Unit 29

Theories of Modernisation and

Modernity
Contents
29.1 Introduction
29.2 Approaches to Modernisation
29.3 Implication of Modernisation Theories
29.4 Phases in Modernisation Processes
29.5 Modernisation : The Asian Syndrome
29.6 Modernisation Process as a Whole
29.7 The Phenomena of Modernity
29.8 Approaches to Modernity
29.9 Conclusion
29.10 Further Reading
29.11 References

Learning Objectives
After having read this unit you will be able to,
define Modernisation
outline approaches, implications, and phases of Modernisation
discuss Modernisation in India
describe the phenomena of modernity
outline the approaches to modernity

29.1 Introduction
The theories of Modernisation inform us about how the various parts of the
world developed into industrial powers. The approaches/theories that describe
and analyse how and why this happened are the subject of the initial part
of this lesson. Thereafter we will turn to modernity and see how a
presentation and analysis of the same helps our understanding of modern
western society as also the social processes witnessed in some Asian societies.
Thus Modernisation is an outcome of various social processes. The major
events in this historical development began after the IInd world war and
these include the emergence of America (US) as a superpower in the globe
which had the result of trying to styme the rise of communism. To bring
about this aim of ‘containment ‘ the US invested greatly in the strengthening
of the economic base of certain countries including Western Europe, South
Korea and Japan. Modernisation also stems from the growth of the communist
movements in China Vietnam, Soviet Union (now no longer existing as a
communist bloc) and Cuba. The third of these processes include the factors
of decolonialisation in Asia and Africa and the termination of colonies
controlled by European powers.

At this point of time the former colonies had to face the challenge of
adopting some appropriate model of growth. In this they were assisted and
helped by the US which sent vast teams of social scientists to study the
165
Issues of Modernity ground situation in the new nations states. The idea behind this move of
the US was to see how capitalist ideologies could be used in the economic
growth of these nations most of whom were poor due to the long period of
colonisation which had greatly debilitated their resources and has been
deeply exploited. This included the export of raw materials which were
turned into products and commodities and reexported to the colonies so as
to make great economic profits. This strategy of supplanting capitalism and
capitalist ideologies was no doubt also an attempt to the influence of
communist ideology and to destroy it over a period of time. There is thus
a great dimension of political maneuvers and ideology which is involved in
the process of Modernisation. Thus the scholars in all fields of social science
studied these societies and their findings began to be published soon after
the IInd world war. The main tools of analysis and of subsequent published
included primarily the evolutionary theory and secondly the functionalist
theory. Let us describe these approaches now so that the overall process of
Modernisation begins to be clear. Thus evolutionary theory and theorists
pointed out the several factors which comprised the view point of this
approach found social charge in these societies to be in a linear progression
going from primitive to complex society. This was held to be so in all societies.
Again this theory and the theorists associated with it held that such linear
progress of societies was leading to a better world and represented the
good of humanity and civilization at large. Further social change was envisioned
as a gradual occurrence and was dissociated from any sudden and violent
chain of events eg revolution. Change was slow and steady and not sudden
and violent as the communist ideology upheld. This slow change considering
the situation of modern societies was felt to take enormous spans of time
running in to centuries, not just decades. Thus the functionalist theorists,
foremost of whom was Parsons, built up various tenets to promote its view
point the main ones being the analogy of society as being an organism which
had various interrelated segments in societal institutions. In this organismic
entity (society) each of the various institutions performed a particular part
which contributed to the whole. This theory propagated that there were
four main functions which the institutions performed. These were the
functions of - (a) adaptation to the environment performed by the capitalist
economic system. Then was the function of. (b) goal attainment which was
a government function a function which encompassed liberal aims(Rojas 1996:
p1). Next came the function of integration performed by legal and religious
institutions, specifically the Christian religion. Finally there is the latency
function performed by the family and by educational institutions.

29.2 Approaches to Modernisation

Thus Modernisation approaches distinguished between traditional societies
and modern societies. Thus the traditional societies were such that they
tended to have a large personal, face to face nature which was felt to be
inferior in terms of market relations. On the other hand modern societies
tended to be neutral and therefore much more capable of dealing with and
exploiting the market and the environment.

One of the key institutions in the society is the family and the nature of this
differed again in traditional and modern societies. Thus the family in
traditional societies was responsible for many functions. That is to say it is
multifunctional and covered issues of religion, welfare, education,
reproduction also emotional scaffolding. On the other hand the modern
166 family which the functions of the family are now the domain of the state.
In this theory social disturbances occur when any of the parts of society Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
begin to malfunction or to fail to deliver what was expected of it to maintain
the status quo. Disturbances include peaceful / violent agitation, revolution,
guerilla warfare and now terrorism. However there is a disturbing side to
these activities because any individual / institution that provokes the state
and the status quo is deliberately and often violently desisted and resisted
for doing so. These actions are deliberately viewed as action which is
humanitarian. The question of human rights is a recent phenomena and
organisations have be instituted to ensure that democracy is not violated at
the cost of middle level disturbances whether by groups or by institutions.

Box 29.1: Mc Donaldization

If we equate formal rationality with modernity, then the success and spread
of the fast food restaurant, as well as to the degree to which it is serving
as a model for much of the rest of society, indicate that we continue to live
in a modern world…

While there may be other changes in the economy which support the idea
of a post industrial society, the fast food restaurant and the many other
elements that are modeled after it do not. (Ritzer 1996, sociological theory.
P:579).

Smelser’s point of view differed somewhat from what we have been pointing
out. He took as his point of attention the effect of the economy and related
institutions on the overall social structure. He pointed out that in
Modernisation process society developed from simple technology to complex
ideology. Further this was a movement away from subsistence to cash crops
so far as agriculture is concerned. Again Smelser indicated that machine
power begins to dominate pushing aside simply human (physical) labour.
Finally there is an emphasis on urbanisation and urban structures rather than
development of the rural areas. Smelser however was realistic enough to
realise that these developments were not simple and linear but that these
processes took place at the same time (together) but not at the same rate
(Smesler, 1969).

Also such changes would occur at a different pace at different social structure
and societies. In other words there was not one single trajectory towards
social change because the traditions were varied in different societies. They
therefore provided different kinds of challenges. Similarly Rostow published
a theory of Modernisation which took the terminology of aviation and
proposed various stages of development.

This theory talks of a primitive society moving on to get preconditions for

the pre “take – off” onto the “take- off stage”, the drive to maturity and
finally to a mass consumption society. Thus for Rostow (Rostow, 1960)
economic development goes through various stages and that this is universal
to all societies, and that Modernisation is a process of homogenisation, of
Europeanization, irreversible progressive, evolutionary and transformative.
This theory has some questionable implications. Thus following this theory
it is implied that the nations which are traditional have as their ultimate
model western advanced societies which they must emulate in every way to
themselves reach an advanced state/modern state. This in itself implies that
the capitalist state and ideology is the path to be followed by the under
developed states. Thus Modernisation and theories explaining it accept
167
Issues of Modernity without hesitation that American policies of trade and foreign policy, and
that of international relations have to be accepted and subscribed to because
they are at the core of the modernising process.

29.3 Implication of Modernisation Theories

As you will have noticed that there is a heavy western bias in these theories
and their implications. Modernisation theory itself is mostly a western product
and sets up these societies as an ideal that the less developed countries
must follow without hesitation including capitalist ideology because this
‘‘works’’ and works best. However dependency theory takes a wider global
perspective. It points out that the problems faced in development are not
just those of social structure in traditional societies but in large part due to
world wide structures imposed by the Western world, or the North.

Reflection and Action 29.1

Do you think that the “metropolis-satellite” relationship between countries
of north and south still exists? Give reasons for your answer.

Thus Andre Gunder Frank has pointed out that relations between North and
South are arranged as a chain described by him as “metropolis – satellite”
relationships. Thus we can see that there is an underlying hierarchy in world
relations (Foster-Coster, 1985). At the top of the chain is the metropolis (US)
that has no strong dependence on other regions. We then go on to the
strong dependencies but are dependent on the USA (or other well developed
Western societies) for aid or any other kind of help. The downward chain
continues and culminates right down to states (nations) which are very
highly or even totally dependent on the nations higher up in the hierarchy
of dependencies for almost everything in food, fertilizers, clothes,
automobiles, machines etc.

According to Frank such dependencies become a problem when a State

wants to develop itself economically and socially. Thus such moves often call
for sanctions against the satellite states by the metropolises on which the
satellite is dependent. This means also that dependency of this sort stems
the freedom to chose by the satellite states, and to try and evolve in their
own way because whatever they have by way of economic wealth is consumed
by the nations higher in the hierarchy.

This theory is readily witnessed in international relations and the aid to the
third world by the North have the most exploitative terms and conditions,
which ensure that the satellite states can never be free of the donor in
economic terms. Frank opines that the dismantling of such relations can
alone lead to development along the lines that the third world nations want.
Thus dependency theory is opposed to Modernisation theory, but it is
definitely an alternative explanation. Further such an explanation exposes
some harsh realities of contemporary societies across the globe. Modernisation
theory is more of an ideology whereas dependency theories exposes the
harsh economic international realities. Neither of them has produced any
specific development just attributable to them. It may be noted however
that Modernisation has since the 17th century has had an affect, beginning
with the Western countries, impacted all over the globe. To give an example
let us turn to the field of communication. Thus Modernisation theories shed
light on how the media is affected by these relatively recent changes both
168 in relatively traditional and postmodern societies we may note that the
Modernisation theories we have been discussing can be seen to have evolved Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
in three relatively distinct phases. The first phase of these theories began
in the 1950s and 1960s and tried to explain how Western styles of living
gradually spread all over the globe (world). These was also a spread of
technological innovations and the ideology of individualism.

29.4 Phases in Modernisation Processes

The economic aspect where the mass media helped to spread technological
innovations that were at the core of Modernisation.
Cultural development including education and literacy rates. This too was
aided by the mass media which can promote modernity.
Identify development especially a rational identity was also helped by the
media including the process of nation building and elections.

However a basic shortcoming of these approaches to Modernisation was

their Western bias. Now the second phase of Modernisation was linked to
critical theory that held away in the 1980s. These theories are in fact a
critique of the western impact of Modernisation. Thus according to the
media dependency theory there was a dependence of the developing countries
on the mass media of the western world. That is to say the peripheral
countries depended upon the core. Now we come to the third phase of the
development of Modernisation theory beginning in the 1990s. These theories
attempted to be neutral in their approach. Thus according to Giddens modern
society (Giddens, A. 1991) and culture is marked by time space distantiation
and disembbeding features or characteristics. Thus while traditional society
involves much face to face interaction by those living in proximity to each
other in modern cultures and societies the space across which interaction
occurs using mass media. Thus the disembedding process such as currency,
symbols, the internet and english language all help bring the North and South
into a clearer focus. We now term to another area of Modernisation which
has its presentation and analysis based on work in India.

