1SelfandSocialChange

Thestoryofsocialchange in the late twentiethandearly twenty-firstcenturies isacomplexandcontestedone.Itisworthstatingattheoutsetthatattemptingtoseparateoutsocialchangesis an analytic process.As soon aswepull themapart they snapback into a complex inter-relatedwhole. ‘Social change is both a specific and amultifaceted phenomenon’ states onecommentator(Jordan,2002:300).ItmightbefruitfultoconsidertheelementsofsocialchangedescribedbelowinawaysimilartoDonnaHaraway(1997).Althoughshecategorizeschangeslightly differently, the main areas are described as multiple ‘horns’ of a ‘wormhole’.Haraway’s language ischaracteristicallyvividhere; themetaphorofawormhole is taken toindicatehowaspectsofeachareaofsocialchangeappearanddisappearinthefabricofoneanother(Jordan,2002:292).Thusitisimpossibletoconceiveofsocialchangeinitstotality,butinaccuratetoconsideritasmadeupofdiscreetandcompatibleunits.Take one example of a relatively mundane development in social communication, video

conferencing,which isstillanemerging technologyat the timeofwriting.Wemightwant toplacethisinasocialchangecategoryof‘communication’.However,itscentralfunctionmightyet be in transforming the workplace, making travel less necessary and home-basedemployment more of a possibility. So we are tempted to put it in the ‘work’ category.However, the fact thatpeoplecancommunicate in thesamephysical ‘space’whilstbeing indifferent spaces and time zones may suggest a profound change in our experience oftime/space. So maybe video conferencing should go in a ‘time/space’ category? The sameappliestomanyexamples.Thusit isworthrememberingthatwhatarediscussedasseparatesocial changes and categories of social change relate closely to each other and co-exist incomplexways.Despite complexities and controversies, social transformations have repeatedly been

flaggedupusingthefollowingtermsandideastoindicate(orcontest)thegeneralshifttopost-traditional society: globalization, technology, the body, reflexivity, time and space,homogenization,transnationalcorporations,individualization,polarizationandgender.

GlobalizationThere has been a ‘globalisation’ of economic, social and political relationships which have undermined the coherence,wholenessandunityofindividualsocieties.

(JohnUrry,1989:97)

Theglobeasanorganizingprincipleenteredthepopularimaginationintheearly1960swith

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Mcluhan’s vivid portrayal of a ‘global village’ (McLuhan, 1964). Globalization has sincebecomethechosentermofmanysocialtheoriststocapturethemultiple,dialecticaldynamicsandoutcomesofrecentsocialchange.Atitsmostbasic,globalizationrefersto‘themultiplicityof linkages and interconnections that transcend the nation-state (and by implication thesocieties)whichmakeup themodernworldsystem’(McGrew,1992:65).Themovementofpeople, finance, ideas, goods, pollution, services and so on beyond the boundaries of thenation-state has supposedly exposed the inherent fragility of those boundaries, creatingfrenetic, voluminous networks of interdependency that criss-cross the globe. Many of thechangesweare about todiscuss could easilybe argued tomove in the explanatoryorbit ofglobalization. The term has been incorporated into accounts of modernism and post-modernism, both optimistic (creative hybridity, global dialogue) and pessimistic(Americanism,imperialism),andiscommonlyarguedtohavepolitical,cultural,economicandpersonaldimensions(Albrow,1996;Giddens,1999;Held,1995;Robertson,1992).Why then, is this booknot called ‘Self andGlobalization’?Globalizationmayoftenbe a

handyand illustrativeheuristic foramultitudeof interrelatedchanges.Furthermore,most, ifnotall,oftheaccountssummarizedinsubsequentchaptersacceptglobalizingtendenciesastheimplicit markers of change which underpin accounts of transformations in self-identity.However, it is one of those terms where their meaning becomes assumed through popularassimilation, taken-for-granted to the point where it suggests and supports any number ofclaims. There is a danger of becoming blinded by the apparent descriptive power of‘globalization’asatheoryofeverything.Manyhavearguedthatwhatwecallglobalizationisinfactthecontinuationofbasestructuresofcapitalismorthepowerofnation-states(Gilpin,1987;Golding, 2000; Jamieson, 1991). It can also obscure the localized, differentiated anddivisivewaysinwhichmultiplechangescombineandareexperienced.Thustheterm‘socialchange’ ispreferred.That said it is informative tocriticallyconsidermanyof the followingchangesinrelationtoabroadprocessofglobalization.

TechnologicalchangeIftherewerenorailwaytoovercomedistances,mychildwouldneverhavelefthishometownandIshouldnotneedthetelephoneinordertohearhisvoice.

