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.
Class is a key idea related to inequality, prejudice and discrimination in Australian society. It has been considered out of fashion, because some Australian people think that there is no class difference between people in Australia, everyone enjoys equality in society. In fact, the recent de-regulation of the workplace, and the widening gap in access to hospitals, schools and employment opportunities between the rich and poor, have made class more visible in Australian than ever before. Class is "a category of people who have generally similar educational histories, job opportunities, and social standing and who are conscious of their membership in a social group that is ranked in relation to others and is replicated over generations" (Kent, 1998:87). This essay argues that class cause continues to inequality in Australian society. Firstly, class structures labor market inequality. Secondly, class shapes the quality of a person's life. Thirdly, class inequality produces continuing class differences into the next generation. Finally, class has becoming a debate in Australian society, because class inequality encourages the `right' people to work more efficiently in the workforce and helps people to identify themselves in society, but continuing relevance of the concept of class is a matter in contemporary Australia.
Is class still relevant in Australia? To facilitate this question, the readings of Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Max Weber, Helen Marshall, R.W. Connell and T.H. Irving will be considered.
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
“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)
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.
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:
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.
“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).
James Marcia’s theory of identity formation was based on Erik Erikson 's “psychosocial stage theory” (Diessner, 2008) identity versus identity confusion. The foundation of which he used to identify, and divide one’s
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
Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
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
Fulcher, J. and Scott, J. (2003) Sociology, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Giddens, A. (1992) Human Societies: A reader, Polity Press: Cambridge. Giddens, A., ed., pp. 113-117.
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.