29.5 Modernisation: The Asian Syndrome

Yogendra Singh points out at the beginning of his analysis that prior to
Modernisation the traditions of India were based on the various principles
of hierarchy, holism, continuity and transcendence. These were the basic
aspects of tradition. These factors to some extent existed also in the
traditional west. However as Singh notes Indian and Western tradition were
in fact divergent to each other. This arose specifically from their own differing
historical background their specific social and cultural heritage and overall
social situation. Singh asks whether despite these differences would it lead
to a universal model of Modernisation? Singh distinguishes between social
change perse and Modernisation. Social change as such need not necessarily
imply Modernisation. However the changes which were ortho-genetic and
hetero- genetic were pre-modern. Thus the Islamic tradition in India was
heterogenetic and was established by conquest. Thus endogenous change in
Hinduism were confined to Sanskritisation. This in itself was based on a
historical process which took many generations and was positional alone not
structural. Modernisation in India commenced with its contact with the
west which brought about vast changes in the Indian social structure. However
it cannot be said that all contacts led to Modernisation. In fact Singh notes
that in the process of contact with the west certain traditional institutions
169
Issues of Modernity also got further strengthened. Thus as Singh notes it would be misleading
to think of a clear polarity between tradition and modernity, and he feels
this is more theoretical than actual.

Box 29.2: Changes in Traditional India

The changes which thus occurred were confined to differentiation within the
framework of traditional social structure and values; structural changes
were way few, and those which took place were limited in respect of the
type of roles ….Similar development in religious role structure and
organisations partially followed the emergence of other traditions. But these
changes by no means could be called structural, since differentiation of roles
was segmental and did not alter the system as a whole. (Yogendra Singh,
1986, The Modernisation Of Indian Tradition: p:193).

During the British period Modernisation was selective and sequential. It was
not in synchronisation with family caste and village. These areas were not
of much concern by the British, more so after the revolt of 1857. British
administration felt that these structures were not dynamic and were
autonomous, especially the village and caste system. Caste was considered
in the army and beaurocrasy, and in the national movement of a communal
electorate was introduced. Singh feels these factors influenced the post
colonial Modernisation process. The process of Modernisation found expression
and ground in the freedom struggle of India led by Mahatma Gandhi whose
actions and mobilisation of the masses led to what Singh calls a new political
culture of Modernisation. However, Gandhi was not able to avert the partition
of the nation into two because the historical background of Islam and Hinduism
was different.

Singh asks how Modernisation can lead to an integrative pattern which is

rather a complicated one whether this is overt or convert. How can a society
avert a structural breakdown. From here on in the answer we are on familiar
ground (discussed earlier in this unit) as Singh turns to the main theories of
Modernisation, that is the structural and the evolutionary theories of
Modernisation. These approaches have been adequately discussed earlier
and we will not repeat them again. The student can at this point go back
to the beginning of the unit before reading further.

29.6 Modernisation Process as a Whole

In this analysis Singh now turns towards a discussion of Modernisation as a
whole. He points out that Modernisation did not lead to institutional and
structural breakdown because of the characteristics of society in India. One
of these characteristics was the political structures. Further the caste system
itself was also independent of the political system. Thus the various which
village areas had their own councils (panchayat) through which they
attempted to solve village level problems. This type of inter structural
independence was a great facilitator of Modernisation, but as pointed out
earlier did not lead to societal breakdown. Thus Singh notes that modernity
developed as a sub-structure and sub-culture rather an over arching entity.
Over time however this segmental presence of Modernisation became
‘encompassing’ and the structural autonomy was no longer the prime ‘shock-
absorber’. Again changes in political systems made this pervade on society
and stratification cultures. In its wake there are stresses on the entire
cultural system. However it is clear that Modernisation requires adaptive
170 changes in value systems which are non traditional in terms of values and
norms. Singh gives the example of the process of secularism and untouchability Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
which are definitely part of the Modernisation process in present day India
which is resisted by the traditional value system (Singh, 1986).

Reflection and Action 29.2

To what extent does Modernisation lead to the breakdown of inequality? Give
reasons to support you’re your answer.

Singh asks again whether society in India be able to avoid “structural

breakdown” in what he refers to as the “second phase” of Modernisation?
Further the absence of the structural autonomy creates serious problems or
“bottlenecks” for the transition to modernity? Thus Singh opines that in the
cultural area legislations have altered the overall landscape since they have
been made with a view to terminate social inequality and its attendant
exploitation and alienation, and pave the way towards democratic rights and
other commitments made in the constitution of India. Such processes have
pushed society in India away from the positional changes of Srinivas’s theory
of Sanskrilisation. In place of this process these has been a creation of new
identifies, caste associations and tribes. This process in itself is speeded up
by the Great Traditions of Modernisation eg education, industrialisation and
urbanisation. Further Singh notes that traditional structures are being
mobilised for modern objectives and protest movements. Paradoxically tradition
itself is strengthened because media and transport processes spread ritual
structures, and help organise further the various religious groups and
activities. Again religious sects and other religious groupings employ the
bureaucratic approach and this is in part responsible towards the integration
of sects from the overarching religious order. However Singh is careful to
point out that in the post colonial period of Modernisation there have been
several structural changes. Thus caste, family, village, and community retained
their traditional identity. Caste especially has been witnessed to be extreme
fluid and adaptive to new situations and has in no way been abolished so
far as the ground reality is concerned. Further caste has adopted to the
modern era in India by involving itself in many different areas such as
democratic participation, politics and trade unionism, and is tenacious in its
persistence more so in the area of joint family groups.

Modernisation in the colonial era was relatively homogenous in the elite

structures. Thus the elite from industry, military and politics came from a
background in caste and class stratum. These elite had access to modern
education and had similar ideologies. It is clear then that the base for such
elites was fairly delimited. In the post independence era this narrow base
has increased. The result of this that there is a differentiation between the
elites themselves, broadly the political and the non political elite. Singh
points out that the political elite is less Westernized and identify much more
with traditionality and symbols related to it. Singh also notes that the federal
structure of a one party system has given way to a multiparty system, with
the subsequent divergence in ideologies. Further the income created by the
various FYPs has mainly benefited those who are already rich rather than the
poor, especially rural masses. Thus the attempt to plan has accentuated the
divide between the rich and the poor. Again the fast rate of growth in
population has itself created structural tensions. Thus till recently the
industrialisation process India remained what Singh calls a ‘rural-peasant’
type of society, except for pockets such as the metropolitans of India of
which there are few in India.
171
Issues of Modernity These structural inconsistencies arise therefore from a variety of sources;
these are:
Democratisation without appropriate civic culture
Bureaucratisation without universalistic norms
Growth of the mass media.
Aspiration growth without increased resources and distributive justice.
Stress on welfare ideology only at the verbal level.
Over urbanisation without inadequate and proper charges in the social
strata.

Singh cites Gunnar Myrdal according to whom nationalism and democracy

have grown in an uneven way in Asia. In western societies an independent
state, effective government and adequate law enforcement proceeded
nationalism and democracy. In contrast in South Asia this was not the case
and therefore this imbalance also created a economic dependence on
developed countries. It also meant slow economic development and extremely
tardy changes in institutions.

In India especially with a larger percentage of intellectuals and middle classes

which are important for a real democracy, Modernisation did not proceed
unimpeded. As Myrdal notes the “soft–state” approach meant a serious blow
for social change which can be “circular” or “cumulative”. Myrdal does not
subscribe to evolutionary stages of growth which he feels is a teleological
and conservative ideology. Thus the Modernisation process in India is moving
towards a critical phase. However Singh is of the view that these stresses
and contradictions will not lead to institutional breakdown. He feels that a
‘constant coordination of Modernisation’ is absolutely essential for a
democracy based Modernisation in India. He is also of the view that
Modernisation is not a single monolithic process and can and does differ
from one society to another.

29.7 The Phenomena of Modernity

Let us now turn to a related concept and a related process to Modernisation
viz. the phenomena of modernity. Thus the term modernity is a term employed
to discuss the stage of a society that is more developed than another
society. This term is usually employed to describe a society that uses world
wide capitalism as the model to overall world development. Thus when a
society is has the characteristics of modernity it is named a modern society.
On the other hand the process of becoming a modern society is called
Modernisation (as we have seen earlier). The defining features of such modern
societies is:
Emergence of nation state
Industrialisation and capitalism
Rise of democracy
Heavier dependence on technological innovation
Attendant urbanisation
The overall development in mass media

In western Europe some of the defining features include:

Renaissance and enlightenment
172
 Reformation and counter reformation Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
French Revolution and American Revolution
The Industrial Revolution

Many attempts have been made is sociology to try and define modernity.
Some of the factors used to define modernity include:-
Disenchantment of the world
Rationalisation
Mass society
Secularisation
Democratisation, and so on

Thus modernity is often contextualised by comparing modern societies to

pre or post modern societies. This in itself creates some problems in terms
of being able to define modernity. This is especially difficult when we try to
construct a three stage model from pre modern to modern, and then onto
post modernity. The features we have noted is a movement from somewhat
isolated communities to more large scale integrated societies. In this sense
Modernisation could be understood as a process which is not unique to
Europe alone.

Box 29.3: Cultural Crystallisation

One of Germay’s leading social philosophers in the Adenauer period following
the second world war, Gehlen (1963) proposed the theory of “cultural
crystallisation” to describe the modern situation. According to Gehlen in a
famous phrase, “the premises of the Enlightenment are dead, only their
consequences remain”. In his view the institutional complexes of modern
society have separated themselves from cultural modernity which can now
be discarded… cultural ideas are no longer able to produce the “new” that
was central to modernity (Genard Delanty 2000, Modernity and Postmodernity,
p:73).

Thus large scale integration implies that there is a vibrant economy which
reaches out to all parts of a nation state. This in itself is possible when
mobility in the society has increased. Further these developments imply
specialisation with is a society and linking up of sectors. However these
processes can sometimes appear to be paradoxical. Thus a unique local culture
loses its identity by these increasingly powerful influences of cultural factors
eg. Folktales, popular music and homogenisation of cultures, food recipes.
These factors are found to exist in a greater or lesser extent in all local
cultures, and helps to diversify them. This is found to a greater extent in
the metropolitan towns where mobility is higher.

Thus bureaucracy and hierarchical aspect of governments and the industrial

sector are the areas which grow in power in an unprecedented manner.
However the role of the individual still exits in such a society where there
is dynamic competition and individualism, both exist side by side. This is
then quite different from societies where the role of the individual is
ascriptive. That is to say the individual in modern societies is influenced by
more than family background and family preoccupations.

