ANTHONY GIDDENS ON MODERNITY

Anthony Giddens is a British sociologist. He has over 34 books published in his name and is
also the author of around 200 articles. Giddens’ work covers a wide range of topics. He is
known for his interdisciplinary approach, involving sociology, anthropology, archaeology,
psychology, philosophy, history, linguistics, economics, social work, and political science.
He has brought many ideas and concepts to the field of sociology. Of particular importance
are his concepts of reflexivity, globalization, modernity,structuration theory, and the Third
Way His writings have been used by world leaders like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton and has
led to the development of what is known as the Third Way in politics. In this essay, I will be
analysing one particular aspect of Gidden’s work i.e. his theory of modernity.

For Giddens, modernity is a qualitative break from the existing traditional social orders. The
transformation that this break entails is both intentional and extensional. Intensionality
incorporates the alteration in the intimate and personal features of day to day life whereas
extensionality incorporates the globalisation of one’s life because of emergence of varied
means like media and internet which help in increasing inter connectedness between different
parts of the globe. He characterises modernity using four basic institutions which are:
Capitalism, Industrialism, Surveillance Capability and Military Power or the monopolisation
of the means of violence through the state. He uses the nation state to analyse the above
mentioned characteristics which being the macro characteristics emerge in different forms.
The processes which enable the manifestation of these characteristics undergo constant
restructuration. There are three processes, which according to Giddens underlie the
dynamism of modernity. The first one is the separation of time and space which came about
when the measurement of time using mechanical clocks was matched with the uniformity of
social organisation. The start of the twentieth century marked a complete break between the
two with the standardisation of calendars. The second is the evolution of disembedding
mechanism. Disembedding mechanism refers to taking out social relations from local context
and placing them in any spatial or temporal zone. Giddens talks about two types of
embedding mechanisms. One of them is symbolic tokens and the other is expert systems. An
important symbolic token is money which can be exchanged irrespective of who uses them.
Expert systems represent the professional expertise of people like lawyers, doctors and
architects which influence what non professionals do. The third process is the continuous
reflexive appropriation of knowledge wherein the information garnered about the social
practices constantly modifies its character.1

Important to both types of disembedding is trust. For Giddens, trust in process, people and
things is fundamental in sustaining ontological security in the modern world, absence of
which leads to existential worry and anxiety. For example a person uses monetary tokens on
the basis of the trust that the other person honours its value. Ontological security in pre
modern times was related to trust rooted in localised contexts of kinship, local community,
religious cosmology and tradition. They used concepts of “fate”, “luck” and “will of gods” to
explain damaging events. Modern society is a risk society. It harbours external risk which
comes from nature and there also exists another form of risk called manufactured risk which
is created by the impact of our activities on the world. In our society, hazards created by man
are more threatening than those that are natural. Nuclear disaster, global warming and
breakdown of world economy fall into the category of manufactured risk.
In his book, “The Consequences of Modernity” he states, “(Modernity is) the modes of social
life of organisations which emerged in Europe from the 17 th century onwards and which
1
[ CITATION Gid90 \l 1033 ]
subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence”. He clearly differentiates
between late modernity and early modernity. He does not agree with thinkers who believe in
the concept of postmodernity. Post modernists say that the age of modernisation has ended
and that a new era has begun. In sharp contrast, Giddens feels that the present age is just a
radical extension of the modernist age.

Giddens views modernity as a juggernaut. Though human beings can collectively drive it,
there is always a probability of it running out of control. Sometimes, the juggernaut can
swerve and go in unanticipated directions. The experience is not fully unrewarding. It often
encompasses exhilaration and wishful anticipation. As long as institutions of modernity
survive, the juggernaut will survive and the path ahead will be laden with risks.

"What to do? How to act? Who to be? These are focal questions for everyone living in circumstances of
late modernity - and ones which, on some level or another, all of us answer, either discursively or through
day-to-day social behaviour”

The continuous change in day to day life contributes to the construction of individual
identities. This is reflexive in nature and the individual also makes choices in the context to
schemes and beliefs within an abstract system. Moreover, as tradition loses its ground, and
the interaction between global and local forces increases, more individuals are compelled to
make lifestyle choices in the presence of an array of options presented to them. The concept
of lifestyle gains importance in the modern world as in this world, the markers established by
traditions lose significance. This is accompanied by “pluralisation of lifeworlds”. The
diversity and differentiation that this world presents us with leads to the creation of multiple
environments for action.2

Though individuals are faced with immense choice, at the same time they battle the doubts
and mistrust regarding even the most trustworthy authorities. Though the modern world
presents more choices than the traditional world did, it restrains us by forcing us to choose.
There is no other option but to choose. In a world where making choices about lifestyle
becomes predominant, strategic planning about the future also becomes important. Giddens
refers to this as “the colonisation of future”. Human beings shape their future in any way that
they want. The future becomes an arena of “counterfactual possibility”3

Along with the transformation of lifestyles, there is also a change in the definition of
intimacy. The self, on becoming a reflexive entity strives for self actualisation by using trust
as a tool to open up to another individual. The mutual self disclosure lays foundation for the
formation of erotic personal ties in the shape of “pure relationship”. The language of intimacy
has also undergone immense change. A change at this level of social organisation is
indicative of a much larger change. A “democratisation of emotions” has taken place. This
means that relationships are now based on open negotiations and arbitration rather than on
traditional roles and norms.4

Another example explored by Giddens is the emergence of romantic love, which Giddens ( The
Transformation of Intimacy) links with the rise of the 'narrative of the self' type of self-identity: "Romantic
love introduced the idea of a narrative into an individual's life.

2
[ CITATION Ant91 \l 1033 ]
3
[ CITATION Ste03 \l 1033 ]
4
[ CITATION Gid98 \l 1033 ]
Giddens also maps a relationship between modernity and self identity. In the traditional
world, identity is rooted to external reference points like kinship, locality and community. It
is not the same in today’s world. The identities have been separated from any external
reference points. A person is responsible for his or her own identity. He is liable to steer his
way through the risks and promises that modern societies offer. Though this reconciliation
between threats and promises seems to give rise to apprehension and anxiety, individuals also
contribute to how they want the society to function. They deliberate over matters of moral
conduct as they did in traditional societies. Giddens refers to this as the “remoralisation” of
social life wherein he explains that though politics remains a salient feature of society, the
foundations of political life have undergone massive change. He does not root politics in
morality. Rather, he says, politics has gone beyond left or right.5

To sum it up, modernity for Giddens is

Bibliography
Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self Identity. Cambridge:Polity Press, 1991.
—. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge:Polity Press, 1990.
Giddens, Anthony, and Christopher Pierson. Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of
Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Loyal, Steven. Sociology of Anthony Giddens. London: Pluto Press, 2003.

5
[ CITATION Gid98 \l 1033 ]