(SigmundFreud,2002[1930]:26)

Developments in communication technology are seen to be a key element in radical socialupheaval,andarecentraltomostassertionsoftherealityofglobalization.Thedevelopmentofthe printing press, maritime technology allowing well-tread shipping routes and thedevelopment of the mechanical clock, are amongst the innovations often claimed to beneglected technologiesofcommunicationand information inearlierhistoricalperiods.Muchlater,fromthe1850sintheWest,thetelegraphnetworkexpandedrapidlytocoverthousandsofmiles and carrymillions ofmessages,manyof themacross theAtlantic between theUnitedStatesandEurope,heraldinganoft-forgotteneraof‘globalization’(Mackay,2002;Standage,1990;Thrift, 1990).The steampowered rail network transformed transportation andwith itoursenseofdistanceinthesameera.

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Asmodernitydeveloped,particularlywiththeexpansionofindustrializationandcapitalism,techniquesofproductionwere revolutionized,bringingenormous interlockingchanges to thenature of work, communication, public administration, surveillance, domestic life andtransportation. The early- to mid-twentieth century saw rapid growth in the use ofcommunicationandinformationtechnologyalongsideproductiontechniques,usheringinaneraof mass-production and consumption. Key products have included the car and other motortransport, the telephone, the proliferation of radio and television reception and usageamountingto‘masscommunication’(Thompson,1995).Morerecent‘high-tech’developmentsin the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, though by nomeans accessible to all,includeanincreaseinhomecomputerownership,internetandemail,massairtravel,expandeduse ofmobile phones and portable computers (Gergen, 1991), bio-technological innovationaffecting numerous aspects of life from appearance, physical and mental health andreproduction, to advanced surveillance, security and global positioning technologies. Aneffectivemeansofproducinganddistributinggoods,andofinformingamassaudienceoftheiravailability, desirability and necessity are all argued to be vital components leading to aradicalizationofsocialchangecurrentlyshowingnosignsofflagging.Thereismuchcommonground in acknowledging the actuality of these developments, but significant differences ininterpreting their social impact. Arguments abound, for example, about the extent to whichtechnologicalchangeovercomesormaintainssocialinequalities,andcriticsoftechnologicaldeterminism have made a strong case for considering technology as embedded in social,culturalandpoliticalchangesratherthansimplydrivingthem(e.g.Pile,2002).Relatedly,theextent to which technologies are utilized as forces of subjection and/or reflexive self-productioninformsargumentsmadeinallsubsequentchapters.

Thebody

Technological change is not just something which happens ‘out there’. Developments intechnology have been central to shifts in our understanding of what it is to be human, andparticularly corporeality, and the boundaries between body, nature and environment. Fewwoulddisagree thatchanges in technology reach intoand transformourunderstandingof thebody. In recent years, for example, body-building and fitness technologies have beendeveloped parallel to increases in gymmembership and equipment ownership. Such socio-technological developments have been argued to have a profound impact on embodiedexperience in early twenty-first century cultures (Dutton, 1995). The social proliferation ofplastic surgery is another example of the ways in which the body has been opened up(sometimes literally) to technological change, transforming our notion of the body, and theboundariesbetweennaturalandartificial,humanandnon-human.Moregenerally, thebodyhas taken amore central role in social theory after a historyof

neglect stemming back to an entrenched,masculinist,mind-body dualism inwhich the bodytended to be viewed as the inferior, encumbering partner (Burkitt, 1991). A rejection ofdualismandmore‘embodied’accountsofhumanactivityhaveledtoaninterestinthe‘socialbody’(Crossley,2001;Turner,1984;Schilling,1993):howthebodyisregulated, inscribed,

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

empowered,producedby, andproductiveof social convention (e.g.Bourdieu,1977;Butler,1990; Foucault, 1979; Elias, 1978), particularly in relation to the intersections betweentechnology,media,gender identity andembodiment (Haraway,1997;Henwoodetal., 2001;Kirkupetal.,2000;Zylinska,2002).Theorizingtherelationshipbetweenchangeandthebodyis a challenging and contested field of social theorywhich takes uswell beyond a narrowfocusontechnology.Althoughthereisnotthescopeinthisbooktoencompassanythingliketherangeofargumentsinthisfield,theorizationsofthebodywillberelevanttothediscussionsinthechaptersthatfollow.