Now it is necessary to point of that such social changes are found at different
173
Issues of Modernity levels of social integration, and are not simply the features of European
society at any particular point of time. These changes can happen when two
communities merge together. Thus when two individuals develop a
relationship the division of roles also tend to merge. Again in the process of
globalisation we find the international flows of capital change the ground
situation. Thus while it can be said that modernity has some apparently
contradictory elements in reality these can be reduced to several simple
concepts related to social change.

How then does this view of modernity explain the world wide influences of
West European and American societies since the Renaissance. Initially, we
can say that the internal factor is that only in Europe, that rational thinking
began to substitute intellectual activities that were shrouded in superstition
and religion.

Secondly, there was an external elements as well, and this was the factor of
colonisation, which created an exploitation nexus between these societies,
which were exploited and others which exploited the societies.

However we find that there are many traces of ancient societies which
coexist within the umbrella of modernity. This includes joint families, small
scale enterprise, vast income diversity and so on. It has however been
argued that features many in fact be regarded as aspects of modernity itself
rather than any threat to it.

Modernisation was very beneficial to society in many ways, especially in the

field of health and in the field of nutrition. Thus fatal diseases were controlled
or eliminated, and the values of egalitarianism began manifesting themselves.

However some drawbacks are also there and the picture is not just positive.
This not only did technological advantages breed greater economic wealth
but also developed nuclear bombs two of which were dropped on Nagasaki
and Hiroshima. Nuclear technology still evokes negative responses, when it
is proposed to be used for military purposes. Similarly the degradation of
environment and overall pollution are well known. However decreasing
biodiversity , climate change all result from a hyper individual society.
Psychological problems and laxity of morals also create problems of modernity.

29.8 Approaches to Modernity

Thus as Taylor points out there are at least two approaches for the
comprehension of how modernity came into being. These are ways of
comprehending what makes the existing society so very different from that
which enveloped man before modernity arose.

One method looks at the differences in contemporary western society and

culture and medieval Europe as similar to the difference between medieval
Europe and medieval India. So we can think about and analyse difference
between civilizations, and their attendant culture. On the other hand the
situation can be looked at from the viewpoint of change involving the end
of one type of traditional society and the coming into being of modern
societies. The latter perspective is the more influential one and it provides
an analysis that gives a different perspective. The approach mentioned first
is a cultural approach and the second an a-cultural approach. In the cultural
174 approach there are many cultures, which have in them language and cultural
practices that help us to understand the self the other psychological sets, Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity
religion, morality and so on. These factors are specific to a culture and are
often non comparable. Keeping the above in view a cultural theory of
modernity outlines first and then analyses the transformation into the new
culture. The present day world can be seen as a culture with specific
comprehension of the self and morality. Thus this model of modernity can be
seen and used analytically to contrast with the earlier aspects of civilization
(Taylor, 2004). On the other hand, an acultural theory describes the entire
process in terms of some culture neutral analysis. This implies that the
entire process is not analysed in terms of culture that existed and then
transformed into modernity. Rather it is considered too general an approach
that can be seen as the process any traditional society would undergo. Thus
acultural theory conceives of modernity as the rise of reason in different
ways such as the growth of scientific consciousness, development of secular
thought ways, instrumental rationality, fact finding and evolution.

Modernity can also be explained and accounted for in socio-cultural terms

and also intellectual shifts. Thus transformation social, cultural, individual
can be seen to arise from increased mobility, demographic changes,
industrialisation and so on. In such cases as mentioned above modernity is
conceived of as transformations which all cultures can go through and will
undergo in due course of time.

Such changes are not defined in terms of individualism, morality, good and
evil. They are instead talking of cultures and civilizations as a whole.

Box 29.4: Explanations of Modernity

...Explanations of modernity in terms of reason seem to be the most popular.
Even social explanations tend to invoke reason. Social transformations, like
mobility and industrialisation are thought to bring about intellectual and
spiritual changes because they shake people loose from old habits and beliefs
__
religion or traditional morality __ which then become unsustainable because
they lack the kind of independent rational grounding that the beliefs of
modernity __ such as individualism or instrumental reason __ are assumed to
have (Charles Taylor, 2004, Two Theories of Modernity).

Thus any culture would be impacted by the increase in scientific

consciousness, secularisation of religion and the growth of instrumental
thinking. Modernity then, in this approach/theory issues from rationality
which is culture-neutral. This is despite the fact that the theory can account
for why modernity arose in one society rather than another; or why it arose
in some societies first and other later. In fact the theory does not lay down
specific points or stages into modernity but as something general that can
take any particular culture as its input. So this operation/transformation is
not to be seen as a perspective about human values or shared meanings. In
the case of social explanations, causality is assigned to developments like
industrialisation that do impact on values. Considering then the explanations
in terms of rationality, this is thought to be the exercise of a “general
capacity” which was ripe for maturing and unfolding. Given specific conditions,
people see scientific thinking as having a place in society. They will also see
that instrumental rationality is beneficial. Again religious beliefs are by no
means universal or undisputed, and require a leap of faith. Finally facts and
values are separated.

175
Issues of Modernity Now these transformations are facilitated by the presence of certain values
and understandings and are hindered by other types of cultural values if
they happen to be the dominant ones. These transformations are defined
by the whole social and cultural context existing at any point of time.

We can see then that the dominant theories of modernity over the last few
centuries have been of the acultural type. Modernity also involves a shift in
the individual and community perspective. This is because until the viewpoint
changes the society concerned cannot move from a pre-modern to modern
and onto post modernity. On the other hand Weber paradoxically argues that
the rationalisation (an important aspect of modernity) is a steady process,
which was cultural general rather than culture specific. Similarly the process
of pre- modern to modern in society was explained by Durkheim in terms of
the transformation from mechanical to organised forms of social solidarity.
This is an also the aspect of Tocqueville’s concept of “creeping democracy”
in which there was a move towards greater sense and actualisation of equality
among the various strata of society. These are all different but at the same
time related activities.

29.9 Conclusion
Given all these types if explanations Taylor still feels that explanations and
analyses of modernity focusing on reason are the most accepted ones.
Explanations focusing on the social still tend to talk of reason transformations
that are social. Thus the factors of mobility and industrialisation are felt to
bring about intellectual and spiritual changes since they tend to create new
layers of conditioning which by pass the old layers. That is they loosen old
habits and beliefs, whether religion or the old morality including individualism
and instrumental reason. There is however the question of negative theories
of modernity which do not have the positive or beneficial view of modern
developments and see society going into a decline with the onset and the
maturing of modernity. Thus rather than seeing modernity as having unleased
many capacities in different directions, negative theories, see it as a
dangerous development. These too are essentially acultural theories. Thus
modernity is characterised by a loss of perspective, an erasure of roots,
dependence on history or even God. Thus the negative theories of modernity
see it as a loss of the previous state of overall well being.

That is to say that the arrival of modernity and all its various facets has to
be seen as a mixed blessing. On one side are the positive socially relevant
areas and technological development. On the other are the problems
associated with the arrival of and settling down of modernity. Here the
negatively oriented theorists point of that modernity has its own problems
created by a fast developing technology that has its impact on the overall
life of the people.

Thus while modernity began in the sixteenth century at the time of

Enlightenment, it continued to develop until the beginning of the 20th century.
In other words modernity has its “discontents” as well. Let us briefly mention
what these are.

Firstly we must realise that modernity does have problems as we pointed

out. The belief in development and progress, forward looking attitude, the
dependence on rationality and reason have also given rise to optimism that
176 was betrayed by doubts raised by post traditional thought. However we
must note that modernity achieved a lot of social structural changes. Theories of Modernisation
and Modernity

Thus the routine behavior on day to day basis alters and changes as technology
develops. This is because technological innovations and inventions since
Enlightenment have altered the entire fabrics of the world, restricting itself
to large well developed towns, cities, and metropolitans. It is capitalism
which has basically been the power behind the innovations and inventions.

The airplane and motor car have from an initial slow start become integral
parts of daily life the world over. Thus time and space have conceptually
receeded and nothing can be done in the modern world with precise timing
and adequate space. Thus mechanical solidarity has given way to organic
solidarity to use the terms coined by Durkheim. Weber’s concept of
rationalisation has pervaded the modern world and given rise to precise type
of thinking. Further urbanism saw large scale migrations. Discipline, secularity,
alienation, anomic and the iron cage of bureaucracy are all parts of the
organic structure of beaurocratic organisation in the modern world.

29.10 Further Reading

Delanty Gerard 2000, Modernity and Postmodernity: Knowledge, Power and
The Self. London, Sage

Lyon, David, 1999, Postmodernity. Bnckingham: Open University Press

Singh Yogendra, 1986, Modernisation of Indian Tradition. Jaipur , Rawat

Publications

Wagner, Peter 2001, Theorizing Modernity; Inescapability and Attainability in

Social Theory. London, Sage

29.11 References
Giddens, A (1991) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford : California.

Foster-Carter, Aidan 1985, The Sociology of Development. Canseway Press,

California

Rostow W.W. 1960, The Stages of Economic Growth : A Non Communist

Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Semlser N.1969, “Mechanisms of and Adjustment to Change” in T.Buns (ed)

“Industrial Man”, Perguin 1969.

Rojas Robinson, 2004, Modernisation Theory and The Law of Change Retrieved
From http://www.Rrojasatabank.org/Capital8.html.

Singh Yogendra 1986, The Modernisation of Indian Tradition. Jaipur Rawat .

Taylor Charles 2004, Two Theories of Modernity. Retrieved :Taylor X. html.

177
 Unit 30
Tradition and Modernity
Contents
30.1 Introduction
30.2 Tradition Society and Culture
30.3 Tradition and Modernity
30.4 Modernity as a Juggernaut
30.5 Ontological Insecurity and Modernity
30.6 Modernity Rationality and Norms
30.7 Conclusion
30.8 Further Reading
30.9 References

Learning Objectives
After reading this unit you will be able to
describe the concept of tradition
define modernity
outline the “juggernaut” of modernity
discuss modernity and rationality

30.1 Introduction
In this unit we will take up the topics of tradition and modernity. At the very
outset it is pointed out that tradition and modernity are not contradictory
or competing concepts. Rather they represent different faces of meaning
and are in fact symbiotically related to each other. As such tradition (s) is the
ground from which all manner of modernity arises. Further we may point out
that as it stands tradition has to be qualified, which it is to say it could be
a local tradition or an all-society tradition. Thus these are many different
strands to the thinking on tradition and there are very many differing
interpretations. Thus tradition is a live and vital factor in many cultures and
could be:
Tradition of food and edibles
Tradition of music and dance
Scriptural tradition
Artistic tradition
Martial arts tradition
Sociological tradition
Tradition and attire

Thus the terms ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’ do not exist in isolation of each
other but are in fact related to each other. While these terms concepts and
processes exist, they exist and function dialogically. Thus modernity is an
economic force while tradition is fundamentally cultural and social.

