THE JUGGERNAUT OF MODERNITY
This topic was first coined by Anthony Giddens a British sociologist. He describes the Modern World as a juggernaut, an engine of enormous power which can be directed to some extent, but also threatens to run out of control (Goodman & Ritzer, 2004). To Giddens the classic construction of what it feels like to live in Modernity must be replaced by a new image of modernity one that is analogous to riding a careering juggernaut (Loyal, 2003). The Juggernaut crushes those who resist it, and while it sometimes seems to have a steady path, there are times when it veers away erratically in directions we cannot foresee. The ride is by no means wholly unpleasant or unrewarding; it can often be exhilarating and charged with hopeful anticipation (Loyal, 2003:117). Also, in an age of high speed travel, electronic information, and globalization the ride on the juggernaut can be invigorating to those who can afford it, but at the same time the ride can also lead to feelings of anxiety (Harkin, 1998). As long as the institutions of modernity endure, we shall never be able to control the juggernaut completely in either its pace or path of the journey. In turn we shall never be able to be entirely secure, because the terrain across which it runs is fraught with risks of high consequence (Loyal, 2003:118). The juggernaut is not a singular machine but a mass of differentiated counter-acting parts (Smith, 2002). According to Giddens we can never control social life properly, but we should still try to steer the juggernaut through positive models of counterfactual and future orientated through Utopian Realism(Smith, 2002).
Utopian Realism according to Giddens can also be conceptualized by critical modernity. Critical Modernity can lead to individual and collective acts to bring about change. The institutional dimensions of Modernity that seem like an uncontrolled juggernaut can be guided by human agency (Harkin, 1998). There are four basic institutional dimensions to modernity as described by Giddens. Capitalism is characterized by commodity production, private ownership of capital, wage labor, and a class system derived from these characteristics. Industrialism involves the use of inanimate power sources and machinery to produce goods, but it also affects transportation, communication, and everyday life. Surveillance refers to the supervision of the activities of subject populations in the political sphere. The fourth characteristic is control of the means of violence by the state (Goodman & Ritzer 2004).
Processes of Modernity
To Giddens modernity represents a sharp qualitative break from previous traditional social orders. This break involves a deep transformation that is both extensional and intensional. In terms of extensionality, globalizing influences of interconnection span the globe, so that individuals now live in a global world; in terms of intensionality, the intimate and personal features of day to day existence become fundamentally altered (Loyal, 2003:115). Giddens argues that modernity is characterized by three interconnected processes which contribute to the dynamism of modernity (Loyal, 2003).
Time and Space Distanciation
The first process is time and space distanciation which refers to the tendency for modern relationships to be increasingly distant which complicates our ability to control the various components of the modern juggernaut (Goodman & Ritzer, 2004). An adequate incorporation of time and space within social theory can only be achieved by fundamentally reconceiving both terms. Time and space are associated with different disciplines: Time with history and space with geography. Giddens states that all social interaction occurs across time and space like any other type of event. Thus all social interaction blends together presence and absence (Loyal, 2003:93). Time-space paths taken by agents according to Giddens can be viewed in three intersecting ways: First, in terms of the temporality of their immediate experience of everyday life, second, according to the temporality of their lifecycle, third in terms of their experience of institutional time(Loyal, 2003).
Although these three moments are separate, they intermingle with an agent’s time space paths (Loyal, 2003). The separation and recombination of space and time allow a zoning of social life to take place. The zoning of space and time allows the disembedding of social systems or mechanisms (Loyal, 2003:115).
Disembedding
Disembedding is the second process of modernity and it refers to the lifting out of social relations from their contexts of interaction and permits their restructuring across indefinite spans of time space(Goodman & Ritzer, 2004). There are two major types of disembedding mechanisms and both are involved in the establishment of modernity. The first is symbolic tokens which is media which can be exchanged regardless of who used them. The second is expert systems which refer to the systems of technical accomplishment of professional expertise that organize large areas of the material and social environments in which we live today. Examples would include doctors, lawyers, and scientists (Loyal, 2003). In such a system trust becomes a necessity because we no longer have full information about social phenomena (Goodman & Ritzer, 2004).
Reflexivity
The final process of Modernity as described by Giddens is the continual reflexive appropriation of knowledge (Loyal, 2003). Reflexivity means that the social practices of modern society are constantly reexamined and reformed in the light of incoming information (Goodman & Ritzer, 2004). Giddens argues that the reflexivity of modernity extends to the core of the self and becomes a reflexive project of identity information. For example the body is subject to a variety of regimes that help individuals mold their bodies. He also argues that intimate relationships have been set apart from the routines of ordinary life. As a result, the reflexive effort to create a pure intimate relationship is usually separate from larger moral issues. People are not always content to leave things to the expert systems described above, therefore people are reflexive (Ritzer, 2003). We not only reflect on our actions, but we reflect on our thinking about those specific actions (Ritzer, 2003).
Control of the Juggernaut
Although we generally trust the experts, we also know that they do not have full control over the juggernaut. The actions performed by the experts can possibly cause crises and the actions they take to cope with the crises can easily worsen the situation (Ritzer, 2003).
Why is there such a risk that the juggernaut of modernity is always threatening to rush out of control? Four answers are offered by Anthony Giddens:
1. Those who designed the juggernaut and its various components made mistakes; the juggernaut has design faults. For example those involved in the design and creation of Chernobyl (and undoubtedly other nuclear reactors around the world) made a number of mistakes that led to the meltdown (Ritzer,2003:129).
2. Those who run the juggernaut (its operators) made mistakes; the juggernaut is subject to operator failure. Thus, the meltdown at Chernobyl may have been caused by fatal errors made by those who ran the plant on a daily basis. In fact, the meltdown was undoubtedly the result of some combination of operator failure and design faults (Ritzer,2003:129).
3. We cannot always foresee accurately the consequences of modifying the juggernaut or creating new components for it; such actions often have unintended consequences of the genetic changes we are now undertaking. Similarly, the manufacturers of Fen Phen had no idea that it would lead to heart valve defects in patients who took the drug(Ritzer, 2003:129).
4. People in general, and experts in particular, are constantly reflecting on the juggernaut and, in the process, creating new knowledge about it. Such new knowledge applied to the juggernaut makes it likely that it will move at a different pace and/or direction. However this new pace or direction may bring with it a series if negative consequences(Ritzer, 2003;129).
References
1. Harkin, Joe (1998). In Defence of the Modernist Project in Education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(4), 428-439.
2. Goodman, Douglas, & Ritzer George. 2004. Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw – Hill Companies.
3. Loyal, Steven (2003). The Sociology of Anthony Giddens. Virginia: Pluto Press.
4. Ritzer, George (2003). Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. New York: McGraw – Hill Companies.
5. Smith, Carole (2002). The Sequestration of Experience: Rights Talk and Moral Thinking in ‘Late Modernity.’ Sage Publications, 36(1), 43-66.