Outline Giddens’s views on the institutional dimensions of modernity and the globalisation of modern forms of life and then consider their contemporary relevance. PDF

Preview

Summary

Institutional dimensions of modernity and globalization ...

Description

UP773976

Outline Giddens’s views on the institutional dimensions of modernity and the globalisation of modern forms of life and then consider their contemporary relevance. Introduction According to Giddens modernity is “multidimensional on the level of institutions and that each of the elements specified by these various traditions plays some part” (Giddens, 1990, p.12). He identifies the following as the institutional dimensions of modernity: capitalism, industrialism, surveillance and military power (Giddens, 1990, See Figure 1, P.59). The institutional dimensions of modernity is a debated topic and this will be discussed further in relation to the views provided by Giddens as well as other key sociological theorists such as Marx. This report will also discuss all four of these aspects as well as Giddens’ views on the globalisation of modern forms of life and consider their contemporary relevance. Capitalism Giddens describes the following as the institutional dimensions of modernity: capitalism, industrialism, surveillance and military power and suggests that together they “characterise modernity” (Spaargaren, 1997, p.16). O'Riordan argues that within the institutional dimensions of modernity the process of globalisation has taken place (2001, p.29). Giddens’ definition of capitalism stems from a Marxist perspective, he refers to capitalism as “a system of commodity production centred upon the relation between private ownership of capital and property less wage labour, this relation forming the main axis of the class system” (Giddens, 1990, p.55). Giddens proposes that the development of abstract labour power was significant in connecting capitalism and industrialism because “abstract labour can be directly programmed in to the technological design of production” (Giddens, 1990, p.61). Marx’s writings state that in pre-modern society class systems were very rarely “wholly economic” but instead were centred on exploitative class relations where the bourgeoisie who were known as the ruling class exploited the proletariat. Wright critiques the Marxist theory due to “its lack of realism as an account of contemporary capitalism” (Wright, 1979, p.10). He argues that perception of class relations and how it is related to exploitation have developed and changed with time and suggests that the traditional Marxist perspective on class portrays society as being “radically polarized between the bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Wright, 1979, p.10). In other words, Giddens suggests that the class system in pre modern states was depicted as exploitative and that the dominant class often “deployed force through violence” (1990, p.62). Giddens argues that the captilaistic labour contract is a key aspect of the “newly emergent class system involved in the hiring of abstract labour rather than the servitude of the whole person” (Giddens, 1990, p.61). Giddens and Marx’s views differ when discussing the means of violence as Giddens suggests that the “capitalist labour contract does not rest upon violence” and so class relations become “directly incorporated within the framework of capitalist production rather than being sanctioned by violence” (1990, p.62). Sklair’s analysis of capitalist globalisation proposes that the state has “little institutional autonomy” and for him the transnational capitalist class is the “main political actor” (Sklair, 2002 cited by Dillon, 2010, p.468). He uses the example of the 9/11 terrorist attacks which he believes highlights the “importance of a transnational rather than a nation state approach (Sklair, 2002 cited by Dillon, 2010, p.468). In other words, Sklair’s view argues that 9/11 was the result of a “transnational terror alliance against one location of capitalist globalisation rather than one interstate alliance” against another” (Sklair, 2002 cited by Dillon, 2010, p.468).