What is the role of tradition is a pertinent point here. Tradition is basically

178 a series of attitudes, languages, music, art, scholarship and so on which have
been developing since ages past. Over the passage of time tradition becomes Tradition and Modernity

more or less entrenched in the body politic and we have even traditional law
and scriptures in any case are an aspect of tradition. Now why is tradition
so important to the individual and society? This is because it provides a
continuity to social process and garners the creative and improvisational and
transmits these traditions to the forthcoming generations of the members
of a given society and thereby assuring survival of the society itself. Tradition
is, therefore, a repository of survival mechanisms without which a society
would fail to cohere. It would set fragmented and break up, the result of
which would be anomic. Let us consider the music tradition in India. In this
particular tradition of classical music there are “gharanas” or groupings, and
each of these has a lineage comprising the singers who had commenced or
inaugurated the gharana and all those who have passed their talent down
the line producing maestros who would take over charge once the older
musicians went on into retirement.

Now, once there is an example to work upon we can see that tradition also
implies a life-style, a way of living. As such the training in music, art, drama
is very rigid and within the confines of tradition which often passes by vote
and repetition of movement, notes, or other exercise which any particular
training may require. Usually with the teaching of traditional music and
dance are an endless series of do’s and don’ts which is what tradition is all
about. Thus tradition refers to a body of knowledge that has a structured
inventory of actions and ideology that comprise its legitimate domain.
Thereafter it is a question of pinpointing what area of tradition is it that we
are referring to. Thus on examination we find that tradition itself has a
reasonably long duration for which it has established itself; further there are
many different strands or what we may call “varieties of tradition.” Then to
continue with the example of music gharanas in India we find that there is
a basic division between north Indian classical music and South Indian classical
music. Each of these two basic divisions has numerous subdivisions and so
on. It is, therefore, a misnomer to treat the concept of tradition as a term
which covers everything in society and culture. Thus if it is held that the
tradition of music is very strong in India, it may also be asked “what type
of music tradition is it that is being referred to? ’’

Clearly then tradition also represents a rubric under which all little traditions
can be assimilated. If it is considered in depth tradition can be seen to
involve various different types of activities within it which would need some
brief elaboration. Tradition thus encompasses and embodies:
a particular process or legacy
sub traditions which from the field from which required contributions
can be made
a historical aspect, either oral or scripted
a certain concept of the supernatural
economic structures of sustainance
aspects of indigenous art
facts of architecture
scholarship in all areas of social concern
literature both scriptural and others
technological structures
military for self defense or offence 179
Issues of Modernity Thus tradition is clearly a type of structure and ideology that has a past and
charges over time to absorb developments in that field so that tradition
remains itself, but at the same time recreates and expands itself.

30.2 Tradition, Society and Culture

Tradition then is “accreted” over time and its boundaries become increasingly
well defined. This means that tradition expands or contracts depending
upon the social and cultural situation. Further it would be wrong to assume
that traditions constantly expand and that progress is always linear. It is
quite possible that there is non linear retrogression as well. A third situation
arises when tradition develops an entropic tendency and stagnates for some
time before once again addressing progression (linear forward movement) or
retrogression.

Thus tradition begins when a particular action or activity is seen to be of

significance to the society. However, as we have pointed out that there are
many types of tradition (music, art, architecture) and many strands within
each one of them. As such it is possible to study some of these strands but
to study them in totality would imply many years of research and might still
be lacking sufficient data to be able to come to a holistic and synoptic point
of view (Rojas, 1966). Thus what we are talking about is the fact that there
is no such thing as a total vision of any society which is pluralistic, since
members from different races and ethnicities will have different traditions.
Thus the tradition that peoples and societies inherit from their forefathers
is available to them in various forms. Any process over several generations
becomes by itself a particular tradition or a sub tradition.

Box 30.1: The Accretion of Tradition

Thus tradition:
accumulates over decades/centuries. Consider for e.g. the scriptural
tradition of India which is itself a plurality. Thus in the shift from oral
tradition to the scripting tradition there is a formalisation of knowledge
and as this process goes on the society that is subjected to it develops
not just one but pluralist traditions.
the field of art and architecture is replete with the traditions that have
emerged from it. Thus in India there are several traditions in art and
architecture including. The (i) Classical (ii) medieval and, (iii) traditional.

In each of these areas artists and architects have been responsible for
development of classical medieval and traditional art and architecture. These
traditions developed in India over centuries of accretion. Further the
economic structures are such that they begin from centuries earlier and
tend to be well fixed until Industrialisation begins in the 1800’s. In the
Indian tradition the exchange of goods and services commenced and worked
in terms of physical exchanges of services which could be provided to the
landlords by the hoi polloi. This was a traditional system and exploited the
landless labourers by underpaying and making them work for long hours. For
doing this the sharecroppers as they were known, were given at the end of
the agricultural season a certain amount of grains to help them to subsist.
Such examples can be found globally and feudalism was yet another iniquitous
system. The point is that it is rather difficult to say with any degree of
certainty that tradition(s) are ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ On examination, however, it
is clear that though Indian tradition has sanctity yet sati and dowry is part
180 of this very same tradition. Thus it is a weeding of tradition which alone can
make it work efficiently and not flow over into negative directives. Over a Tradition and Modernity

span of time (usually centuries) any specific tradition begins to coagulate

into a specific conglomeration of beliefs and rities. These beliefs and rities
are specific to any tradition and apply equally to sub traditions within and
subordinate within it.

Traditions then cover the entire ideological gamut and are also applicable to
the material culture. What then is tradition? Tradition is a particular approach
to social reality which it influences and provides a direction to individual and
social reality. Thus it would be better to talk in terms of the plural traditions
than to mention some overarching condition which would be a false construct
as reality is not entirely apprehended under it.

Traditional technology is another area which has been extensively used and
improved upon. Thus in agriculture the use of the tractor or combine harvester
has brought matters to a confrontation. Thus while the situation (harvesting)
has changed, the attitudes are still traditional, both in the family and at
work. Thus at a particular time in the flow of tradition non-traditional, modern
machines, are used. This means now that there is a contradiction between
the technology and the attitudes of the workers and their beneficiaries. Age
old customs and tradition’s often get non functional and sometimes changes
have to be introduced to make the two compatible. Tradition then is what
holds a society together. However, there are factors within a tradition which
may go out of circulation. Thus in some metros in India the scriptural and
popular level of celebrating festivals, like Holi, Diwali, and so on is such that
tradition battles with culture and many changes have occurred in these
festivals in cities including plastic lighting on the house and a few burning
candles to observe traditional candle lighting in Diwali.

30.3 Tradition and Modernity

In such and other activities tradition comes head on with the whole concept
of modernity. The question of course is in which way modernity relates to
tradition. Is modernity a different type of tradition? Do tradition and modernity
have anything in common and how are they related to each other?

Tradition has a tendency to become entropic and inward looking. This is true
of many local level traditions and sub traditions are stamped out and disappear
without leaving much of a trace. The pertinent question here is why does
tradition disappear, change, ameliorate or attempt to coexist with modernity?
The fact of the matter is that the vectors or chief characteristics of a tradition
are themselves set to develop, change, or become stagnant. Thus tradition
has many sub traditions and it is these that often linger on, indefinitely, in
various geophysical territories within a specific culture area.

Reflection and Action 30.1

Discuss the concept of tradition ? Does tradition change or does it remain
static?

At some point in the development or spread of a tradition tends to become

less influential and is capable of dealing only with local traditions. At the
some time tradition sees the necessity of dynamism and various religious
traditions themselves find it difficult to sustain themselves. Thus when a
tradition becomes entropic it becomes clear that the tradition is now stagnant
181
Issues of Modernity and in being so is quite capable of calcifying and becomes superficially
related to rities, rituals, ceremonies while the essential communication
remains obfuscated and confused.

Thus tradition is dynamic and records accretive changes. We must also keep
in mind that social changes are part of the process of society. However, it
is equally clear that beyond a point tradition is not able to deal with a new
set of situations and the new institutions, At this point if the society is not
to become anarchic, it will require that traditions ameliorate and try to
change. Yet a tradition can only follow its ontology and find itself as
inadequate in the face of modernity. Thus the forces of modernity tend to
choke tradition or at least make it relatively insignificant and even innocuous.
However, tradition though it becomes quiescent it is not really banished by
modernity because modernity is evidenced only in the advanced countries
of the West and in the metropolitans of the East. This is made clear when
we compare architecture of the North and the South. Thus a luxury hotel
in metropolitan of a developing country is virtually no different than that of
an advanced country. Thus tradition is never really banished but is pushed
back as the forces of modernity take root.

Box 30.2: Aspects of Modernity

Some aspects of modernity include:
emergence of nation-state and nationhood
industrialisation and capitalism
democracy
increasing influence of science and technology
the phenomena of urbanisation
expansion of mass media

There are, however, other defining characteristics of modernity which include

disenchantment with the world
secularisation
rationalisation
commodification
mass society

Modernity, however, means different things in the North and the South.
Thus modernity indicates a type of society that is more developed relative
to other societies. So, a society characterised by modernity is described as
a modern society.

We can compare modern society with societies that are pre-modern or those
that are post-modern. However neither of these approaches is fully
satisfactory. The social structure of modernity is such that it defines the
transition from isolated communities to mass scale society. Referred to in
this manner modernity is found, therefore, not just in the West. This process
can be seen as working all over the world rather than just in the advanced
nations.

Thus mass society implies:

large scale movement of goods, people, and information among separate
areas
standardisation of many aspects of society which are helpful for mobility
182
 increased specialisation and interdependence of different parts of the Tradition and Modernity

society

Thus modernity can be apparently contradictory, but these features listed

above are different parts of the overall ontology of this process. When the
elements or products of modernity “invade” another culture through popular
processes such as various cultural aspects such as folktales and cinema there
is a widespread ‘overhaul’ of cultural and social ontology and these tend to
change a society and prepare it for further changes. This results in a
homogenisation of culture and creates widespread diversification at the
local level. There are other features, such as democratic government and the
hierarchical structures within it. So also does the private sector grow greatly
in influence (Genard Delanty, 2000). This sometimes creates a friction and
modernity can be perceived as being totalitarian. However, the individual in
modernity belongs to those subsystems, and is part of the competition,
liberty, and individualism. This is all the more true for comparisons of
modernity with societies that are traditional.