Time-spacerelations

Alongside the changes already outlined, it is commonly claimed that there is also areconfigurationoftwoofthemostfundamentaldimensionsofhumanexistence:timeandspace(e.g. Castells, 1999;Giddens, 1991;Haraway, 1997;Harvey, 1989; Thompson, 1995). Theway this reconfiguration is expressed varies. Giddens argues that social relations begin totranscendthecontextsoftimeandspacewhichwerepreviouslyboundtolocale,forexample,whilst Harvey claims that ‘we have been experiencing…an intense phase of time-spacecompression’ (Harvey, 1989: 284; emphasis added).Despite their differences, both authorssee changes in the time-space relationship allowing for a ‘complex co-ordination’ of socialrelations‘acrosslargetractsoftime-space’(Giddens,1990:19).Contextsforactionmaynolongerbedefinedbyasenseoftimeandspacewhichisinseparablefromthephysicalitiesofthat context. Physical presence, for example, becomes an unnecessary element in socialinteraction:The advent of modernity increasingly tears space away from place by fostering relations between ‘absent’ others,locationally distant from any given situation of face-to-face interaction. In conditions of modernity place becomesincreasinglyphantasmagoric:thatistosay,localesarethoroughlypenetratedbyandshapedintermsofsocialinfluencesquitedistantfromthem.(1990:19)

Socialinteractionorderedbylocalized,relativelyself-containedstructuresoftime,spaceandplace, is now potentially disrupted. Thus time-space distanciation, to use Giddens’s term,furtherbreakstheholdoftraditionoversocialrelationsandtheformationofidentity.Itisthefoundationfor‘thearticulationofsocialrelationsacrosswidespansoftime-space’(Giddens,1991:20).Inthissenseitistheessentialcauseandconsequenceoftheotherdynamicswhichpropelmodern society into a post-traditional era. The reconfiguration of time and space iscentral to many portrayals of social change and their impact upon subjectivity, whethercouched in the terminology of psychosocial fragmentation, post-modernism or socialregulation,andisacentraltenetintheextendedreflexivitythesis,discussedinchapterthree.

Homogenization,differenceandhybridity

Thenotionofglobalizationconveyswhatappear tobecontradictory imagesofhomogeneity,difference and hybridity. Homogenization is sometimes claimed to be an outcome of the

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

dissolution of tradition, developments in communication and the continuation of capitalistrelations. The ‘timeless time…and the space of flows’ (Castells, 1999: 405) opened up bysuchchangesencouragesdialoguethatresultsinanincreasedsameness:The living conditions of various nations, classes and individuals are becoming increasingly similar. In the past, differentcontinents, cultures, ranks, trades and professions inhabited different worlds, but now theymore andmore live in oneworld.Peopletodayhearsimilarthings,seesimilarthings,travelbackandforthbetweensimilarplacesforthedailygrind.(BeckandBeck-Gernsheim,2002:174)

Other‘big’theorists,suchasBauman,alsoappealtosamenessasapotentialformofuniversalhumanismwithaglobalreach,thougharecautiouslyoptimisticatbestthatitwillberealized:for thefirst timeinhumanhistoryeverybody’sself-interestandethicalprinciplesofmutualrespectandcarepoint in thesamedirectionanddemandthesamestrategy.Fromacurse,globalizationmayyet turnintoablessing:‘humanity’neverhadabetterchance.(Bauman,2004:88)

Adifferentbutsimilarlypositivelineofargumentclaimsthatoutofabasicliberaluniformity,suchas the free-exchangeof informationallowedby the internet,newandcreative formsofdifference and distinction can readily emerge (Wiley, 1999; Lupton, 2000). Building onproliferatingcommunicationandinformationstructures,increasedcontactwithothersleadsusto a kind of constant cultural summit, where differences are acknowledged, explored, andmelded into innovative hybrids. Despite the apparent contrast, hopes for the increasedrecognition of difference rest upon similar ideals of acceptance, open communication andflexibility to themoreoptimistic theoriesofhomogeneity.Suchideasaredirectlychallengedbyaccountsofpsychosocialfragmentation(chaptertwo)andculturalnarcissism(chapterfive),whichenvisagethedissolutionoftraditionasadisintegrationofself,ripeforcolonizationbythe forces of capital and state. Such forces, it is argued, if not involved inmore explicitlydivisivepractices,appropriatehumanism,multiculturalismandthe‘acceptanceofdifference’asindividualizedcommodities,furtherreinforcingasenseofalienation.Foucaultiananalyses,discussedinchapterfour,takeasimilarlycriticalapproach,deconstructingwhatareclaimedtobethefallaciesofneo-liberalindividualization,whichrestontheoptimisticproclamationsofglobalization.Suchanalysesarewaryofarguing thata ‘true’orcoreselfhood isat stakehowever.The extended reflexivity thesis (chapter three), on the other hand, offers qualifiedsupport for the psychological benefits inherent in the inter-relating processes ofhomogenization,differenceandhybridity.

