic appropriation of past and helps to draw up the future.

3.2 Disembedding 

Giddens defines disembedding as „lifting out of social relations from local contexts of interaction and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time-space. Disembedding thus implies removal of social relations from local context and restructuring across time-space. He cited two types of disembedding mechanism those are involved in the development of modernity:

a. Symbolic Token

b. Expert systems

Symbolic token are „media of interchange‟ that can be „passed around‟ without regard to the specific character of a group or individuals that handle them at any particular juncture. This is an abstract system. Money, political legitimacy is the examples of symbolic token. Giddens describes how money can be symbolic token which allows space distanciation. Money as a symbolic token which can be exchanged regardless who use it.

Expert system is a „systems of technical accomplishment or professional expertise that organize large areas of the material and social environments we live in today‟ (Giddens 1990: 27). According to Giddens, the expert system removes the social relations from the immediacies of context. Expert system is increasingly important in modern life. This removes the social relations from the immediacies of everyday life. It builds faith in a body of expert knowledge. Giddens gives the example of car driving or where without knowing the technology the actor keeps the trust over it. Thus expert system gives the guarantee of performance over time and space. It separates time and space.

3.2.1  Trust and Modern Society 

The disembedding mechanism in modern society is based on trust. Giddens refers trust as the fundamental to the institution of modernity. Pre-modern societies do not require trust to a significant level as time-space separation distanciation is not great. But in modern societies, for him trust is vested, not in individual but in abstract capacities (Giddens 1993). Trust is a particular kind of faith or confidence which gives the reliability over the institutions. Giddens refers the following observations on trust:

1. Trust is related to absence in time and space. The prime condition of trust is that it is not that someone has lack of power, but having lack of information.

2. Trust is bounded up with contingency not with risk.

3. Trust is the link between faith and confidence.

4. Trust rests upon faith in correctness of principles of which an individual is ignorant.

5. Trust as defined by Giddens as confidence in reliability of a person or system regarding a given set of outcome or events. Here confidence expresses a faith in probity or love of another or correctness of abstract principles.

6. Trust exists in condition of modernity a) human activity is socially created b) the increased transformative scope of human action

7. Trust reduces the danger of a particular type of action of an individual.

8. Trust is balanced with acceptable security risk.

9. The opposite of trust is not mistrust rather which is darker.

a. Reflexivity and Modernity 

The third feature of modernity is reflexivity. Giddens argues that reflexivity is one of the key elements of modernity which differentiated it from tradition. He contends that earlier societies to some extent were modern, but such kind of modernization was a „simple modernization‟. The present modernity is reflexive modernization. The contemporary societies offer a high degree of social reflexivity. He offers the idea of „reflexive monitoring of action‟ by which Giddens means that it is the monitoring of individual actions and others, more emphatically what is happening in wider social context. Men are themselves responsible for the ongoing social conditions. In that senses the reflexive monitoring of actions is the constant monitoring of actions to reduce risk and opportunities. The two key points of reflexive modernity holds that individuals have increased knowledge which helps to reflexive monitoring of actions. Reflexivity radicalizes the modernity.

The traditional societies reflexivity exists in the form of reinterpretation and clarification of tradition, where in modern societies reflexivity having no one-to-one relation with past. Referring to reflexivity in traditional societies and modern societies he said that in modern societies everything is open and reflexive, including the reflection itself. Modernity replaced tradition, and the period is itself unsettling and reflects uncertainty. A given body of knowledge, may be challenged or altered with this reflexivity; which was not possible in pre-modern time. No knowledge in modernity is said to be certain. The fundamental to reflexivity of modernity as a whole is that all empirical based knowledge is to be reinterpreted and may be subverted. Reflexivity is thus central to the modern scepticism and uncertainty.

Giddens views that in traditional societies reflexivity also exists but in the form of reinterpretation and clarification of tradition. Here past is more weighted down than the future. He holds, „in pre-modern civilizations reflexivity is still largely limited to the reinterpretation and clarification of tradition, such that in the scales of time the side of the past is much more heavily weighed down than that of the future‟. But in modern societies, the routinizations of daily works have no fundamental relations with the past. The incoming information regularly altered the existing knowledge. As  such,  social practices cannot be defended longer by appealing to tradition. Giddens refers to „wholesale reflexivity‟ by which he implies tradition may continue in modern period too but at the same time incoming knowledge is also recognized.

The reflexivity changes our behaviours too. He cites the examples of marriage, property, divorce – all are based on statistics. The collection of the statistics to monitor the behaviour sans changes in behaviour. In such sense, modernity is itself deeply intrinsically sociological. In modernity people change their actions thereby changing their fate. Thus the idea of rationality propounded by Enlightenment is challenged by modernity. He put forth the following arguments in support of this:

1. The appropriation of knowledge does not happen in a homogenous fashion as the society have differential levels of power.

