Late, Liquid or Postmodernity? The Difficulties of Narrative

Modernization and post-modernity

In some of my previous posts, I briefly explored some important anthropological and sociological concepts, such as ethnocentrism, relativism, and modernity. There, we also talked about the theory of modernization and questioned some of its postulates. At the end of the conversation, we touched upon the idea of postmodernism and what it seems to elude to. As a brief reminder:

The modernization theory suggests that traditional societies will develop as they adopt more modern practices. Proponents of modernization theory claim that modern states are wealthier and more powerful and that their citizens are freer to enjoy a higher standard of living.

Postmodernity is the economic or cultural state or condition of society which is said to exist after modernity. Some schools of thought hold that modernity ended in the late 20th century The idea of the post-modern condition is sometimes characterized as a culture stripped of its capacity to function in any linear or autonomous state. It also characterizes a disappointment in modern ideals, such as progress, truth, and development.

Although many scientists, artists, and philosophers believe that the Western modern era has already ended, sociologists like Zygmunt Bauman and Anthony Giddens do not agree with such a statement. For them, modernity is still an ongoing process even though its parameters and expressions aren’t the same as they were before. Instead of the term “postmodernity”, Anthony Giddens suggests describing the contemporary Western condition as “late modernity”, while Zygmunt Bauman uses the term “liquid modernity”. In this week’s post we’ll discuss some of Bauman’s and Giddens’ ideas relating to these concepts.

What’re some differences between modern and postmodern societies?

For starters, let’s take a look at a few characteristics that will help us understand what a “modern” society seems to be. Some of modernity’s postulates state that:

1. Science will help us solve most of our existential needs and problems.

2. Progress is a never-ending upward spiral.

3. Outside of a subjective experience there exists an objective reality.

4. Science and logic should reorder nature and human lives.

5. Design has to be practical and functional.

6. Modern cities should be identifiable and similar.

7. Spirituality is a bunch of woo-woo. The world is made out of matter. The universeis blind, mechanical and unintelligent. Only humans possess intelligence.

Now, let’s compare these claims with a few ideas from the postmodern perspective:

1. Science is not trustworthy. The universe is chaos.

2. Progress is not a liberating force. Upward trajectory is just an idea.

3. Methods and evaluations are subjective.

4. There is no such thing as an “objective reality”. Reality itself is a social construct.

5. Literary analysis can be applied to any and every phenomena. Nothing exists outside the text.

6. Metanarratives shouldn’t be trusted.

7. There is no universal truth. “Truth” is simply whatever promotes my (or my group’s) will or interests.

Why do so many believe that Western societies have entered the postmodern state?

Although some definite and concrete ideological differences are clearly visible, it is hard to make a quick judgment and agree that contemporary Western societies no longer resemble their founding modern forms.

The 1970s information revolution marked a significant shift in how people perceive, act and communicate, but the rise of the Internet, Mass Media, and the spread of globalization, did not change who we are fundamental. This stands in opposition to the notions of most post-modern thinkers. As expressed by Karl Thompson:

Post-Modernists argue that post-modern society is different to modern society, so much so that it requires new methods of study and new theoretical frameworks. Essentially, what is different, according to Post-Modernists, is that those stable institutions which used to bind us together have much less influence now, and with the rise of globalization and New Media technologies, individuals are much freer to construct their culture and identity than they once were.

Transiency and the postmodern sense of “self”

Being a benchmark of postmodernism, eclecticism lets one borrow and cherry-pick likeable cultural practices, habits, and beliefs. If there are no definite truths and traditions, it is one’s own freedom to create a narrative that best fits his or her needs.

Embracing the “there is nothing outside of text” belief, post-modern people view reality as spoken, instead of experienced. The same applies to idea of “self”. As stated by Allan Kenneth:

“Postmodernism posits a fragmented self that has no essence, only images.”

Thus, the postmodern self-identity is believed to be as fluent and shifting as the clouds. But clouds are not people… They don’t have fancies and moods, at least none that I know of. Humans, rather, are much more presumptuous than other features of nature. In their minds, one day they are “x” and tomorrow they can be “y”. If that’s not enjoyable, they’ll change their identity to “z”.