TransnationalcorporationsThecorporation’sdramaticrisetodominanceisoneoftheremarkableeventsofmodernhistory.

(JoelBakan,2004:5)

Homogeneity is interpreted by more pessimistic commentators as an appropriation of thechannels of information, products and ideas by powerful corporations and nations in newformsofimperialism(e.g.Schiller,1976).Amongstsuchargumentsthespreadoftransnationalormultinationalcorporations(TNCsorMNCs)iscommonlyemphasizedasaformofsocial

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

change(e.g.Ritzer,1993).JoelBakan’srecentaccountofcorporatehistoryandpoweropenswiththefollowing:Today,corporationsgovernour life.Theydeterminewhatweeat,whatwewatch,whatwewear,wherewework,andwhat we do. We are inescapably surrounded by their culture, iconography, and ideology. And, like the church andmonarchyinothertimes,theypostureasinfallibleandomnipotent,glorifyingthemselvesinimposingbuildingsandelaboratedisplays.(Bakan,2004:5)

Bakan’s description allows us to stand back fromwhat has undoubtedly become one of themostpervasiveinstitutionsinarelativelyshorthistoricalperiod.Inneo-liberaldefencesofthebenefitsofglobalization,andincriticaltheoriesofglobalizationandanti-globalization,TNCsare never far from the conceptual frontline. They are seen to be integral to all the socialchanges discussed so far. In neo-liberal accounts,TNCsbring the liberatingmessage of themarkettoeverydarkalleyintheglobalnetwork,usheringinfreedom,opportunity,enterpriseand democracy (e.g. Leadbeater, 2004). For critics, they impose the might of the wealthy,maintainagrowingglobalunderclassofpovertyandhopelessness,andwrecktheenvironmentinanunholypactwiththemodernstate(e.gKlein,2001).EitherwayTNCsfacilitate,andareconstitutedby,globalflowsofcommunication,transportation,financeandlabour.Thusintheconstantlocalized,experientialreconfigurationoftheseinteractingprocesses,thecorporationisaforcefulpresenceinthedynamicsofsocialchange.Theroleofthecorporationhaswarrantedvariedattentioninaccountsofsocialchangeand

selfhood.Foraccountsofpsychosocialfragmentationandculturalpathology,capitalistsocialrelations and their institutions are seen to be primarily responsible for the ills of the age(Laing,1967;Lasch,1979;Marcuse,1968).Foraccountsofextended reflexivity,capitalismandcorporatismissubsumedundermoregeneralsocietaldefinitions,suchaspost-traditional,riskornetworksociety, liquid,highor latemodernity(Bauman,2000;Beck,1992;Castells,1996;Giddens,1990,1994);someargumentshavesuggestedthatthepowerofcontemporaryformationsofcapitalismtostratifyhumanrelationsandlifechancesisunderplayedasaresult(e.g.Bradley, 1996). In Foucaultian analyses and themore general turn to language/culture,capitalismisalsoindangerofbeingmarginalizedaccordingtosomecritics(RojekandTurner,2000); the final chapter of this book is largely an attempt to reconcile suitably complexaccounts of embodied, reflexive social identity formation with an appreciation of socialstructure substantiallymarked by divisions of class and genderwhich define the stubbornlycapitalistorganizationofsocialexistence.

Individualization

For Beck, Bauman and others, globalization develops hand-in-hand with individualization(Beck, 2004;Beck andBeck-Gernsheim, 2002;Bauman, 2001) and the termhasgoneon tohave reasonableexplanatory reach inexplainingcontemporaryprocessesatwork in formingself-identity (e.g. Furlong and Cartmel, 1997). Stripped of tradition, time/space, classcategoriesandsoon,thebasicunitofsocialreproductionisnowclaimedtobetheindividual.Theindividualizedbasisforlife’strajectoryandall itsassociatedopportunitiesanddangersset against an abstract social system of rewards and punishments is conceived, somewhat

