The Consequences of Modernity Anthony Giddens POLITY PRESS Introduction In what follows I shall develop an institutional analysis of modernity with cultural and epistemological over- tones. In so doing, I differ substantially from most current discussions, in which these emphases are reversed. What is modernity? As a first approximation, let us simply say the following: "modernity" refers to modes of social life or organisation which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently be- came more or less worldwide in their influence. This as- sociates modernity with a time period and with an initial geographical location, but for the moment leaves its ma- jor characteristics safely stowed away in a black box. Today, in the late twentieth century, it is argued by many, we stand at the opening of a new era, to which the social sciences must respond and which is taking us be- yond modernity itself. A dazzling variety of terms has been suggested to refer to this transition, a few of which refer positively to the emergence of a new type of social system (such as the "information society" or the "con- sumer society") but most of which suggest rather that a preceding state of affairs is drawing to a close ("post- outside of our control. To analyse how this has come to modernity," "post-modernism," "post-industrial soci- be the case, it is not sufficient merely to invent new terms, ety," "post-capitalism," and so forth). Some of the de- like post-modernity and the rest. Instead, we have to look bates about these matters concentrate mainly upon insti- again at the nature of modernity itself which, for certain tutional transformations, particularly those which pro- fairly specific reasons, has been poorly grasped in the so- pose that we are moving from a system based upon the cial sciences hitherto. Rather than entering a period of manufacture of material goods to one concerned more post-modernity, we are moving into one in which the con- centrally with information. More commonly, however, sequences of modernity are becoming more radicalised these controversies are focused largely upon issues of phi- and universalised than before. Beyond modernity, I shall losophy and epistemology. This is the characteristic out- claim, we can perceive the contours of a new and different look, for example, of the author who has been primarily order, which is "post-modern"; but this is quite distinct responsible for popularising the notion of post- from what is at the moment called by many "post- modernity, Jean-Franqois Lyotard! As he represents it, modernity." post-modernity refers to a shift away from attempts to The views I shall develop have their point of origin in ground epistemology and from faith in humanly engi- what I have elsewhere called a "discontinuist" interpre- neered progress. The condition of post-modernity is dis- tation of modern social development? By this I mean that tinguished by an evaporating of the "grand narrative3'- modern social institutions are in some respects unique- the overarching "story line" by means of which we are distinct in form from all types of traditional order. Cap- placed in history as beings having a definite past and a turing the nature of the discontinuities involved, I shall predictable future. The post-modern outlook sees a plu- argue, is a necessary preliminary to analysing what mo- rality of heterogeneous claims to knowledge, in which dernity actually is, as well as diagnosing its consequences science does not have a privileged place. for us in the present day. A standard response to the sort of ideas expressed by My approach also demands a brief critical discussion Lyotard is to seek to demonstrate that a coherent episte- of some of the dominant standpoints in sociology, as the mology is possible-and that generalisable knowledge discipline most integrally involved with the study of mod- about social life and patterns of social development can ern social life. Given their cultural and epistemological be achieved.' But I want to take a different tack. The dis- orientation, the debates about modernity and post- orientation which expresses itself in the feeling that sys- modernity for the most part have not confronted the tematic knowledge about social organisation cannot be shortcomings in established sociological positions. An obtained, I shall argue, results primarily from the sense interpretation concerned mainly with institutional analy- many of us have of being caught up in a universe of events sis, however, as my discussion is, must do so. we do not fully understand, and which seems in large part Using these observations as a springboard, in the bulk of this study I shall attempt to provide a fresh character- too gross a fashion. But the changes occurring over the isation both of the nature of modernity and of the post- past three or four centuries-a tiny period of historical modern order which might emerge on the other side of time-have been so dramatic and so comprehensive in the current era. their impact that we get only limited assistance from our knowledge of prior periods of transition in trying to in- The Discontinuities of Modernity terpret them. The long-standing influence of social evolutionism is The idea that human history is marked by certain "dis- one of the reasons why the discontinuist character of mo- continuities" and does not have a smoothly developing dernity has often not been fully appreciated. Even those form is of course a familiar one and has been stressed in theories which stress the importance of discontinuist most versions of Marxism. My use of the term has no par- transitions, like that of Marx, see human history as hav- ticular connection with historical materialism, however, ing an overall direction, governed by general dynamic and is not directed at characterising human history as a principles. Evolutionary theories do indeed represent whole. There undoubtedly are discontinuities at various "grand narratives," although not necessarily ones which phases of historical development-as, for example, at the are teleologically inspired. According to evolutionism, points of transition between tribal societies and the emer- "history" can be told in terms of a "story line" which im- gence of agrarian states. I am not concerned with these. I poses an orderly picture upon the jumble of human hap- wish instead to accentuate that particular discontinuity, penings. History "begins" with small, isolated cultures of or set of discontinuities, associated with the modern pe- hunters and gatherers, moves through the development of riod. crop-growing and pastoral communities and from there The modes of life brought into being by modernity to the formation of agrarian states, culminating in the have swept us away from all traditional types of social emergence of modern societies in the West. order, in quite unprecedented fashion. In both their ex- Displacing the evolutionary narrative, or deconstruct- tensionality and their intensionality the transformations ing its story line, not only helps to clarify the task of an- involved in modernity are more profound than most sorts alysing modernity, it also refocuses part of the debate of change characteristic of prior periods. On the exten- about the so-called post-modern. History does not have sional plane they have served to establish forms of social the "totalised" form attributed to it by evolutionary con- interconnection which span the globe; in intensional ceptions-and evolutionism, in one version or another, terms they have come to alter some of the most intimate has been far more influential in social thought than the and personal features of our day-to-day existence. Ob- teleological philosophies of history which Lyotard and viously there are continuities between the traditional and others take as their prime objects of attack. Deconstruct- the modern, and neither is cut of whole cloth; it is well ing social evolutionism means accepting that history can- known how misleading it can be to contrast these two in not be seen as a unity, or as reflecting certain unifying Security and Danger, Trust and Risk principles of organisation and transformation. But it does In pursuing my enquiry into the character of moder- not imply that all is chaos or that an infinite number of nity, I want to concentrate a substantial portion of the purely idiosyncratic "histories" can be written. There are discussion upon the themes of security versus danger and definite episodes of historical transition, for example, trust versus risk. Modernity, as everyone living in the whose character can be identified and about which ge- closing years of the twentieth century can see, is a double- neralisations can be made? edged phenomenon. The development of modern social How should we identify the discontinuities which sep- institutions and their worldwide spread have created arate modern social institutions from the traditional so- vastly greater opportunities for human beings to enjoy cial orders? Several features are involved. One is the sheer a secure and rewarding existence than any type of pace of change which the era of modernity sets into mo- re-modern system. But modernity also has a sombre tion. Traditional civilisations may have been considerably side, which has become very apparent in the present more dynamic than other pre-modern systems, but the ra- century. pidity of change in conditions of modernity is extreme. If On the whole, the "opportunity side" of modernity this is perhaps most obvious in respect of technoiogy, it was stressed most strongly by the classical founders of so- also pervades all other spheres. A second discontinuity is ciology. Marx and Durkheim both saw the modern era as the scope of change. As different areas of the globe are a troubled one. But each believed that the beneficent pos- drawn into interconnection with one another, waves of sibilities opened up by the modern era outweighed its social transformation crash across virtually the whole of negative characteristics.