UP773976

Industrialism vs capitalism Industrialism is the second institutional dimensions of modernity and refers to “the use of inanimate sources of material power in the production of goods, coupled to the central role of machinery in the production process” (Giddens, 1990, p.56). There is an ongoing debate as to whether modern institutions are capitalistic or industrial however Giddens argues that both capitalism and industrialism should be portrayed as two distinct dimensions involved in the institutions of modernity” (1990, p.55). O'Riordan argues that according to Giddens “capitalism relates owners to capital wage labour and industrialism applies to the link between people and the natural world” (2001, p. 29). Although Goldblatt proposes the view that despite Giddens arguing capitalism and industrialism are “empirically and analytically” separate, its “’major impact in the last 200 hundred years has been in combination with capitalism” (Goldblatt, 1996, p.18). Gidden’s argument regarding the institutional dimensions of modernity proposes that all four dimensions are able to operate with one another. In the contemporary world industrialism has become globalised and one of the key aspects of this is the rise in machine technology. Giddens suggests third world countries have come to be regarded as “newly industrialising countries” (1990, p.76). He goes on to argue that “the diffusion of industrialism has created “one world” (1990, p.76). For example in countries that are agricultural modern technology has been implemented such as the use of fertilisers which has made farming more efficient. Nation state system The nation state system is discussed mainly by theorists of international relations who argue that “nation states are treated as actors engaging with one another in the international arena” (Giddens, 1990, p.66). The nation state “arose with the expansion of capitalism and that this was dependent on the centralization of violence in state offices as the police were responsible for controlling people internally, the government were responsible for providing military support abroad” (Tucker, 1998, p.119). In pre modern society sovereign states emerged as “separate entities” and had complete administrative control within their borders (Giddens, 1990, p.66). However through globalisation Giddens argues that nation states have become less sovereign “in terms of control over their own affairs” (1990, p.66). With regards to contemporary society the EU is a prime example where globalisation has enabled countries to unite and exchange resources and labour and has brought Europe back together after the world war. The EU has led national states to become one and share sovereignty between them. However, critics have argued that in joining the EU it has led member states to distribute their economic and military power with other member states. For example “EU states are tied together by common geographical, cultural, economic links” (Baker & Seawright, 2000, p.52).Therefore this has led member states to lose their own sovereignty as they no longer possess all of their power. A contemporary example is Britain leaving the EU as an attempt to regain their sovereignty.

Surveillance The third institutional dimension of modernity is surveillance and this refers to “the supervision of the activities of subject populations in the political sphere” (Giddens, 1990, p.58). In other words, this refers to the surveillance and control of information and Giddens argues that “Supervision may be direct as discussed by Foucault in for example prisons and schools but Giddens suggests that it is more so indirect and based upon the control of information (Giddens, 1990, p.58). Giddens incorporates Foucault’s view and argues that “social change is tied to the rise of new types of surveillance which then contribute to the formation of new institutions” (Tucker, 1998, p.110).

UP773976

Foucault’s study ‘discipline and punish’ focuses on crime and imprisonment and he is critical of the Marxist view that surveillance is a decisive economic operator (Fuchs, 2012, p.2). Giddens is critical of Marx as he argues that Marx ignored the topic of surveillance however Marxist writings have shown that “Marx considers surveillance as a process that shapes modern society” (Giddens, 1985, cited by Fuchs, 2012, p.5). In contemporary society there has been a significant rise in state surveillance as a result of terrorism which has become an international issue. Particularly after 9/11 “consumer surveillance on the internet (for example, Facebook and Google)” has risen as well as an increase in CCTV operating all over society as a means of control and supervision by the government (Fuchs, 2012, p.2). It is evident that there has been an “intensification of surveillance in the economy, the political system and everyday life (Fuchs, 2012, p.2).

Military power and world military order The final institutional dimension identified by Giddens is military power which is “control of the means of violence, military power was always a central feature of pre-modern civilisations. The industrialization radically changes the character of warfare ushering in an era of total war and later the nuclear age” (Giddens, 1990, p.58). Dillon discusses Giddens’ view regarding the world military power and claims “that this is a discrete analytical dimension of globalisation” (2010, p.468). Giddens highlights that although military power overlaps it “does not always correlate with a country’s positioning within the world capitalist economy and the nation state system” (Dillon, 2010, p.468). He gives the example of third world countries who are economically weak but are militarily powerful (2010, p.468). Giddens goes on to argue that the globalising of military power is not only confined to weaponry and alliances between the armed forces but also war itself (Giddens, 1990, p.75). Giddens incorporates Clausewitz’ main argument regarding war and argues that we are in an era of “nuclear weaponry” where he highlights that the reason for possessing nuclear weapons is also to deter others from using them (Clausewitz, 1985, cited by Giddens, p.75). This is applicable in contemporary modern society whereby the United States and North Korea are currently involved in nuclear warfare.