2. There is no rational basis of values.

3. The impact of unintended consequences: no matter how much we know, any actions will always have unintended consequences; and

4. The reflexivity of modern social life blocks off the possibility of limiting these unintended consequences: knowledge may be stable, but learning that knowledge makes it unstable.

(Ref: http://jamesarvanitakis.net/theorests/anthony-giddens/)

4. Risk and Modern Society 

Ulrich Beck opines that we are no longer in the era of industrial society, but moving towards „risk society‟. The risk society is a form of modern society or part of reflexive modernization. Giddens views modernity in terms of security versus danger and trust versus risk. He considers modernity as a double-edged phenomenon. Although modernity has created vastly greater opportunities for human beings to enjoy, but at the same time it has a sombre side. In the opportunity side, Giddens discusses the ideas of the founding fathers of sociology viz. Marx, Durkheim and Weber. He makes a re-reading of Marx and Durkheim who looked the modern era as a troubled one, but at the same time the beneficent possibilities overshadowed the negative sides. Marx considers that the class struggle is the fundamental source of schism in the capitalistic order. But at the same time it has envisaged the emergence of a more humane social system. Durkheim believed that expansion of industrialism would establish a harmonious and fulfilling social life through the combination of division of labour and moral individualism. On the other hand Max Weber was much pessimistic, who saw the world as more paradoxical one, where material progress is achieved through the expansion of bureaucracy which crushed the individual creativity and autonomy. Giddens views a number of consequences of modernity. Giving examples of environmental degradation due to industrialisation was never predicated. The consolidation of political power into totalitarianism was also never predicted as despotism is a characteristic of pre-modern state. Giddens holds, „Totalitarianism is distinct from traditional despotism, but is all the more frightening as a result. Totalitarian rule connects political, military, and ideological power in more concentrated form than was ever possible before the emergence of modern nation-states‟ (Giddens 1990) The classical sociology is limited  in understanding of the double-edged nature of modernity; as none of the founding father of sociology gave proper attention on the „industrialization of war‟. Giddens differentiated risk from danger or hazard. Risk can be conceptualized as the active assessment of future hazards.

Modernity is a risk culture. In some sense modernity reduces risk in certain areas and modes of life but at the same time at the same time has introduced some risks which were not part of the traditional social life. He holds, „Modernity is a risk culture. I do not mean by this that social life is inherently more risky than it used to be; for most people that is not the case. Rather, the concept of risk becomes fundamental to the way both lay actors and technical specialists organize the social world. Modernity reduces the overall riskiness of certain areas and modes of life, yet at the same time introduces new risk parameters largely or completely unknown in previous eras‟ (Giddens quoted in Loyal 2003). Influenced by the works of Beck, Giddens looks at the interrelationship of trust, risk and danger. In modern societies trust is derived from the socially organized knowledge in the form of abstract systems. The disembedding mechanisms have provided large areas of security, at the same time creating new array of risks. Giddens posits that, „The possibility of nuclear war, ecological calamity, uncontainable population explosion, the collapse of global economic exchange, and other potential global catastrophes provide an unnerving horizon of dangers for everyone‟ (Giddens 1990). The risk is everywhere irrespective of persons or space.

5. Summary

The following points of importance can be gathered from this chapter:

• In above sections we have discussed Giddens idea of modernity. Strongly arguing that the present condition is not post-modern rather it is an era of high modernity. He has discussed the four institutional dimensions of modernity viz. Capitalism, Industrialism, Surveillance and Military power.
• Giddens discussed the different dynamism of modernity. These are distanciation, disembbeding and reflexivity. Modernity is strongly related to risk, trust and danger. Though modernity created different kind of welfare but at the same time it has brought several risks and dangers to human life in different form.
• Giddens apt fully summarises his whole idea of modernity as: „A runaway engine of enormous power which, collectively as human beings, we can drive to some extent but which also threatens to rush out of control and which could rend itself asunder. The juggernaut crushes those who resist it, and while it sometimes seems to have a steady path, there are times when it veers away erratically in directions we cannot foresee. The ride is by no means wholly unpleasant or unrewarding; it can often be exhilarating and charged with hopeful anticipation. But, so long as the institutions of modernity endure, we shall never be able to control completely either the path or the pace of the journey. In turn, we shall never be able to be entirely secure, because the terrain across which it runs is fraught with risks of high consequence‟ (Giddens 1990).
• According to Giddens, modernity is a risk culture. In some sense modernity reduces risk in certain areas and modes of life but at the same time at the same time has introduced some risks which were not part of the traditional social life.

6. References

1. Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press, 1990.
2. Giddens, Anthony & Christopher Pierson. Conversation with Anthony Giddens. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998.
3. Kuper, Adam & Jessica Kuper. Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences.  London: Routledge, 2004. Steven Loyal. The Sociology of Anthony Giddens. USA: Pluto Press, 2003.
4. Stjepan G.Meštrović. Anthony Giddens: The last modernist. London: Routledge, 1998.