Being the only creatures (at least to our knowledge) that formulates identities verbally, people are extremely flexible in their self-concept. If everything is a social construct, I can be anyone I like, right? Well, if reality was only a narrative, that could be true. But what would happen if you asked a tree who you are? The answer may surprise you. Then you might figure out that reality is not as conceptual as some might think:)

Late, liquid, or post-modernity?

Unlike theorists who argue that we have entered a radically different, “postmodern” stage of social life, Giddens theorizes that contemporary society is better characterized by the term “late modernity.” Late modern societies, according to Giddens, are shaped by the extension and development of the same social forces that structured earlier forms of modern social life.

Following Giddens idea, social forces and structures that shaped the post-industrial societal transformations are still intact and we have not yet disembarked from the modern ways of living and thinking. In addition to Giddens, Zygmunt Bauman explains how these modern institutions and values have changed.

In Bauman’s mind, the early stages of modernity valued solidity and firmness. People wanted to have stable jobs, make long term commitments, and accumulate larger scaling and immovable material wealth. Security was the slogan and everything that was tangible was seen as valuable. Like a rock, self-identity was firm and rather unchangeable. To belong to a specific nation, religion, sect or a club was seen not just as desirable, but also as respectable and to large extent — necessary.

Now, in the later stage of modernity, people’s relationship to concepts such as “stability”, “firmness” and “toughness” have changed. For some, to be stable in the contemporary world is more of a burden, than a privilege. Prestige is no longer correlated only with a good salary or the possession of real estate. Now, flexibility and lightness are valued more than safeness or stability. The ease of travel and the ability to freely move up and down social hierarchies are the new markers of status and prestige. What good is there from a position that will make you stagnant and rigid? Similarly, acquisitions should not tie you. Rather, they should provide you with a freedom of thought and movement which will let you get where you want as quickly and easily as possible. The same applies to self-identity. To shape one’s self-concept to his or her needs is the new want, the contemporary dream of a “modern” person. In his book “Liquid Modernity” Bauman explains:

Forms of modern life may differ in quite a few respects — but what unites them all is precisely their fragility, temporariness, vulnerability and inclination to constant change. To ‘be modern’ means to modernize — compulsively, obsessively; not so much just ‘to be’, let alone to keep its identity intact, but forever ‘becoming’, avoiding completion, staying underdefined. Each new structure which replaces the previous one as soon as it is declared old-fashioned and past its use-by date is only another momentary settlement — acknowledged as temporary and ‘until further notice’. Being always, at any stage and at all times, ‘post-something’ is also an undetachable feature of modernity. As time flows on, ‘modernity’ changes its forms in the manner of the legendary Proteus . . . What was some time ago dubbed (erroneously) ‘post-modernity’ and what I’ve chosen to call, more to the point, ‘liquid modernity’, is the growing conviction that change is the only permanence, and uncertainty the only certainty. A hundred years ago ‘to be modern’ meant to chase ‘the final state of perfection’ — now it means an infinity of improvement, with no ‘final state’ in sight and none desired.

Are we actually as different as we think?

To sum up, in both the ideas of Bauman and Giddens we see an agreement that our contemporary social environment is not the same as it was in the early XX century. Globalization and the information revolution brought some remarkable changes to our perception of the natural and the social worlds, yet we can not say that we are becoming a different species all together. We are still the same monkeys that we were: fighting, killing, competing.

Whether you are a modernist, a postmodernist, or whatever -ist, you are still a human at first, and something else at second. All words lie, the Buddhists say. Should you forget this, you will get lost in the sea of text, narrative and other fads of today’s culture. But the zeitgeist should be ignored. What is required is an ability to see it for what it is — a trend played on the level of rhetoric, appearance, and speech.

No matter when and where people live, they always want the same things: power, security, adventure and status. Sometimes it’s plain, other times it’s hidden well. Those who shout the most must be examined with the thoroughness. Moral posturing is only one of the games to achieve just that.

To admit a belief merely because it is a custom — but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! — And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality? — asks Nietzsche.

