Introduction 1 the Political Sociology of Late Modernity
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. Although much focus after the first election was on the strong showing of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party, with almost 7 per cent of the vote – and a continued presence in Greek society – the combined forces of the Left did well. Not only did Syriza (16.78 per cent) and Pasok (13.18 per cent) come second and third behind the conservative New Democrats (18.85 per cent) but the communist KKE (8.48 per cent) and socialist Dimar (6.10 per cent) parties were also among the seven parties to enter parliament on a largely ‘anti-austerity’ ticket. 1 The Political Sociology of Late Modernity: Political Individualization 1. There have been some recent attempts to combine the concepts of ‘multiple’ and ‘late’ modernity by suggesting that ‘non-Western’ parts of the world are experiencing ‘varieties of second modernity’ (Beck and Grande 2010, Maharaj 2010). These include East Asia (Han and Shim 2010); China (Yan 2010); Japan (Suzuki et al. 2010); South Korea (Kyung-Sup and Min-Young 2010); and Argentina (Levy 2010). Such attempts have been accused of some naïve historicity and ignoring differences (Calhoun 2010, Gilroy 2010). 2. My choice of the term ‘late modernity’ comes as a result of two consid- erations. Firstly, many other terms used to categorize societies of the late twentieth/early twenty-first century can misleadingly suggest a radical break with what came before (such as ‘post’ or ‘second’ modernity), whereas I argue that late modernity emerges from an earlier form of modernity, and in some ways is its very realization. Secondly, ‘late’ modernity has come to be established in the literature as the term used by those who do not use a postmodern framework (see Adkins 2002, Heaphy 2007, Young 2007 and Atkinson 2010a among others), whereas terms such as ‘liquid’, ‘high’ or ‘second’ modernity are generally used to refer to the thought of a specific theorist. 3. Here I borrow the term from Giddens (1990) to refer to what is more generally termed simply ‘modernity’ (Wagner 2012:3–10). This covers a time period from roughly the early nineteenth century through to the mid-twentieth. The obvious term to contrast with late modernity, ‘early’ modernity was not used because it could suggest a misleading periodiza- tion of modernity. It should be noted that since many of the processes of late modernity are realizations of those found in simple modernity, it is pos- sible to identify simple and late modern processes existing alongside each other (Bauman and Dawes 2011). For example, a society could have strong 186 Notes 187 forms of collective welfare provision alongside the privatization of identity which is part of late modernity. Germany would be a good example of such a society (Mills 2007). 4. Bauman has argued recently that his use of ‘liquid modernity’ is akin to the way others use ‘late modernity’. The differences between the two concern not the underlying conditions they wish to describe but rather ‘the choice of the name’ (Bauman 2011b:11–12). 5. Tester (2004:169–82), for example, argues that liquid modernity is a micro- theory, used to discuss life politics, rather than the macro-theory of postmodernity, whose role is filled by the concept of globalization. Elliott (2007) and Heaphy (2007) also treat the two separately. 6. This is a more widely taken view on Bauman’s work, discussed by Davis (2008) approvingly and Ray (2007a) in a more critical manner (see also Jay 2010). 7. It could be said that this argument outlines a world before the credit crunch of late 2007 and the ensuing recession. However, Bauman argues that the focus on ‘getting banks lending again’ is an indication of how the reality principle continues to rule, even after clear demonstrations of its shortcomings (Bauman and Rovirosa-Madrazo 2010). 8. While it is true that Giddens talks only rarely of individualization directly (Atkinson 2007b, 2010a), unless prompted (cf. Giddens and Pierson 1998:118 ff.), his work clearly contains a theory of individualization, which is why he is given so much attention in secondary discussions (Howard 2007b, Elchardus 2009). 9. Here we see the centrality of the disembedding of modernity mentioned above. This is not only a definition of modernity itself but also the responsibility of the institutions of modernity (cf. Bauman 2000a). 10. Which ensured Beck’s elaboration of individualization would come in for criticism from feminist authors, discussed below. 11. It is class identification which is significant here. For Beck we may be able to identify a group that share disadvantages because of their social position, but this same group won’t identify as members of the same class. Therefore class as a concept is not sociologically useful (Beck 2005b, 2007:681–7). 12. The English translation of Beck and Beck-Gernsheim’s Individualization contains a preface by Bauman (Bauman 2001b). 