Modernity brought with it many blessings to the people including much

better health and economic prospects. However, there are also some problems
which have emerged with modern society e.g. the nuclear bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki during world war II; and the arms race thereafter.
Other problems include environmental degradation e.g. air and water pollution.
Modernity also creates great stress on people and alienation or being without
specific interest in anything (malaise). At the present point the debate is
still on whether modernity is socially positive or not, whether it has proved
beneficial or not to world society.

30.4 Modernity as a Juggernaut

Giddens position conflicts with the contention that society has entered into
a post modern world. Thus modernity witnesses tremendous increases in the
scope, pace and depth of change relative to systems that preceded it.
Further the path or trajectory of change is not linear, going forward step by
step. For Giddens modernity implies
capitalism
industrialism
surveillance programs and activities
military power

Giddens theory of structuration and its basic components adequately describe

modernity. These elements are:
distanciation, or separation in of time and space
disembedding
reflexivity

While in pre-modern societies time and space were totally interconnected.

However, with the onset of modernity time and space were no longer closely
linked, and this interconnection became very weak. Now, this fact is important
so far as modernity is concerned.

Distanciation helps in the establishment of organisations and bureaucracy,

and makes possible the nation-state which is international. That is it is 183
Issues of Modernity possible to connect local and global arenas. Again the modern society is
within the matrix of history and it takes from that to influence the present.
Finally such distanciation makes possible the second of Giddens factors of
modernity that is disembedding. Disembedding itself is the process of
transcending the local context and it’s reorganising itself along indefinite
stretches of time and space. According to Giddens there are two varieties
of disembedding factors. These are:
symbolic tokens e.g. money. This allows for time-space distantiation and
allows money transactions with those who are widely separated in time
and space.
systems of professional expertise. These are very useful because they
help create the environment. Some such experts include doctors and
lawyers. Other experts affect everyday commodities and even property.
Thus expert systems provide reassurance across time and space. Again in
abstract systems, trust is fundamental not only to modern societies also
because the symbolic tokens and expert systems serve to dissembed the
society in the modern world.

Thus an economy based on monetary transactions and the legal system work
because the members have trust in them.

Again another basic characteristic of modernity is the phenomena of

reflexivity. Thus all social and psychological aspects, processes, events, can
be reflected upon, understood better and working as an activity which
influences the further development of a phenomenon. The fact of
disembedment indicates
the need for trust
the need for expert systems

Trust according to Giddens is socialised into children and then reinforced by

behaviour that conforms to this expectation of mutually reliable behaviours.
However, this is also accompanied by destabilising factors, risk factors that
threaten trust and create ongoing lack of security in people. Thus the risk
of nuclear wars are neither fought nor won. The risk factor in global or local
war is such that several danger points have arisen and disarmament of military
of nuclear warheads could easily be one of the international projects to
increase the sense of security for the subjects.

Giddens points out that the risk factor extends into the material environment
and what can be done to prevent its degradation (forests, rivers, rural and
urban habitats). Again global investments existing in institutional settings
are also risky. The subjects take notice of risks while taking action. Religion
receded and only those facts are believed in which the subjects can realise
and turn into reality. The awareness of the different risk factors is increasing
in the modern world and is one of the facts of modernity. Again the subjects
and the ‘public’ are aware that even experts cannot handle certain risks and
risk-situations.

30.5 Ontological Insecurity and Modernity

According to Giddens ontological insecurity has been created within
modernity itself and suggests that
design faults in the construction of the modern world
184 operator failure of those who run the modern world
 unintended consequences Tradition and Modernity

reflexivity of the modern society

Thus according to Giddens in modern society ‘control’ becomes an important

issue because new knowledge is continuously cropping up and superceding
the old, and giving it a different direction altogether. As an answer to this
Giddens suggests utopian realism.

That is utopian ideals and social reality should be taken together as a single
unit rather than aim for just the one or the other. Giddens is critical of the
postmodern theories and feels that were systematic knowledge impossible
the intellectual activity/academics would come to a standstill. He feels that
postmodernism would involve a world in which
there are post scarcity systems
multilayered democracy
demilitarisation
humanisation of technology

However, it is clear that post modernity cannot be predicted in such simple

parameters which need not appear at all.

Giddens notes that the reflexive modern world pushes the self into becoming
a “reflexive project.” Thus the self becomes an area to be reflected upon
with a view to ameliorating it and bringing it into tune with itself and
society. Thus he points out that the subject is a result of inner search and
also the body must be controlled and socially projected in a specific manner
in the relevant physical spaces. There are formulas how which define we
interact. In fact reflexivity has led to a body-obsession and a social neurosis.
Modernity and modern society are also characterised by setting apart some
areas of deviance from the normal day to day living. This has been termed
the “Sequestration of experience” by Giddens. Thus phenomena like madness,
sickness, death and sexuality are sequestered and delineated as areas that
should be hidden from the attention. The reason that the phenomena of
sequestration comes about is because abstract systems have controlled large
segments of society. Though sequestration brings with it a sense of penacling
security it is quite clear that there is an avoidance of basic truths, such as
the processes of death, sickness, madness etc.

Thus modernity has brought with both positive and negative consequences.
One of the negative consequences is that there tends to be a sort of malaise
or what Giddens terms “personal meaninglessness.” This is because important
areas of daily life have been sequestered, and repressed. The light at the
end of the tunnel is reflexivity of modern life which as it increases will
ensure that such sequestration does not take place and processes that have
been swept under the carpet will one day be the most significant and
important. While Giddens is concerned with modernity we find that Beck is
interested in the new modernity. Thus Beck and Giddens feel that we are
living in a modern world rather than a post modern one. What is the risk that
accompanies the new modernity? Beck labels the new modernity as “reflexive
modernity.” Beck feels that relationships in such a society are increasingly
reflexive and individuals are forced to make wide range of individual decisions
so far as relationships are concerned, and how they can be begun and
maintained.
185
Issues of Modernity According to Beck, within modernity itself there is a change from industrial
society to the risk society which is different from industrial society but not
totally. Thus the classical modernity was centred on producing wealth and
equal distribution of the same. On the other hand the advanced modern
societies the main issue is the reduction and canalisation of risk. Thus the
main concern in classical modernity believed in equality, the concern of
advanced modernity is a safety. These risks come from wealth produced in
industry. This includes the nuclear industry and bombs whose effects and
side effects can be devastating.

Box 30.4: The Risk Factor

Even industrial pollutants are themselves a source of risk and have most
dangerous effects on health. This kind of risk, including nuclear annihilation,
is not simply localized but global. Again risk and class intermesh to some
extent. Thus in industrial society it is clear that the wealthy classes can
avoid risk or reduce it simply because they have the wealth to purchase
safety. And this helps to strengthen the class society. On the other hand
poverty is full of risks. Beck extends his analysis and states that the truth
about social classes applies to the nation-states as well.

Thus the rich nations are able to minimize risks, the poor or poorer nations
find that risk is centred in and around them. Again richer nations make
further wealth and profit by catering to the poorer nations in order to build
technology that will help to control the risks in poor nations and try to
ameliorate them to some extent. It is pointed out, however, that no nation
is completely safe from risks, nor are individuals. However, the nations that
profit from the risk factor in poor nations find that there is a ‘boomerang
effect’ and factors associated with risk tend to become proactive and try to
eliminate or control the areas where risk reduction technologies are being
made in the wealthy nations. However, though advanced modernity creates
risks we find that accompanying these risks is reflexivity and makes those
that produce risks themselves begin to think about the situation and how
to alter it. But this is also in the case of those nations that are poor and
face these risks. According to Beck it is science and the scientists that are
responsible and a protector of global “contamination” of nature and culture,
and accuses science and scientists for being illogical.

Reflection and Action 30.2

Discuss the aspects of risk taking in modern society. Is there some way in
which this can be reduced or removed?

Again in classical industrial society we find that nature and culture were
separate entities in the case of advanced modernity they go hand in hand
are deeply interlinked and interrelated to each other. This linkage means
that changes in either nature or culture feedback onto each other. Thus
Beck points out that nature and society are related to each other almost
symbiotically. This has led to the facts of nature being made political and so
scientists, including social scientists are now in the domain of and being
effected by politicisation. According to Beck the governments are losing
their powerful control because of sub political bodies like research institutes.
Subgroups of people are more responsive relative to the government. We
can say advanced modernity has generated both hormones risks and also
ways to deal with it. Ritzer evaluates modern society using the concepts of
hyperrationality, Mcdonaldization and Americanization. Let us begin with
186
hyperrationality. Ritzer points out that the concept of hyperrationality draws Tradition and Modernity

heavily on rationality as conceptualised by Weber. For Weber we live in an

increasingly rational world. Formal rationality is seen to be used for system-
usage than Weber’s other types of rationality: Substantive, theoretical and
practical. Thus we see that formal rationality implies the increasingly felt
need and importance of institutions which force members to adhere to a
strict code of behaviour and conduct.

30.6 Modernity Rationality and Norms

On the other hand, substantive rationality implies dominance of norms and
values in making of rational choice. Thus theoretical rationality deals with
intellectual apprehension. On the other hand practical rationality defines
the context/situation so far as daily decisions are concerned.

Now, we can say that hyperrationality goes beyond formal rationality. Thus
a hyperrational system combines Webber’s forms of rationality which include,
formal rationality
substantive
intellectual
practical

The reason such a system is called hyperrational because it uses and combines
all four of Weber’s forms of rationality.

Formal rationality has four aspects which are:

efficiency
predictability
quantity rather than quality
Substitution of non human for human technologies

Box 30.4: The Irrationality of Rationality

Thus this form of rationality is also accompanied by the “irrationality of
rationality.” In this schema we find that efficiency is always with a view to
an end. And how we can use the best means to a goal. In fact food restaurants
the delivery system is made so convenient and automatic that there are
drive in facilities to help accelerate the process of food distribution and
consumption. Now, the next factor in formal rationality is that there is a
standardisation of processes and events and there are “no surprises”, and
the branches of fast food restaurants are very similar even across nations.
They all proceed along the assembly line, mechanised approach to food.
Further fast food restaurants pay greater attention to quantity rather than
quality. Such a formally rational system has intrinsic to it the generation of
“irrationalities”, such as making the “dining experience” most bizarre,
demystifying and dehumanising.

Ritzer indicates that this is the trend all over the modern world where the
emphasis is on quick turnover for business. Examining credit cards Ritzer
feels that each of the factors applied to Mcdonaldization are true for the
credit card industry. Loans are processed quickly. Again the credit card makes
consumption predictable. Credit cards come with different credit limits and
the transactions are relatively dehumanizing. Thus both the credit card and 187
Issues of Modernity the fast food restaurant can be seen to be an intrinsic aspect of the modern
world.