If one accepts the postmodern game of reality as text and narrative, one has to know how to play it well — not just to win, but to defend from attacks of others. Otherwise, you might be left believing that you are a white, supremacist, patriarchal colonist that has to be punished for his ancestors’ misdeeds or some other bitter nonsense. But if there is no objective truth, how do they know who you are, and where or will be? If all judgments have to be suspended, why judge in the first place? Is it not better to look into facts, merits and competencies, rather than judge one according to his or her “group”, “class”, or “gender”?

To fight fire with fire may seem desirable, but it’s better to extinguish it with water, when possible. Similarly, the postmodern goal should move away from playing the blame game and move towards a real and genuine understanding of social cohesion, responsibility, and direction. Moral posturing looks nice on paper, but what’s under it?

The subtlety of language. Why should we be wary of how people phrase their arguments?

“Language is power, life and the instrument of culture, the instrument of domination and liberation.” — Angela Carter

Every new language is a journey. When you begin on a quest of speaking in another tongue, a whole starts opening up for you. It’s not just words and grammar, it’s also mentality, psychology, and thinking.

There are some languages that don’t use color names or numbers (the Pirahã language), while other languages are so rich in colour grading that you couldn’t count all the tones on your fingers and toes combined even if you wanted to. By the way, did I mention that “fingers” and “toes” even though falling into different categories in English are of the same category in Lithuanian? We just call them “pirštai”, it makes our life easier.

Of course, there are some more exotic differences, such as the Aymara people putting “the past” in front of them, while claiming that “the future” exists behind them, thus explaining its invisibility.

So yeah… Every language has its quirks.

Language is a living thing and it evolves over time, thus, if you want to understand people better, you should learn to speak their language. Still, we should make a distinction between knowing the language and being pro-something. If I am learning the Russian language, it doesn’t mean that I am pro-Russian. What it means is that I want to understand what they say in order to make sense of their perception, intentions, and worldview.

Let’s say, that without studying the language you will not understand the difference between the prepositions “на” and “в”, which both talk about place similarly to the English prepositions “in” or “at”. While (“in” = “в”) explains that a person is in a specific local, that has clear borders, the (“at” — “на”) preposition would tilt toward perceiving the borders of a place as either loose, questionable, or not existent altogether.

For example, an English person would never say that he is “at Ukraine,” he’d say he is “in Ukraine.” On the other hand, a Russian speaker, more often than not might say that he is “на Украине” instead of “в Украине”, showing that he or she thinks that the borders of the country are up for debate, or maybe even not there to begin with.

These small differences in the use of certain grammar points can have a huge difference on how we perceive things to be. On the same note, why do we perceive things as “things” instead of “events”? Hence the Alan Watts’ question:

“What happens to my fist when I open the hand?”

Language is fun to play around with, still — it is no joke. It shapes our minds and guides our actions. It rationalizes certain aspects of reality while claiming others to be illusory. It gives motives and justifies certain perceptions while explaining others away as illogical or simply untrue. Hence the saying:

“A pen is more powerful than a sword.”

It can make anything come true even if it is not. Just like a magic wand it can twist and bend the fabric of the universe adjusting it to our needs and will. Still, if those needs are mischievous and unjust, it would be wise to see the language tricks for what they are and not to fall prey to the other person’s spells. By the way, it is no coincidence that when we dissect a word into letters we call it “spelling,” because we are doing just that — magic — bending an object (or a process, if you may) to the will of the speaker, making it part of his verbal property, one more of his or her possessions.

So be wary! People can twist and shape things as they please verbally, but they can not curse you physically. Curses, just like spellings are done by words. If you see them for what they are, you are immune to this magic and can expose its doings. But, if you are not aware of such tricks, you will fall prey to one that wields them better. No figure that most of the legal documents are oftentimes so difficult to comprehend. They are meant to be that way so that a person would either get confused or skip the whole process altogether. Don’t be that person. Engage in the game, and get the better of it! Thus, next time when you are up to sign a contract or read the terms of an agreement, know that you are engaging in a fencing match.

Thanks for sticking by! If you’ve enjoyed the content, be sure to follow my profile for more upcoming articles and comment on this one so I’d know whether you liked it! Peace. ✨🎓