Evaluate the claims of the Individualisation Thesis PDF

Preview

Summary

essay on the individualisation thesis....

Description

Evaluate the claims of the Individualisation Thesis (use social theorists discussed on the module). With the development of technology, modernisation became the key to progress, with modernity came the ability to become reflexive and critical about not only oneself but also about the society that we live in. we are able to reflect on laws and the state of the world and have the means to change these things, individuals have become increasingly free of structural constraints and can now reflexively create themselves and allows them to change the society they live in. however, there is ambiguity in which causes the other individualism or reflexive modernity. The individualisation thesis was proposed in 2001 by Ulrich Beck and Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim [ CITATION Bec02 \l 2057 ]. In this essay I will explore the key ideas that they raise, and how relevant these claims are in contemporary society. I will examine the theory as well as critiques made against the theory. This theory is a widely accepted notion which many agree with, however many criticise it for supposedly being an exaggerated version of the truth. The individualisation thesis is a theory introduced by Beck and Beck-Gernsheim in 2002, who hypothesised that individuals are becoming less influenced by tradition, social norms and a collective identity. As these social structures lessen their restraint, individuals have become increasingly selfreflective and are able to choose their own careers and lifestyles. This fundamental change in individuals’ behaviours stems from the societal change driven by globalisation, capitalism and in turn modernisation. Individuals have become self-reflexive and so are able to constantly re-examine their own identity and behaviour and in turn able to construct an identity that they feel is suitable for differing situations. Self-reflexivity gives people an opportunity to succeed in society and broadens the choices available to all. Minority groups have a lot more freedom than in the past and individuals are no longer bound by family names, responsibilities or religion [ CITATION Riy17 \l 2057 ]. Nevertheless, this newly found freedom doesn’t come without restrictions, although the influence of tradition has weakened the structure and norms of the social world still act as a barrier to people and limits the options they have, although to a much lesser extent than in the past. An example of this is work, despite the need for labour and money, people must first become qualified in a field before they are able to work in it, furthermore these jobs may not be attainable if the individual lacks the necessary experience for the field. Individuals are born with restrictions (e.g. race, sexuality, location, class) and are then expected to succeed in the social world despite how many limitations they face, the consequences of people’s actions are now their sole responsibility and so people are more harshly punished for their actions[ CITATION Bec13 \l 2057 ]. In todays political climate, the individualisation thesis is held in high regard by many western cultures, with the rise of neoliberal ideology which emphasises the desirable nature of being an individual within a free market. This positive rhetoric around being an individual, specifically geared towards consumers, has greatly increased the competitive nature of the market, pushing young people to become the best in their fields. However, this ideology also acts as a punishment for those who are not privileged enough to succeed in society by the standards of capitalism. Instead this choice rhetoric serves to exacerbate the situation they are in, in turn worsening their outlook on life, this ideology leads people to believe that it is through their own faults that they were not able to succeed instead of a floored system which limits the growth of certain groups. The individualisation ideology suggests that’s these individuals didn’t make thee right choices which prevented them from achieving their goals. This theory, therefore, tends to disempower those who are most at the mercy to the structural constraints of society. Bauman also argues that people have broken free from tradition now have the ability to construct themselves through consumerism. Bauman discusses this in the context of market liberalism. People’s individual rights to freedom of choice are defined by the individual’s consumption, which is emphasised at the expense of political rights. As the European