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

paradoxically,astheonlybasisforoursharedreality.Aswithotheraspectsofsocialchange,thedegreeofoptimisminvestedinindividualizationvariesamongstthosewhoutilizeit.Beck,forexample,sees individualizationasanimportantdescriptivecategorywhichposescertainproblems for contemporary society and those seeking to understand it, but also numerousopportunities,andassertstheneedforempiricalstudy,whereasBaumanismoreambivalent,Giddenssometimeslessso(e.g.Beck,2004;Bauman,2004;Giddens,1992).Theindividualizationthesisstillrecognizessociallystructuredinequality.However,inspite

ofgrowinginequalitiesbetweentherichandpoor,classcategoriesnolongerofferabasisforsolidarity.Accordingtothisthesisclassisoneofanumberof‘zombieconcepts’–likefamilyand neighbourhood – which are way-markers of an older modernity; they should really bedead, but continue to shuffle along the sociological landscape (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim,2002: 202–213; Beck, 2004: 11–61). The category of class helpedmake sense of commonexperiencesinthepast;fortheworkingclassesasenseofsharedsufferingandclasssolidarityfacilitated a ‘defence mechanism of social inclusion’ for its members (Boyne, 2002: 121).However, detraditionalization is seen to fragment cohesive affiliations and displace thecommonality of experienceswhich characterized identity. Giddens refers to this process as‘disembedding’: ‘the “lifting out” of social relations from local contexts and theirrearticulation across indefinite tracts of time-space’ (Giddens, 1991: 18). Vitally, re-embeddingoccursonanindividualizedbasis.Amidst the fluidity, fragmentation and disorganization of previously binding social

structures,thepersonalbiographybecomestheblueprintformakingsenseofone’slife-courserather than broader affiliations such as class, and combines forcefully with the process ofreflexivity: ‘Individualization of life situations and processes thus means that biographiesbecomeself-reflexive;sociallyprescribedbiographyistransformedintobiographythatisself-producedandcontinuestobeproduced’(Beck,1992:135).Theconceptofindividualizationis, in a sense, an attempt tomove beyond the paradigm of psychosocial fragmentation, andoccupies the same analytical and political landscape as notions of extended reflexivity. Assuchitisatheoreticalcompanionoftheprocessesdiscussedinchapterthreeandreferredtointherelatedcriticaldiscussionfoundthereandinlaterchapters.

Polarization

A number of contemporary commentators see polarization as an outcome of a globalizedeconomybalanced in favour ofmaintaining capital-rich economies, regions and individuals.The monopolization of capital in the hands of a few, and the deregulation of its globalmovement, combines with intense global competition for investment between nations andregions; coupledwith a growingworkforce, wage control, the erosion of union power andwelfarismcreatesacontextrifeforpolarization(Bauman,1998;Bradley,1996;Bradleyetal.,2000;Golding,2000).Polarizationisnotjustaboutasimplisticdistinctionbetweenupperandworking class, as Marx sometimes envisaged it, or even between upper and under class.Recent research suggests that inequalities cross-cut one another to produce positions ofinequality. Thus Bradley claims that ‘the economic changes which spring from the global

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

restructuring of the economy have effects on all four dynamics [class, gender, age, race] ofstratification. These combine to produce growing disparities between privileged andunderprivilegedgroups’(Bradley,1996:210).Intermsofhealthandaccesstohealthcare,workingpractices,educationalopportunityand

lifeexpectancy,manysurveysandstudiessupport thenotionofan increasingpolarization inthe lifestyles of populations.Research in theUnitedKingdomby the Smith Institute,with asampleof16,000,studiedtherelationshipbetweensocialbackgroundandachievement.Theyfound that the ‘opportunities gap’ between those from different social backgrounds was nodifferent for those born in 1958 and 1970, suggesting that ‘today’s 30-year-olds are stillhauntedbydisadvantageandpovertyatbirth’ (reported inTheGuardian, July12,2000). Interms of ‘information structures’, home access to the internet may be a small example ofstratification.ThenumberofUKhouseholdswithinternetaccesshasdoubledinthelastyearto6.5million(25%).However,ofthepoorestthirdofthepopulation,accessvariesbetween3%and 6%, while for the more affluent, it reaches about 48%. There are further regionalvariations.Onereportagreedthattherewasagrowinginterneteconomy,suggestingparallelswithLashandUrry’sinformationandcommunicationstructures.However,‘ifyoudon’thaveaccesstotheskillsandtheknowledgetothriveinthateconomybecauseofwhereyoulive,orhowmuchmoneyyouearn,youwon’tbeincluded’(OfficeofNationalStatisticsreport,inTheGuardian,July11,2000).TheeconomistLarryElliotpointedoutthataswellasanincreasingincomegapbetweenandwithinrichandpoorcountries,thereisalsoagrowingdifferenceinlifeexpectancy(TheGuardian,June29,2000).Accountshavedetailedthelifestylesoftheunderpriveleged:the‘wastedlives’ofrefugees