Ritzer also argues for the “Americanization” of modern society which was
evident in our discussion of fast food restaurants and credit card usage.
Thus America is perceived as practicing/living in a modern world and engaged
in the construction of the American way of life. Thus credit card usage is
part of Americanization. The major credit cards companies are based in
America. The Visa, MasterCard, and American Express are major cards relative
to those based in Britain (Barclay Card) and Japan (JCB). The credit card
companies are making a concerted effort to ‘globalize’ the credit cards. It
is noted, however, that credit cards are and can be used for indigenous
purchases. This both the credit cards and fast food restaurants have become
part of the modern world and is in part a reflection of a specific world era.
Let us now turn to some of the main ideas in the social theory of Jurgen
Habermas, concerning modernity. Habermas feels that modernity has yet to
play itself out and that there are many modern areas that can be developed
further, before thinking of a postmodern world. According to Habermas
modernity does have a number of paradoxes. Thus rationality that is a part
of the overall social system is contradictory and conflictual with the rationality
of the life-world as a whole. On the one hand social systems have multiplied
their complexity and use instrumental reason. Again the life-world has also
multiplied its diversity in terms of secularisation and the processes of
reflexivity.

Thus a rational society according to Habermas is one where the system and
the life-world exist together living an intermeshed but parallel existence.
This conjoining and interaction leads to a stage in society of abundance
economically, and environmental control due to rational systems being present
and employed to their optimum. The problem of the modern world is that
now the system begins to exercise power or to ‘colonize’ the life-world.
This leads to a situation where the rational system denies the freedom to
the life-world, a freedom that is necessary to allow the life world to grow
to further maturity. Thus for Habermas the ‘colonization’ of the life world
in modernity is its basic marker, and is, therefore, that he regards modernity
as an ‘unfinished project.’ To Habermas the fully rational society where the
rational system and the Life world(s) can exist and express themselves
satisfactorily. At the moment such a situation does not exist and the life-world
is greatly subdued and impoverished. This is the obstacle that has to be
crossed over. It does not mean a violent destruction of systems economic
or administrative, since they help life worlds to rationalize their existence
and ontology. How is this to be done? This requires that we examine the
relationship between system and life-world.

According to Habermas
“restraining barriers” should be erected to reduce colonisation of life world
“sensors” should be used to make a greater impact of life world on the
system

In this manner the two areas that is life world and system benefit each
other greatly. Habermas feels that until the above facts assert themselves
modernity’s project will take long to complete. Thus Habermas is squarely of
the view that modernity has much to offer and that we are not in a
188 postmodern society as yet.
30.7 Conclusion Tradition and Modernity

Finally to put the last word in Habermas has criticized postmodernism on

several grounds. Since our next unit is on post structuralism/postmodernism
this unit would serve also as a precursor of our discussion on the same. Thus
for Habermas:
It is very difficult to objectively evaluate the postmodernists because
one is not sure whether what one is reading is social theory or literature.
In the former case the problems arises in postmodernists erecting a
formidable fascade of jargon which is not in the mainstream of sociological
knowledge. Hence, one doesn’t know where to classify such theory.
Normative sentiments are concealed from the reader, but nevertheless
they offer normative critiques of contemporary society. However, these
are not exactly grounded and, therefore, not effective.
It has a totalising tendency despite the fact that postmodernists
themselves are against this phenomena.
Post modernists ignore the facts of daily life.

In short postmodernists are shut off from the very sphere (life-world) of
activity from which they deprive themselves. As such the source of social
data and the area of expression, that is everyday life is, cut off from them.

Thus in this unit we have examined and presented several theoretical positions
on tradition and modernity. We have covered the approach of Giddens to
modernity as also that of Beck and Ritzer. Finally, we considered the ideas
of Habermas. All this has set the stage for our next unit. To fully understand
and appreciate the units on post structuralism and postmodernism the
background provided in this unit will be of great use.

30.8 Further Reading

Bauman, Z(1989), Modernity and The Holocaust. Cambridge:Polity

Baudrillard, J (1994) The Illusion of The End. Cambridge:Polity

Castells, M (1996), The Information Age, Vol-1:The Rise of The Network

Society. Oxford Blackwell

30.9 References
Rojas (1966), Rojas Databamk.Org/Capital L8.htm

Gerard Delanty 2000, Modernity and Postmodernity Knowledge, Power and

The Self. London : Sage

189
 Unit 31
Post Structuralism and Post Modernism
Contents
31.1 Introduction
31.2 Critique of Structuralism
31.3 Post Structural Theories
31.4 Discourse Knowledge and Experience
31.5 Derrida and Deconstruction
31.6 Foucalt and the Archaeology of Knowledge
31.7 Jameson and Late Capitalism
31.8 Baudrillard and Post Modernism
31.9 Conclusion
31.10 Further Reading

Learning Objectives
After having read this unit you should be able to
outline post-structural theories
critique structuralism
describe deconstruction
explain “late capitalism”
discuss Baudrillard and postmodernism

31.1 Introduction
It is the intellectual trend in the ontology of ideas and schools of ideas, that
they are constantly superceded. The ideas or ideologies that are superceded
recede into the history of ideas. The new theories and ideas then occupy
centre stage in the national and international sociological and social scientific
world views. This cycle further repeats itself and though this fact is often lost
sight of in the heyday of a theoretical orientation that has become popular.

In the essay that follows we will first take up post structuralism and then
postmodern theory. We will see how there are several overlaps indeed
intermeshes between various strands of these two contemporary approaches
to the study of society and culture. Thus what we are dealing with are
strands of an overall approach. There is no one view on these approaches
and both post structuralism and post modernism are blanket terms containing
many strands of thought. Let us turn now to post structuralism first. What
does the term indicate? As is clear from the word “post structuralism”, these
approaches are those that came after ‘structuralism’. These theories and
approaches sought to seek insights into society by critiquing and deconstructing
social and cultural processes. The post modernism break with structuralism
was the fact that structuralism reduced everything into binary oppositions
and the interrelations between them. The structuralists held they could
analyse any phenomena with the help of their methodology. We must
emphasise that post structuralism is a number of approaches and not one
monolithic theory. However, these approaches have in common their point
of departure a critique of “structuralism”.
190
31.2 Critique of Structuralism Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism

Poststructuralists often point out in their various writings that meaning in

language is diverse and open to many different interpretations. Yet to get
to the meaning of a text it can be deconstructed and is different from its
apparent or surface meaning. That is different meanings can be assigned to
a single text depending upon the perspective taken. As would be clear by
now that post structuralism proceeds as a critique of structuralism which is
itself bounded by its own linguistic boundaries. Structuralism, however, was
found to be inadequate as an explanation of social process and phenomena.
Thus we find that
structuralism did not pay heed to historical processes and is a-historical
applied the rules of linguistics to societal processes which is a questionable
procedure
it is assumed that a work has meaning in itself and this persists even
before it is discovered and
the text is only a conduit between the subject and the structure of
rationality.

Thus the structuralists argue that it is language and its structure which itself
produces reality and since it is language that is responsible for thought it
determines mans perceptions whatever they may be. Further there is the
idea that meaning does not come from individuals but the rules of language
and the overall ‘system’ which controls individuals. Therefore, the individual
is subordinated and superceded by “the structure.” It is the structure which
produces meaning not the individual. It is specifically language which is at
the base of such domination over the individual.

31.3 Post Structural Theories

As can be seen post structural theories do not agree with the ‘structuralists’
in several key areas of analysis and understanding. We will now turn to these
and see how the two differ. However, before that let us look briefly at the
background to post structuralism. By the 1950’s the influence of structuralism
had set in. Saussure (1857-1913) was of the view that ‘meaning’ had to be
found in the “structure” of the whole language (Guller, 1976). It could not
be discovered in individual words, and had to have an overall linguistic
setting – that is the language as a whole. We find that around the 1960’s the
structuralist movement tried to amalgamate the ideas of Marx Freud and
Saussure. The structuralists were opposed to the existentialist movement
which put the individual and life experience at the centre. By contrast the
structuralists opined that the individual is everywhere being conditioned by
social psychological and linguistic structures which control and direct him,
rather than the individual doing the same. As you will have noticed this is
an extreme stand and the claim for universality of application of method also
drew attention to the fact that such claims of universal application did not
necessarily hold true. Also how is it that any two structural analyses of the
same field or phenomena would be different?

It was because of the short-comings of the structuralist approach that post

structuralism was developed by the intellectuals. This post structuralism is
based on a member of basic assumptions/positions. These include: 1) putting
all phenomena under one explanation, 2) there is a transcendental reality
which overarches all other reality. Post structuralism is also critical of the
191
Issues of Modernity concept of man as portrayed and developed by Enlightenment thought. The
Enlightenment view that the individual is separate and whole and that the
mind is the area where values evolve on the other hand the poststructuralists
felt that the individual was embedded in social interaction. Such symbolic
beings are referred to by the word “subject”. We can then say that the
subjects are intertwined with society and culture and occupy some place
within them, and sociologically based sites. Further subjects are the actors
in everyday reality. In fact it is the subjects that make up society and the
activities therein, include work and entertainment. We could add here that
the subjects meaning and values are embedded in the identities of groups
and the activities which lead them to having an identity.

Thus these approaches that we are discussing have often been dubbed
“anti-humanist” because post-structuralism is against the divine or
transcendental wholeness as was the humanist theories view. However, ‘anti-
humanist’ is a misnomer and is actually another way of looking at human
beings one that is essentially not against individual persons. Further we find
that while structuralism presents reality as relations between binary
oppositions post-structuralism’s vision of reality is a fragmented one. Social
process and cultural relations are not viewed as neat oppositions – on the
other hand social and cultural processes are seen in bits and pieces and the
nature of reality is not seen as being amenable to total understanding of a
whole process. Parts of social process can be focused upon and analysed.
Poststructuralists are completely opposed to grand narratives and Meta theory
feeling these are equivalent to a fiction and not really apprehending reality.
Thus post-structural theories are themselves looking at the specific. Further
the physical self (the body) is studied in the context of time and history,
and brought out of the closet so to speak. Similarly it is the details of
discourse and cultural actions that are now looked into. Further the role of
language in building social and cultural reality is also evident in the work of
the poststructuralists (Godelier, 1972). Thus the fact that society and the
individual are “linguistically bound” with each other and the relationship
between the two is complex. This stand clearly negates the earlier
assumptions of social scientists that language was easy to comprehend and
use and that there were no ambiguities regarding language – use. This the
post-structural theories negate as an erroneous assumption. In fact “reality’’
itself is constructed within the social matrix and continues to reproduce
itself over time.