World capitalist economy Immanuel Wallerstein discusses the world capitalist economy in relation to the world systems theory. He “focuses on the two central conflicts of capitalism, bourgeoisie versus proletarian and core versus periphery” (Wallerstein, 1979, p.3). Wallerstein argued that “capitalism was from the beginning an affair of the world economy and not of nation states” (Wallerstein, 1979, cited by Giddens, 1990, p.68). Wallerstein’s writings are closely tied to the Marxist view and Giddens criticises him for focusing primarily on capitalism being the only “dominant institutional nexus as being responsible for modern transformations” (Giddens, 1990, p.69). Giddens argues that Wallerstein failed to acknowledge “the role of military power and warfare” and argues that the world systems theory which is primarily associated with Wallerstein relies heavily on economic influences. (Tucker, 1998, p.110). Tucker also comments on the way Giddens deems Wallerstein’s writings as “falling in to a functionalist reductionist argument” (1998, p.110).

UP773976

The international division of labour and globalisation Giddens argues that “modern industry is intrinsically based on division of labour” and that since the Second World War a major expansion of global interdependence has taken place (Giddens, 1990, p.76). For Giddens one of the key features of the globalising of industrialism is the diffusion of technology. He argues that the impact of industrialism has a major effect on many aspects of day to day life (1990, p.76). Classical theorist Adam Smith, put forward the view that “division of labour has allowed for an increase in production and has allowed industrious nations to experience universal opulence" (Smith, 1776). James discusses the view that the traditional international division of labour where “the third world was relegated to a producer of raw materials has markedly changed (James, 1995, p.278). In contemporary society it is argued that “transnational corporations have established a global manufacturing system” (James, 1995, p.278). In relation to contemporary society Poli’s work is based around footballers and globalisation regarding the international division of labour. “The new international division of labour manifests itself by a relocalization of part of the industrial production in certain countries of the former periphery” (Polli, 2010, p.495). This process of relocalization can be defined as ‘an emergent form of worldwide division of labour associated with the internationalization of production and the spread of industrialization’ (Murray, 2006 cited by Polli, 2010, p.495). Polli then applies this to professional football and suggests that footballers are constantly transferring to teams across the world and there has been an “increase of the number of players imported from South America and Africa” to European teams (Polli, 2010, p.495). Conclusion It is evident that the institutional dimensions of modernity play a crucial role in society and although Giddens portrays them as four distinct dimensions, his writings and the writings of other theorists have gone on to illustrate the connections between them. Capitalism, industrialism, surveillance and military power are all in fact intertwined. The globalisation process has become a significant aspect of modern society and it can be argued that the world is becoming one nation in itself. As Giddens proposes “the diffusion of industrialism has created one world” (1990, p.77). Distant localities are evidently connected as a result of globalisation and the immense rise in technology has resulted in the creation of a world that is connected.

UP773976

Bibliography



         

Baker, D., & Seawright, D. (2000). Sovereignty in Question. The Case of Britain in Europe.. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/79e0986e-ceff-406e-b2dc33fa094d370b.pdf Dillon, M. (2010). Introduction to sociological theory: theorists, concepts, and their applicability to the twenty-first century. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Fuchs, C. (2012). Political Economy and Surveillance Theory. Critical Sociology, 39(5), 671687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0896920511435710 Giddens, A. (1985). The Nation-State and Violence. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1990).The consequences of modernity. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Goldblatt, D. (1996). Social theory and the environment. Cambridge: Polity Press. James H., M. (1995). Rethinking the International Division of Labour in the Context of Globalisation. Third World Quarterly, (2), 273. O'Riordan, T. (2001). Globalism, localism and identity: fresh perspectives on the transition to sustainability. London: Earthscan. Smith, A. (1970). The wealth of nations. London: Dent: New York : Dutton. Spaargaren, G. (1997). The ecological modernization of production and consumption. Wageningen: [Landbouwuniv.]. Tucker, K. H. (1998). Anthony Giddens and modern social theory. [electronic resource]. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage.



Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world-economy: essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Wright, E. O. (1979). Class structure and income determination. London; New York: Academic Press. Poli, R. (2010). Understanding globalisation through football: The new international division of labour, migratory channels and transnational trade circuits. International Review For The Sociology Of Sport, 45(4), 491-506. doi:10.1177/1012690210370640

...