and impoverishedmigrants (Bauman, 2004); the urban slums, ‘warehousing the twenty-firstcentury’ssurplushumanity’(Davis,2004:28),totalpopulationsofwhichwasconservativelyestimatedat921millionin2001,orathirdoftheglobalurbanpopulation(2004:13);ortheformal and informal working poor, who’s working lives only serve to perpetuate theircontinualstateofimpoverishment(Ehrenreich,2002).Othersgiveaccountsoflifeattheotherend:therichandpowerful,increasinglyhiddenbehindgatedcommunitiesandmovingthroughsecure,defendedspaces(BlakelyandSnyder,1997;Caldeira,1996),tothepointwhere‘someoddopticalpropertyofourhighlypolarizedsocietymakesthepooralmost invisibletotheireconomicsuperiors’(Ehrenreich,2002:216).Foucaultiananalysesareparticularlyattunedtohow the techniques embodied in the micropractices of everyday life – such as publicsurveillance, architecture, government health programmes – maintain and deepen socialdivisions,discussedinchapterfour.Howtheglobalspreadofcapital,inparticular,ensuresaplanetary consolidation of positions in the polarization of life-chances is remarkably absentfrommanyaccountsofsocialchangeandtheformationofselveshowever,anissueconsideredinthefinalchapter.

Gender

Itiscommonlyclaimedthatoneofthemostimportanttransformationstohavemarkedthelasthalf-century is our understanding of gender, the nature of male and female identity and

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

particularlytherelationsbetweenthem.Asaquestionofselfhood,theissueofgenderwillbecentral to discussion in later chapters. As a dimension of broad social change however, itwarrantsabriefsummaryhere.Feminist theoryhasbeencentral tocriticalsocial theoryforoveracentury.It iswrongto

associatefeminism’sachievementssolelywithourunderstandingofgender;ithasbeencentraltomanyifnotallofthedebatesinthelasthalf-century,suchasthenatureofsocialpower,theusefulness of psychoanalysis as a social theory, the shift from structuralism to post-structuralismandthedefinitionofwhatcanbedeemedpolitical.However,feminismhasbeenvital inunsettling social understandingsofgender and the social structure theymaintain andrely upon. Though papering over the fissureswhich increasingly define the development offeminisms,itcanatleastbesummarizedthatfeminismhaslongheld‘thatthesocialworldispervaded by gender, thatmen andwomen are socialized into distinct patterns of relating toeachother,andthatmasculineandfemininesensesofselfaretiedtoasymmetricalrelationsofgenderpower’(Elliott,2001:19).Thereisnotthespaceheretoofferahistoricaloverviewbut part of the feminist project has been to uncover the history of gender positions and theshiftinggenderedrelationsofpowerhiddeninpatriarchalhistories.Butgenderisbeingdiscussedhereundertherubricofsocialchange.Sowhathaschanged?

That deceptively innocent question has been at least as fraughtwith argument, contradictionanduncertaintyasanyotherareaofsupposedsocial transformation in the late twentiethandearly twenty-first century.Many feminists assert the continuation of gender power either inlong-existing or novel forms: the persistence of domestic violence and relational imbalance(Jamieson,1998;Walby,1990),thestructuringoflifechancescross-cutwithotherinequalities(Bradley,1996;Skeggs,1997,2003)orcontinuingdiscursiveandmaterialregulation.Herethe‘losers’inthepolarizationgameappeartobegenderedtoo(Adkins,2002).Howeversomestrandsofpost-structuralistand/orpost-modernfeminismseegenderroles

changing broadly in line with the social changes we have discussed so far. Here again asurfaceconsensusisdiscernibleacrossanumberoftheoreticaltraditions.Amidsttheerosionof tradition, thecollapseofestablished time-spaceconfigurations,changes in theworkforce,cultural communication, reflexivity and individualization, gender becomes a more plasticpositioning.Genderisinfacttreatedasaformoftradition;thusiscannolongerbetakenforgranted,unequivocallyenactedasanacceptedpowerplay.Suchclaimsmaybeexpectedinthebroad,optimistictheorizingofafiguresuchasGiddens

buttheyarealsoofferedsupportfromsomeoftheproponentsofthemorefashionable,criticaledge of feminist theory. Take Butler’s post-structuralist notion of gender as a performance(Butler,1990),forexample.Genderassomethingwedo isalsogenderassomethingwecanundo and Butler has placed considerable emphasis upon the political value of disruptingtraditional gender identities via a transgression and blurring of their boundaries. Butler’sarguments aremost readily conceived in post-traditional setting saturated by reflexivity andfluidcommunicationstructures(McNay,1999),thoughshehassinceexplicitlycounteredmorevoluntaristreadingsofherwork(Butler,1993).Issuesofgenderandgenderbiasthussurfaceinthecriticalaccountofextendedreflexivityinchapterthree,butareintegraltotheargumentsmade in all subsequent chapters.The extent towhich social changeshavebeen theorized intermsofgenderedsubjectivities,andtheconsequenceswhentheyare,isaprimeconcern.