31.4 Discourse Knowledge and Experience

The world of discourse and knowledge set the limits for our experience – and
the subject (ego) can only experience or describe what he has experienced.
That is to also say that there are experiences for which there is no language
or a language is slowly being pieced together, and certain words and concepts
gain ground and usage. This includes the usage of metaphor, metonymy and
irony. These usages lead by themselves to a concern with ideology which
provides an ingress and insight into relations of power and the world-view
of the subjects.

Again another area in which post structural theories focus upon in their
analysis on what are known as cultural codes which themselves provide an
understanding of our lives and how they work out within various contexts.
However, it needs to be pointed out that it is understood by the post
192 structuralists that construction of meaning implies that some aspects of
social process and individual life will be emphasised and others will be relatively Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism
reduced in importance. In other words “objectivity” as in the case of earlier
sociological theory is found to be an illusion. That is the analyses of
poststructuralists does not deny its subjective orientation. Yet poststructuralists
also hold that meaning in society can be deconstructed to open up new
ideas and practices. However, such an exercise leads to an understanding of
specifics rather than general constructions. Thus loops of meaning and process
of construction reveal more about the specific scaffolding of the subject
rather than an understanding of the whole. The world is mediated by
discourse, language and ideology all of which structure the experience of
the subject. According to post structural thinking it is the text which is the
repertoire of meanings and there is no meaning outside the text. Thus
meaning resides in the text itself in toto. An understanding resides in social
signs and discourses in particular fields of study. Again almost paradoxically,
every text exists only in relation to other texts. However, it needs to be
pointed out that man’s ability to perceive reality is not at stake. Nonetheless
what we know of reality is known through various processes of discourse
symbols and language. Yet it must be understood that discourse itself is very
varied in content. It is also a fact that discourse is sometimes sketchy and
abrupt. It originates through chance and disappears also through unspecified
reasons. Thus according to Foucault there is no question of predicting history
through grand theories and meta narratives (Foucault, 1969). History is thus
viewed by poststructuralists as happening by chance. Thus in history the
twists, turns, plots, subplots and important events and happenings cannot
be pinned down – that is it happens by chance.

31.5 Derrida and Deconstruction

This brief note on structuralism is important for our understanding of the
process of “deconstruction” initiated by Derrida. The basics of this
structuralism are:
positing of a centre of power or influence which begins and ends all
social processes. This could be ‘mind’ or ‘self’ or even ‘God’.
all structures are composed of binary pairs or oppositions one of which
is more important than the other and often signified thus: +/- . These
could be good/evil, god/man and so on.

Reflection and Action 31.1

Discuss what is “deconstruction”. How did Derrida deconstruct structuralism?

Thus post structuralism began with Derrida’s critique of structuralism or

rather this ‘deconstruction’ of language society and culture. The structuralists
felt that man was chained to structures which controlled him. In contrast,
however, Derrida feels that language can be reduced to writing which does
not control the subjects. According to him all institutions and structures are
nothing but writing and incapable of controlling the individual. The
structuralists saw order and stability in language, hence in all structures; the
poststructuralists on the other hand saw language as essentially changing
and quite unstable. This means that the language structure being itself in
flux cannot create structures that constrain, restrain, or punish people,
because language itself is disorderly, and the underlying laws of language
cannot be ‘discovered’. This is what is the process of deconstruction which
as the term suggests is a sort of conceptual dissection of the concept or
193
Issues of Modernity process being studied. Derrida who coined the term deconstruction felt
that logo centrism has dominated the Western countries. This way of
perceiving has meant that writing has always been suppressed historically
speaking. This has also meant that the freedom to analyse and think is taken
away in a logocentric system. Derrida wants to dismantle this type of approach
as it sets writing free from repression. Under these circumstances what
takes place in the art form of traditional theatre is a representation of real
life. Such a representation is extremely important, in fact a controlled
theological theatre.

Box 31.1: The Theological Theatre

Derrida contrasts ‘theatre of cruelty’ as against traditional theatre which
has representational logic and renders traditional theatre as theological.
Derrida writes: the stage is theological for as long as its structure, following
the entirety of tradition comports the following elements: an author creator
who, absent and from afar, is armed with a text and keeps watch over,
assembles, regulates the time or the meaning of representation …. He lets
representation represent him through representatives, directors or actors
….. who represent the thought of the “creator”. Finally the theological stage
comports a passive, seated public, a public of spectators, of consumers, of
enjoyers. (Derrida, 1978, Writing and Difference : p:235).

Derrida’s chosen alternative stage is one which will not be controlled by

texts and authors but fall short of disorder/anarchy. Thus Derrida wants a
fundamental change in traditional theatre/life which would mean a great
change from the dominance of the writer (God?) on the stage (theatre) or
in societal process as well leading closer towards freedom of the individual.
Derrida feels thus that traditional theatre needs to be deconstructed. In
this mode of suggestion is included a critique of society itself, which is, as
mentioned earlier ‘logocentric.’ Derrida feels that in theatre it is the writer
who puts together the script, and that this influence is so strong that it is
akin to a dictatorship. Similarly in social processes the intellectual ideas and
formulations are controlled by the intellectual authorities which create
discourse.

Further we may add that post structuralists believe in the process of

decentering because when these is no specific authoritarian pressure on
society it becomes open ended and available for ‘play and difference’. This
process is ongoing reflexive and open (Derrida, 1978 :297). Thus the present
alone exists and it is the arena where social activity takes place. Thus we
should try to find solutions by harking to the past. The future itself cannot
be precisely predicted. However, there is no precise solution that Derrida
provides except that in the end there is only writing, acting and play with
difference. At this point in our presentation it would be instructive to look
briefly at an example of post structural ideas and ideology in the case of
Michel Foucault one of the major poststructuralists. One critical difference
between Foucault and the structuralists is that while linguistics is the main
influence for the former, it did not occur exclusively as the domain of ideas
that have to be adopted or modified into a poststructuralist schema. That
is post structural thinkers use a variety of ideas and influence and are not
reduced to examining the relations between binary terms. This variety of
sources in presenting an argument is what puts Foucault into the group of
the poststructuralists.
194
31.6 Foucault and the Archaeology of Knowledge Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism

Foucault described his approach/methodology as the “archaeology of

knowledge.” Using this approach Foucault studied knowledge and discourse.
According to Foucault this approach provides better ingress to understanding
society and it is different from history, which he feels is portrayed in a
stereotyped linear progression, whereas the reality remains limited and
‘continuous.’

Box 31.2: The Archaeology of Knowledge

In his early work on methodology, Foucault (1966) is doing an “archaeology
of knowledge”. His objects of study are bodies of knowledge, ideas, modes
of discourse, he contrasts his archaeology of knowledge to history and the
history of ideas, both of which he regards as being too rational and as
seeing to much continuity in the history of knowledge…. This highly structural
approach in Foucault’s early work was later abandoned for a poststructuralist
orientation because it was silent on the issue of power as well as the link
between knowledge and power. Michel Foucault died in 1984 at the age of
58 as a leading sociologist. Among Foucault’s last works was a trilogy of
sexual study. There works indicated Foucault’s interest in studying sexuality.
These books were The History of Sexuality 1976, The Care of the Self 1984,
and The Use of Pleasure 1984. (From Ritzer, 1996 Sociological Theory,
p:604-5).

Foucault, however, moved away from this structural type of analysis and
began studying the ‘genealogy of power.’ His concern was to find out the
facts about governance through knowledge production. The nature of
knowledge as power should not be hierarchical and also that the higher the
knowledge (e.g. science) the greater the power it wields over the subjects.
Thus Foucault studied technique and process in science since this is what
exerts power over people through the medium of institutions. This is not to
say that the elites are scheming and manipulating power. Again Foucault uses
a non linear perception of progress in societies from the stage of barbarism
to the present civilisation. Thus history is seen instead as shifting patterns
of domination. However, knowledge/power is such that it is always opposed
and resisted. Thus Foucault’s post structural view is that while knowledge/
power are ubiquitous they are certainly not omnipotent and total in their
domination but their power/authority is always questioned and opposed. A
brief introduction to Foucault’s ideas would help us in completing the section
on post structuralism (Foucault, 1979). Thus according to Foucault
the mad have been misunderstood and mistreated over the course of
history, and subjected to moral control
power/knowledge are implicative of each other
technologies exert power e.g. the Panopticon a prison with the cells
around a large observation tower from which every thing that inmates do
is visible and observable. Such an institution is metaphoric of total societal
control of the prisoners, since it forces even the prisoners or inmates to
exercise self-restraint. Thus this is a direct relationship between
technology, knowledge and power. Thus the Panopticon is a prototype of
societal control and surveillance and the forerunner of intelligence services
and satellite observations over geophysical territories.

Post modernism is not the term for a single type of theory, metanarrative,
or grand theory. It is rather the term for an overall approach involving many 195
Issues of Modernity similar strands. There is thus no single position in postmodernism, but all the
thinkers in this approach share certain common features that separate it
from “modernism.” This has been both a feature that separates it from
‘modernism’ and the approaches all indicate that what they are doing is to
present, dissect, construct ideas that will be relevant to the postmodern
context. A large number of sociologists still tend to think that post modernism
is a passing fancy, however, it is now obvious that postmodernism cannot be
ignored both as fact and phenomena. However, it cannot be denied that
postmodernism is surrounded by diverse positions within the field itself.

Reflection and Action 31.2

Outline the common features of postmodern writers. How are these separate
from “modernism”.

It would be proper at this point to distinguish between some common terms

that are often confused with each other although they are quite distinct
from one another. Thus “post modernity” is the word used for the historical
epoch following the modern era. Further ‘post modernism’ itself refers to
cultural products which are different/separate from the modern cultural
products (in art, architecture etc.). Again ‘postmodern social theory’ refers
to a method of ideating that differs from modern social theory.

From the above it can be said that the post modern covers: 1) a new epoch,
2) new cultural products, 3) new theories about society. Further these new
realities are getting strengthened and there is a widespread feeling that the
modern era is ending and being superceded by another epoch. This was
evident in breaking up of buildings which were modern and complete.
However, the post modern theories themselves provide ready made solutions
in a general sense. However, it is questionable whether the birth of the post
modern era can be precisely dated though it appears to have transited, from
the modern in the 1960’s.

Post modernism indicates that in the cultural field postmodern cultural

products tend to replace modern products. Again postmodern social theory
has emerged from and has differences with modern social theory. Thus
postmodern theory rejects the notion of ‘foundationalism’ of the earlier
theories but itself tends to be relative, non relational and nihilistic.