13. Bauman has linked the English Riots of 2012 to these faulty or ‘defective’ consumers, arguing that ‘this was not a rebellion or an uprising of famished and impoverished people or an oppressed ethnic or religious minority, but a mutiny of defective and disqualified consumers, people offended and humil- iated by the display of riches to which they had been denied access ...The city riots in Britain are best understood as a revolt of frustrated consumers’ (Bauman 2012b:11). 14. A process whereby previously collective decisions are increasingly decided by individual consideration and choice. 15. This is not to marginalize the significance of the disembedded thesis as a narration of late modern beliefs. As I have argued elsewhere (Dawson 2012c:314), disembedded individualization can be seen as late modernity’s ‘common vocabulary of motives’ (Mills 1940). 16. A combination of uncertainty, insecurity and ‘unsafety’ (Bauman 1999:5–6). 188 Notes 17. It is important to note that Giddens’ understanding of the Third Way has notable differences from that advocated by ‘professional’ politicians, with Blair being no exception (cf. Driver and Martell 2000, Leggett 2002, 2005), although Giddens suggests New Labour were broadly faithful to his understanding of the term (Giddens 2004). 18. This is different from the form of libertarian socialism outlined in this book. The latter focuses on individual realization via collective forms. Giddens’ understanding drew upon a more traditionally liberal ideal of removing constraints from individuals. 19. Here Giddens also overlooks the feminist critique of the welfare state, which criticizes exactly this paternalistic tendency as a reflection of patriarchal power and women’s dependence upon it (cf. Brown 1995:166–96). 20. It could be argued that Giddens leaves behind any kind of critical socio- logical perspective in the embrace of governmental power (Callinicos 1999). This is best shown by his defence of Muammar Gaddafi as a leader who could have created a ‘Norway of North Africa’ and who presided over a state which was ‘not especially repressive’ (Giddens 2007b). 21. Such a duality is open to question, Hobsbawm (1991b) suggests that the competition was not between capitalism and socialism but rather between liberal democracy and democratic centralism. 22. The one exception to this is Beck’s (2008) suggestion that climate change and globalization could lead to a ‘new social democratic era’. Significantly, however, this should not be concerned with ‘restoring past glories’ (Beck 2008:80). 23. This is undoubtedly controversial, and with Beck’s lack of evidence becomes even more so. Indeed, Beck can contradict himself, since two pages after offering the above comment he also says: ‘resentment against the “Other” in the affluent regions is on the increase. Hostility towards foreigners is spreading’ (Beck 2012:11). 24. The term favoured by Beck for a risk which becomes a reality (cf. Beck 2009:76–7). 25. Defined as creative attempts to change the ‘rules of the game’ (Beck 1997:134). 26. Which can be creative ‘but it operates within the rule system of industrial and welfare state society in the nation-state’ (Beck 1997:133–4). 27. It should be noted that the following, and the book as a whole, only refers to Bauman’s English language works. 28. The centrality of freedom to Bauman’s work can be seen in the fact that his introductory text, Thinking Sociologically, discusses how adopting a sociological approach ‘would also contribute to our freedom’ (Bauman 1990b:17). 2 Libertarian Socialism: The Genesis of an Idea 1. Sometimes translated as ‘receipts’ rather than recipes. 2. Since this chapter supplies a large number of quotes which rely excessively on the masculine pronoun, in order to maintain some semblance of neatness the use of ‘sic’ should be taken as read throughout what follows. Notes 189 3. Other terms used to refer to the stream of socialism associated with Cole include ‘associational socialism’ (Martell 1992); ‘qualitative socialism’ (Ellison 1994); in an adjusted form, ‘associational democracy’ (Hirst 1994); and Cole’s original ‘guild socialism’ (Cole 1920a). The terms used to describe Durkheim’s theory are varied not only due to semantics but also due to differing interpretations of his work (cf. Dawson 2012b:2). For anarchist- and Marxist-inspired perspectives on libertarian socialism, see Prichard et al. (2012) and Screpanti (2007). 4. Although ‘Cole was never a Fabian, for he held an essentially un-Fabian view of life under socialism’ (Wright 1979:20), he began and ended his political life as, at least formally, a member of this group. I direct the reader to Wright for an explanation of the reasons, largely of domestic politics rather than ideology, which impacted Cole’s relationship with the Fabians. This book is instead devoted primarily to Cole’s ‘guild’ period, running roughly from 1913 until the late 1920s, reaching its pinnacle in his two 1920 texts, Guild Socialism Re-stated and Social Theory, and his 1950 edited collection, Essays in Social Theory.