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Ofcoursethereareotherchangeshighlightedbyinformedscholars,activists,journalistsandso on; and there are debates still to be had over both the extent towhich they are seen tofacilitate a substantial qualitative break from the social order supposedly left behind (e.g.Harvey,1989; Jamieson,1998;Golding,2000).There isnot the spacehere toacknowledgeargumentsandapproachesIamawareofbutremainabsent,andIcanonlyofferapologiesinadvanceforwhatisbeyondthatawareness.Manychangeswhicharebounduptightlywiththeconceptualization of identity have purposefully been put off until they are explored in laterchapters,butthatisnotanattempttodenythatwhatismissinghasvalue.

Whatdoesallthismeanfortheself?Theidentityconfigurationofacomplexindustrialsocietyislikelytobefragmentedandconfused,andanalysingitanevenmorespeculativeventure.

(Stevens,1983:71)

Theotherhalfofthetitleofthisbookisthe‘self’.Ifwewereconcernedwithhowdifficultitwastopinsomethinglike‘socialchange’downevenforamoment’sobservation,thentheselfis up there with ‘culture’ and ‘class’ when it comes to evasive and problematic terms.Sociologicalaccountsofselfarevastandvaried.Inrecentyearstherehasbeenaproliferationin interest in‘identity’,and itsstudyhasbecomean integralpartofmanyundergraduateandpostgraduate sociology and psychology courses. There has also been much time spent onattempts to differentiate between terms such as identity (and identification), self, psyche,subject, selfhoodandpersonhood (e.g. Jenkins,1996).The twodominant termsare self andidentity. The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology defines identity as ‘the sense of self, ofpersonhood,ofwhatkindofpersononeis’.Fineasfarasitgoes,butthisoffersnocluestotheextenttowhichidentityisaworkofimagination,externalimposition,ornaturalconsequenceofothercomponents‘behind’identity.What,mostpointedly,isresponsibleforthegenesisofasenseofidentity?Itsuggestsanotheraspectoftheselfexistsapartfromone’sidentity.Perhapsthat is where ‘self’ becomes salient (there is no separate entry for ‘self’ in the Penguindictionary).This termmightbebest thoughtofasall thecomponentsof the individual (it isdifficult not to fall back on one of the contentious terms in describing them) taken together:one’sidentity,theinternalsourceofthesenseofone’sidentityandanythingelsepurportedtobe involved, such as instincts. Giddens conflates the terms into the hybrid ‘self-identity’,whilstdefining it ina sensemoreakin to identity: ‘the selfas reflexivelyunderstoodby theindividualintermsofhisorherbiography’(Giddens,1991:244),whilstJenkinsdefines‘self’onitsowninverysimilarterms(Jenkins,1996:29–30).Jenkinspreferstheterm‘selfhood’,ashe feels its usage ‘minimizes the tendency towards reification implicit in “the self” andemphasisestheprocessualcharacterofselfhood’(1996:52).WhilstIsympathizewithJenkins’sdesiretoholdontoadynamicconceptualizationofself,I

donot think it isnecessary toadhere tooneoranother term; todo so itself runs the riskofreificationbyrepetition.Amidsttheconfusionandconceptualoverlapping,andnodoubttothechagrinofscholarsofself/identityeverywhere,Iusethetermsmoreorlessinterchangeably.Thisistoavoidrepetitionbutalsobecausethediscussionofselfinthisbookisinseparable

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

fromthesocial,cultural, relational,discursivefabric inwhich it isconstituted; in thissensetherearefewrestingplaceswhereitcanbecomereified,whateverwecallit.Differencesinterminologywillbediscussedonlywhentheyareperceivedtobesalientinspecificaccounts.It is perhaps worth recalling Berger and Luckmann’s (1967) dialectic which allows an