31.7 Jameson and Late Capitalism

Again the postmodern thinkers reject the nation of a grand narrative or
meta narrative. For example Lyotard contrasts modern knowledge which has
a grand synthesis e.g. the work of Parsons or Marx such narratives are
associated with modern science. Thus as Lyotard identifies modern knowledge
with metanarratives, then obviously postmodern approaches demand that
such theorising should be negated in its completeness. This is because
postmodern scholars such as Lyotard are not afraid to face the differences
and challenges of such a viewpoint. Thus post modernism becomes an
instrument that welcomes different perspectives under the same broad
umbrella. Let us now turn to look at some examples of postmodern theory.
A good illustration of the postmodern theory is clearly set out in the work
of Fredric Jameson. The point of departure is that modernity and post
modernity mark a radical break from each other and are hard to reconcile the
two. However, a middle position is taken by Jameson who writes that there
196 are some continuities between the two epochs. According to Jameson
capitalism is in its ‘late’ stages, but continues to be the main form of Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism
production the world over. However, this ‘late’ stage of capitalism has been
ushered in with post modernism. Thus while the cultural logic is altered, the
underlying structure remains the same as in the incipient forms of capitalism.
This is reflective of the Marxian framework. Jameson sees the postmodern
situation as possessing both positive and negative aspects of postmodernism.
Thus there is progress and chaos side by side. Thus according to Jameson
there are three stages in the progress of capitalism. The first is market
capitalism typified by national markets. Following this phase comes the
imperialist stage which is backed up by a global capitalist network. Then the
third phase is ‘late capitalism’ share capital is used to commodify new areas.
The effect of changes in the economic structure automatically create
appropriate cultural changes. Thus Jameson points out that we can see that:
realist culture is associated with market capitalism
modernist culture is associated with monopoly capitalism
postmodern culture and multinational capitalism

Box 31.3: Late Capitalism

…..aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity
production generally the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves
of ever more morel seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever
greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural
function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation. Such
economic necessities then find recognition in the institutional support of all
kinds available for art, from foundation and grants to museums and other
forms of patronage. (from Frederic Jameson, 1984 “Post-Modernism, or The
Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism”. New Left Review, p:57).

Jameson’s perspective, works mainly within a base and superstructure model.

According to Jameson postmodern society has some characteristics: firstly
there is superficiality, in the sense the cultural products keep to superficiality
and do not enquire deeply into the situation e.g. the soup cans and portrait
of Marolyn Munroe – both of which are simulacra as they are a “copy of a
copy.” Both paintings were painted from a copy of the photographs. Thus
the pictures are simulacrum – in which one cannot distinguish the original
from the copy (Jameson, 1984:86). These paintings are simulacrum and lack
in depth, and covers the surface meanings only. Further emotion or
emotionality is hardly to be found is the postmodern societies. Thus alienation
has been supplanted by fragmentation, which results in the impensonalization
of interaction. Again, and thirdly historicity is set aside and it is clear that
all that can be known about the past is textual and can spawn intertextuality
at the most. What this implies is that the postmodernists do not restrict
themselves to a single linear past but pick and choose from among the
available styles. That is to say there is a strong element of pastiche. This
implies that ‘truth’ about past history, is that we have no way of knowing
what happened. The historians then have to be satisfied with a pastiche
which in itself may not reflect much of past reality and there is no such
thing as linear historical development. Finally postmodernism has a new
technology available to it especially the computer and other electronic
machines not present earlier. What we can say then is that the post modern
societies are in deep flux and great confusion and many symptoms of this
have appeared especially with regard to certain kinds of affliction. Thus
whole new breeds of psychiatrists are busy trying to undo the stress and
197
Issues of Modernity tension that post modernism is clearly associated with. Thus there is a
problem of chaotic and disturbing trends of late capitalism. It is difficult to
cope with multinational economy and the according cultural impact of
consumerism. Jameson feels that cognitive maps are needed to deal with
postmodern realities. The maps can be put together by artists novelists and
working people. Thus Jameson’s schema tries to build bridges between
Marxian theory and post-modernism, but ended up antagonising both Marxists
and postmodernists. This was to be expected because despite Jameson’s
efforts to synthesise it was clear that a grand theory/metanarrative was
unlikely to bend backwards, and therefore, Jameson uses mainly its base/
superstructure dichotomy. Jameson’s postmodernism does try to maintain
some basic/tenous link with Marxian theory despite the fact that Marxism
is a grand narrative. However, in the case of Jean Baudrillard postmodernism
is presented as a maverick social theory of contemporary times. Thus Baudrillard
journey of ideas commences in the 1960’s, when he started out as a Marxist
critique of consumer society he was influenced by both linguistics and
semiotics. However, he soon left this orientation behind him and abandoned
both Marxism and structuralism.

31.8 Baudrillard and Post Modernism

In the 1970’s Baudrillard alleged that Marxists and their detractors both had
a similar beorgeoisie orientation which was conservative. He felt that an
alternative explanation was necessary. Thus Baudrillard put forward the notion
of “symbolic exchange” as an alternative to economic exchange. Symbolic
exchange itself involves a continuous process of a gift giving and gift taking.
It is clear that symbolic exchange was beyond and opposed to the logic of
late capitalism.

Such symbolic exchange implied the creation of a society based on the

same, but Baudrillard chose to be a-political. He studied contemporary society,
and saw that it is not production but the electronic media that characterises
it e.g. TV, computers, satellites. We have moved from societies under
different modes of production to a society that is more involved with the
code of production. Exploitation and profit motives have given way to a
domination by the signs/systems that produce them. Again signs referred to
something else but in postmodern society they become self referential and
characterised by “simulations” and ‘simulacra’ which are representations of
any aspect of consumption (Baudrillard, 1973).

For Baudrillard the postmodern world is “hyper reality.” Thus media becomes
more real than the reality itself, and provides news, views and events in an
exaggerated, skewed, and even ideological manner – thus the term hyper
reality. This is not without consequences as the real tends to be buried in
the hyper real and may ultimately be banished altogether.

Box 31.4: Catastrophe Management

In short, there is such distortion between North and South, to the symbolic
advantage of the South…..that one day everything will break down. One day,
the west will break down if we are not soon washed clean of this shame,
if an international congress of the poor countries does not very quickly
decide to share out this symbolic privilege of misery and catastrophe. (Jean
Baudrillard, The Illusion of the End, p:69).

198
For Baudrillard culture is undergoing a very deep change which makes the Post Structuralism and
Post Modernism
masses more and more passive, rather than increasingly rebellious. Thus the
masses encounter these changes with seeming ease absorbing each new
cultural idea or artifact. Thus for Baudrillard masses are not seen to be the
products of media. Rather it is the media which is observed to provide these
wants to the masses (for objects and entertainment). For Baudrillard society
is in throes of a ‘death culture.’ Thus it is death anxiety that pushes people
to try and lose this anxiety by using and abusing the consumerist culture.
There is no revolutionary silver lining to Baudrillard’s theory and the problem
is also that symbolic exchange societies may exist but how to bring them
about is not addressed to by Baudrillard. All in all Baudrillards brilliant and
unusual ideas make it a clear breakaway from the ideas and artifacts of
modernism. Baudrillard in deconstructing contemporary society shows just
how much sociological theory has moved forward and away from classical
thought. Thus we can see post modernism does display certain characteristics
and we can see below just what these are.

The first of these characteristics is that in postmodernism that is a multiplicity

of views, meanings and so on. Secondly the postmodernists are looking for
polysemic and alternative meanings. Thirdly there is a distrust of
metanarratives and grand narratives as found in classical sociological theory.
It also holds that since there a multiplicity of perspectives there will always
be many truths. Thus postmodernists regard concepts ideas as texts which
are open to interpretation. They also look for binary oppositions in the text.
Further, these binary oppositions are themselves shown to be false or at
least not necessarily true. Finally the post modernist identifies texts, groups
which are absent or omitted. This is regarded important to any
‘deconstruction.’

Now postmodernism is reflected in almost all areas of life including film, TV,
literature etc. which are deeply influenced by postmodern viewpoints. Let
us now turn to some postmodern aspects visible in other fields. Thus in
language words and forms are used and the concept of ‘play’ is basic to it.
Thus ‘play’ implies altering the frame which connects ideas – allowing the
troping of a metaphor. Thus the ‘text’ has a meaning which is understood
or interpreted by the reader and not the author. This ‘play’ or exercise is
the way that the author gains some significance in the consciousness of the
reader. The problem with this postmodern view about language is very difficult
to understand and is against the basis of communication where the author
communicates to the reader in as lucid a manner as possible.

In literature it is found that postmodern works is not so much opposed to

modernist literature. Instead it tends to extend it stylistically. Some post
modern literatures include David Foster Wallace and Thomas Pynchon both of
whom are critical of the vast system building of the Enlightenment modernity.
As you would have noticed post structuralism and postmodernism do have
an intermeshing quality. Indeed some authors straddle both fields e.g. Francois
Lyotard. Further structuralism tries to build models seeking out factor and
patterns that are stable, which is anathema to postmodernists and rejected
outright as a futile manoeuvre. Thus postmodernism has retained the cultural
dimension of structuralism but has rejected the claims to its scientificity.
Again post structuralism is a position in philosophy, it is not the name of an
era whereas postmodernism is associated with the post modern epoch.

199
Issues of Modernity
31.9 Conclusion
What then has postmodernism achieved? The answer is that postmodernism
has turned away the shroud over the analysis and demystified both
epistemological and ideological constructs. Further a deep look at ethnography
has to led to a reexamination and questioning of ethnography itself.
Postmodernism and its adherents point out that sociologist should analyse
the role of their own culture in the study of culture, and therefore, increase
the sensitivity of the subject. Postmodern approaches have been criticised
on several grounds. To begin with postmodernists are against theory. This
paradoxical since this is itself a theoretical position taken by the
postmodernists. Again the postmodernists emphasise the illogical or non-
rational aspects of a culture. Further, the postmodern concentrates on the
marginal which is itself evaluative. Then again the stress on intertextuality,
but do not always follow their own advice and often treat texts as standing
alone. Postmodernists also put away all assessment of theory – but this does
not mean that there is no means of assessment. Thus according to
postmodernists modernism is inconsistent but they themselves exercise it
as and which way they want. Finally the postmodernists are self contradictory
when they deny any claims of reality or ‘truth’ in their own writings. Finally
there is the issue of postmodernism not having any confidence in the scientific
method. But if sociology does follow this position, then it will turn into a
study of meanings, rather than causes which influence what it is to be an
individual in society.

31.10 Further Reading

Baudrillard, Jean 1976, Symbolic Exchange and Death. London : Sage

Derrida, Jaques 1978, Writing and Difference. Chicago, University of Chicago

Press

Foucault, Michel 1969 The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on

Language. New York : Harper Colophon

Jameson, Frederic 1991 Postmodernism or The Cultural Logic of Late

Capitalism Dusham, N.C. : Duke University Press

200