this book review is a little different from the ones i've done thus far. i had to read this entire book for my theories of postmodernism class and write a review essay about it. so i'm posting the entire essay here. granted, this may not be "popular" culture, but this book is somewhat of an introduction into the theory of modernity and postmodernity, which is extremely relevant to examining our current society and what is to come.
title: the consequences of modernity
author: anthony giddens
purpose: required school reading
copyright: 1990
pages: 178
chapters: 6
review: anthony giddens' study of modernity and subsequent postmodernity and postmodernism takes the confusion out of the argument to some extent. giddens, although at times repetitive, offers his perspective so that the layperson that he so often discusses could actually comprehend his argument. in this way, the distinction between terms like postmodernism and postmodernity are finally understandable. giddens uses real world examples that allow the reader to not only think about modernity as an abstract term with no real meaning in today's society. he clearly lays out certain topics within the concept of modernity and applies them throughout the text. one of these topics is the balance that exists between risk and trust in modern society. giddens emphasizes trust and risk in almost every argument he makes and for this reason, it is safe to say that he feels very strongly about these concepts. although it is difficult to focus on only one concept that giddens lays out because they are all related and connected within modernity, for the purpose of this essay, i will focus only on risk and trust and how they apply to the topics of modernity as giddens presents them.
firstly, i would like to quickly summarize giddens' idea of modernity. "'modernity' refers to modes of social life or organization which emerged in europe from about the seventeenth century onwards which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence" (giddens 1). in this statement, giddens places modernity in a historical context, which becomes important throughout the text and can be elaborated on. however, these basic definitions about modernity will later help to put the ideas of risk and trust in the proper context.
much of giddens' argument in relation to risk and trust has to do with the fact that "the disorientation which expresses itself in the feeling that systematic knowledge about social organization cannot be obtained...results primarily from the sense that many of us have of being caught up in a universe of events we do not fully understand, and which seems in large part outside of our control" (giddens 2-3). this is essentially the basis of the concept of trust and risk and how they are related to one another.
giddens first mentions the theme of trust and risk when identifying the discontinuities between modern social institutions and the traditional social order. among trust and risk, giddens also touches on the pace of change, the scope of change, and the nature of modern institutions, in which he discusses the fact that modernity has been set in motion, that areas of the globe are now becoming interconnected, and finally that there have been a change in principles from the pre-modern era (giddens 6). giddens determines that modernity is a "double-edged phenomenon" and we have to study the theme of trust versus risk with this in mind (giddens 7).
when giddens begins discussing trust, he states that this term is often misused or implies something more than what its definition is. through luhmann, giddens says that "trust...should be understood specifically in relation to risk, a term which only comes into being in the modern period" (giddens 30). the reason that the term risk did not exist in the pre-modern era is because what is now dubbed "risk" was then considered "fortuna (fortune or fate)" (giddens 30). this idea of fate coincided with the idea of confidence, which luhmann referred to as "a more or less taken-for-granted attitude that familiar things will remain stable" (giddens 31). it can be said that the modern society forces the individual to take responsibility for his or her actions. if the individual is simply relying on confidence, they are not considering that alternative outcomes are possible, regardless of what they have confidence in. in this way, they are not held accountable for what happens because they truly believe that only one outcome is possible. different from this idea is that of trust, because the individual who puts his or her trust in something understands that there is a risk involved. when the outcome is alternative to what the person trusted would happen, they were previously aware that such a possibility was laid out before them. the difference between confidence and trust can now be identified as risk. this disparity between confidence and trust because of risk seems to me to be more of an idea that belongs in the enlightenment period because it appears to mirror positivism that came about as a direct result of the enlightenment. there appears to be a connection between confidence and what could be seen as a blind faith in god pre-enlightenment. giddens must have anticipated would feel similarly to what i just stated because he states that since "the notion of risk is relatively recent in origin, luhmann holds, the possibility of separating risk and danger must derive from social characteristics of modernity. essentially, it comes from a grasp of the fact that most of the contingencies which affect human activity are humanly created, rather than merely given by god or nature" (giddens 32). when thinking of this idea of risk being recent, i considered a random example of imagining a family in pre-modern society who were afraid of their family members contracting the plague. pre-enlightenment, this family would have had confidence that god would spare their family member from the plague if it were meant to be that way. they were passive in the sense that their confidence in god was intertwined with their belief in fortune and fate. in a modern society, if someone had the possibility of being diagnosed with cancer, we would view their situation in terms of the fact that mostly everyone runs the risk of getting cancer, which we can trust will be affected by the level of risk the person places themselves in (ex. smoking, not eating properly). although people may still believe in god and fate in a modern society, they understand the risks involved with unhealthy habits.
however, after understanding the difference between these concepts, i still feel that trust and risk are not modern or postmodern ideas, but that they belong to the enlightenment period and more specifically, to the theory of positivism. if, as woodiwiss claims, "modernity" has simply replaced the term "capitalism," i would have to agree and say that the entire concepts of risk and trust are not modern (woodiwiss 3). when discussing trust and risk, one cannot do so only in terms of the economy and capital without ignoring a large part of what these words mean. in the consequences of modernity, however, it does not feel as if giddens is strictly discussing trust and risk solely in terms of capitalistic institutions. in fact, giddens does not use the term modernity as a replacement of capitalism, but instead sees capitalism as a "dimension involved in the institutions of modernity" (giddens 55).
considering all that is written above in this essay, i can reflect on giddens' study by saying that his work allows us to think about modernity and postmodernism in different ways throughout his entire text. he offers many different conceptual tools with which we can consider modernity and postmodernism, but all are relatively limited within this text, as has been mentioned in lecture. however limited he may be, giddens does open up the dialogue for whether or not postmodernism truly exists in today's society. in class discussions, there has been disparity between some students as to whether or not we are living in a postmodern society. it is arguable that although giddens put forth many concepts without delving extremely deep into any of them and thus left the reader with an overview of modernity, this was enough because it got the conversation about modernity flowing.
works cited
giddens, anthony. the consequences of modernity. stanford: stanford university press, 1990.
woodiwiss, anthony. 1997. against modernity: a dissident rant. economy and society, 26: 1, 1-21.