initialpositioningbetweenconstructionismandessentialism,byviewing‘theselfasasocialconstruction,butneverthelessacentre foradegreeofagencyonceconstructed’ (Butt,2004:125).VersionsofthisreframingofMarx’s‘peoplemakehistorybutnotinconditionsoftheirown making’ (paraphrased here) have gained momentum in recent frustrations withconstructionism (e.g. Butler, 1997; Hekman, 2000). There are problems too with thisdefinition,butatleastitflagsupmyintentiontoholdthebinariesofself/society,inner/outer,orindeedmind/body in tension, rather thanaccept them ina simplistic fashion.This isnothingnew,certainlynotinsociology,wheretheanalysesofGoffman,Mead,Garfinkel,Simmellandcountlessothershaveagainandagainrevealedthemutualintegrationofselfandculturalnormorsocialstructure.The problem, of course, lies in the extent to which the relationship between these two

entities,whichonlyexistinrelationtoeachother,canbeadequatelyconceptualizedtoaccountforallmannerofphenomenon, fromthenatureofself-experience to thepossibilityofsocialtransformation.Itimpingesonwhatwecansayaboutthenatureandstructureoftheselfanditsrelationshiptosocialstructuresandsupposedchangesinboth.Thusitisthisproblemwhichisthoughttobemoresalientthantheparticularterminology.Itisworthstatinginadvancethoughthat I do not think it is feasible to eschew all assumptions of interiority in the name ofconstructionismand/orinfearofthesinofessentialism.Winnicottdelineatesinthefollowingallthatcanbesaidforcertainatthisstage:‘ofeveryindividualwhohasreachedtothestateofbeingaunitwithalimitingmembraneandanoutsideandaninside,itcanbesaidthatthereisaninnerrealitytothatindividual’(citedinDavisandWallbridge,1981:33).Ofcoursethereare points of contention even here in the assertion of an ‘inner’; nonetheless it is a guidingassumptionwhichwillbeputtothetestinthechapterstocome.Questionsofgeneraldefinitionaside,muchofthisbookisconcernedwiththemorespecific

phenomenonof‘self-reflexivity’.ThetermhasbeenpopularizedbyGiddens,andheperceivesthere to be two levels of reflexivity. The first is a general ‘reflexivemonitoring of action’whichis‘characteristicofallhumanaction’(Giddens,1990:36).Itistheabilitytoreflectonwhat we do, and as such is the basis of self-awareness or self-consciousness. The secondform,thereflexivityof‘modernsocial life’extendstheprocess‘suchthat thoughtandactionareconstantlyrefractedbackupononeanother’(1990:36).Onlyhereisreflexivityradicalizedinitsapplicationto‘allaspectsofhumanlife’which‘ofcourseincludesreflectionuponthenature of reflection itself’. Giddens’s identity is fundamentally a social one, and theconventions and traditions in which it was once forged fall away amidst the corrosiveinfluenceofextendedself-reflexivity;noaspectofournaturecanremainintheshadows.Theexact nature of the self-reflexive process, how it is integrated into a broader psychologicalsubstrate, and the nature and dynamics of other ‘components’ of that substrate is far fromsettled however.Much of the book’s discussion is concerned with the formulation of self-reflexivity as it serves as a useful entry point into arguments over the nature of embodiedpsychicaldynamicsandtheirintertwiningwithsocialstructures.Thisinnowayaccedestothe

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

salienceself-reflexivityisgrantedintheoverallmodelofselfbyGiddensandothers,aslatercriticaldiscussionwillmakeclear.

Selfandsocialchange

It is not difficult to imagine how some of the consequences of the changes I have outlinedabovehavebeenformulatedinrelationtotheself.Evenwithoutthebenefitofacomprehensivepsychologicaltheoryonemightconcludethattheselfislikelytobetroubledbytheexperienceofuncertaintyandalackofcontrolovereventssuggestedhere.ItseemsreasonabletoagreewithZygmuntBauman in asserting that themodern subject necessarily ‘swims in the sea ofuncertainty’(Bauman,1993:222).We(may)haveanexpandingprerogativetochoosebutthebasisforsuchchoiceisincreasinglyproblematic.Traditionlosesitssalienceirretrievablyandthe self is disembedded, separating the individual from the meaningful, if relativelyunquestioned, context it had in previous times been immersed in. Is the individual reallydisembeddedfromitssocialandculturalmoorings?Doesdisembeddingamounttonew-foundfreedoms? How are these freedoms distributed socially? What are our options for re-embedding? What form does power take in the contemporary reconfiguration of humanrelations? These questions manifest at the heart of our understanding of self in relation tosocialchangeandareexploredinthefollowingchapters.Itishopefullyapparentthatthesearenotsimplyacademicquestionsbutpotentiallyofprofoundpersonalandsocialrelevance.

Adams, M. (2007). Self and social change. SAGE Publications, Limited.Created from waldenu on 2023-01-24 03:44:22.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

7. S

AG

E P

ublic

atio

ns, L

imite

d. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.