welfare states are cut back and the political emphasis being placed on markets, a ‘customer ideology’ replaces the discourse of the ‘citizen’. It can be argued that the focus in both social science and public discourses have shifted from concerns about the collective welfare to matters of ‘individual life style’ which relate to consumerism and market choices [ CITATION Zyg98 \l 2057 ]. An alternative to the individualisation thesis is the connectedness thesis proposed by Carol Smart who argues that our choices as individuals are all limited by the familial and important relationships that we hold, everyone is connected in a network of ties to other people, our choices are made within this network and influenced by these relationships. Each individual is embedded into this system of connections and these relationships are not easily lost. Peoples freedom of choice is always influenced by those around them, for example children or spouses greatly affect an individual’s ability to move around for work and their ability to spend money on what they want. The connectedness thesis also emphasises the important role that wider social structures have in limiting our choices, unlike the individualisation thesis. Social structure such as class and gender greatly limit not only the freedom of choices that we are able to make but also the types of relationships and selfidentity we are able to create for ourselves [ CITATION Car07 \l 2057 ]. The connectedness thesis takes into account not only restrictions from wider society but also from an individual’s personal life which may limit or change the choices available to individuals. Many sociologists critique the individualisation thesis for its exaggerated presentation of people’s freedom. [ CITATION She11 \l 2057 ] argues that traditional norms haven’t weakened as much as the theory states, specifically with family relationships. this theory greatly exaggerates the extent of personal freedoms, many people are still bound by societal norms as well as familial relationships that may limit choices. Budgeon states that this theory resembles the neoliberal ideology which emphasises choice and free will. However, the individualisation thesis ignores the innate biases of society which systematically disadvantages certain groups, such as working class and ethnic minorities. These groups tend to have to work a lot harder in order to obtain the same level of choice as those who are not disadvantaged which is not reflected in the claims of the individualisation thesis. Many groups have many more limitations and only a few choices, the theory fails to recognise these inequalities and the lack of freedom that these groups hold in the highly competitive society that we live in. this theory present the idealised middle class man which is able to choose his own path, ignoring the fact that not everyone has the same ability and privilege to utilise their freedom of choice. Some argue that the idea of individualisation is a dangerous one, especially for those most at risk of the structural restraints that bound them. The individualisation thesis ignores the complexities of modern society as well as social issues both of which stop people from changing themselves and their surrounding environment. The individualisation thesis is a western idea that also ignores the ideals of other cultures, many eastern cultures hold connectedness in high regard and so judging theses culture with the same western ideals of the life course isn’t possible as many of these culture hold family in higher regard than the individuals apart of that family. We must also not ignore that the idea of connectedness is the fabric of society itself and is important for many aspects of social life [ CITATION Nil05 \l 2057 ]. Becks active claims that class is no longer an appropriate category to separate people as he argues that class is dead, and thus there is no longer a disadvantage to being working class. As reflexive individuals we are able to change whatever aspects of ourselves we want as well as the environment that we are in, this ability to self-reflect and choose what we want is universal and so it must depend on the individual and how much work they put in that decides where they end up. This is an

optimistic and ignorant view of class; this idea relies on the assumption that the world is meritocratic. However, class still acts as a big barrier for those in poverty, those from working class backgrounds tend to underachieve in schools as well as being more likely to take vocational courses. Only 28.3% of those who are on free school meals reach the benchmark compared to 59.1% of those who don’t receive free school meals[ CITATION Edu14 \l 2057 ]. This demonstrates the clear difference in class that restricts those from working class backgrounds from achieving high grades and overcoming the restrictions that come with social class. People are unable to overcome the social structure within society that heavily restricts the choices that they’re able to make. People still have more choices than in the past, but they must make these choices within the boundaries of these social structures[ CITATION Ati07 \l 2057 ]. In conclusion, the individualisation thesis recognises that individuals have a wider range of choices and have more power over the outcome of their own lives as well as the society that they are a part of. However, this theory exaggerates the scope of choice available to people and ignores that people don’t all have the same choices due to the social structures that limit certain groups within society. The theory somewhat ignores the power of these social structures that limit groups as well as ignoring the negative affect that individualisation may have on society, this theory only allowing few to prosper within our capitalist society. Overall I believe that the individualisation thesis is a useful theory that demonstrates the progress that we have made in society as well as the freedoms that we have, however it fails to recognise the still prevalent restrictions that many face and to recognise the effect of relationships on our choices.

References Agnihotri, R. (2017, april 27). the individualisation thesis. Retrieved from sociology articles: http://www.sociologyarticles.co.uk/the-individualisation-thesis/ Atikinson, W. (2007). Beck, individualization and the death of class: a critique. Pubmed, 349-66. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: polity press. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. London: SAGE Publishers. Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2013, October 25). individualisatiion. (T. Ravn, & M. P. Sørensen, Interviewers) Budgeon, S. (2011). Third Wave Feminism and the Politics of Gender in Late Modernity. Palgrave. Educational committee . (2014). Underachievement in Education by White Working Class Children. London: www.parliment.uk. Nilsen, A., & Brannen, J. (2005). Individualisation, Choice and Structure: A Discussion of Current Trends in Sociological Analysis. SAGE Journals. Smart, C. (2007). Personal life: New directions in sociological thinking. Cambridge: Polity....