The ideas proposed by Anthony Giddens
In the book Conversations with Anthony Giddens-Making Sense of Modernity, I got to have some ideas proposed by Giddens throughout his academic endeavors. This book consists of 7 major themes, including his famous theory of structuration, modernity and his point view about the world politics. In this essay, I will try to look at some view points of Giddens’ and then I will try to address these problems myself with aid of his assertions.
How about the modernity?
The book is about making sense of modernity as it indicates from the title. Modernity is associated with a certain set of attitudes towards the world, a complex of economic institutions and a certain range of political institutions. These characteristics make modernity more dynamic as a social order. I think that modernity is actually at the center of gravity in his thoughts. His theory about the structure is generated because of the idea too. When he talks about the world politics, he also infers to the modernity.
What kind of social order are we facing in the 21st century? Although Giddens thinks that Marx is wrong about the mutation of capitalism to socialism, he does prefer Marx treatment of modernity. Marx’s approach is more suitable for the modern society where we are living. For Marx, the economic structure determines the upper building: the political choice. In this way, Marxism is better at deciphering the contemporary society: economic influences have a more distinguishable and profound effect in the modern society than in the previous forms. (Page 95) This is a particular characteristic of capitalism. Take Taiwan for instance Taiwan is tightly linked to the economy of USA and Japan because of the massive consumption of Japanese products and American movies. People are prone to accept Japanese values and USA’s thinking. This is reconstituting the Taiwanese society everyday. This economic interdependence translates into the changes in governance.
Giddens then talked about the risk society and the post-modernism. To him, post-modernism sees politics as an end and political power fades away with the passing of modernity. The modernity takes on new meanings and subtleties. (Page 217) This leads to his important theory.
How to capture the complex and non-linear nature of international affairs?Anthony Giddens proposed the Theory of Structuration in The Constitution of Society (1984). This theory aims at reconciling theoretical dichotomies of social systems such as agency/structure, subjective/objective, and micro/macro perspectives, which consider individuals as either acted upon (as elements within a structural context) or as autonomous agents. The approach does not focus on the individual actor or societal totality "but social practices ordered across space and time" (p. 2). Its proponents adopt this balanced position, attempting to treat influences of structure (which inherently includes culture) and agency equally.
In the article Courage Versus Caution: A Dialogue on Entering and Prospering in IR , Ersel Aydinli said that Professor James N. Rosenau is a scholar of change. The article also mentioned that Professor Rosenau labeled himself as a pro-post modernist whereas he said that it’s a parody. In his point of view, the solution lies in agent-based modeling through computer simulations. This is also what I found out through the reading of Complexity . This agent-based thing has a link to Anthony Giddens’ theory.
In the analysis of IR, I think that normally we see things through a deductive lens. What Giddens suggested is that the micro level of analysis is equally important. People thought that the individual was and quite often the same was true of society. However, Giddens thinks that the society is not a status quo but a series ongoing activities and practices that people carry on and that these practices at the same time reproduce larger institutions. Why are structural changes possible? The international system is a complex for many reasons. First, the structure itself has become a multi-facet one. Societies are driven by many different forces. Second, the structure intersects. Hence, the structure is changing as the social life is flowing actively. In this way, I assimilated the international structure to the social life. We should put emphasis on the agencies which continue the activities under the structure. The forces of non-profit organizations are not negligible. The way that individuals behave has changed too. We need thus new methodology to rethink the bigger structure. Probably we need to understand the international relations by an inductive way to complete our understanding of IR.
How to deal with the globalization?
Globalization poses a challenge for the studies of IR. We need to track down the character of future trajectory of political authority as it is being reconstituted at the global level. Giddens think that the nature and structure of governments might need to change. However, he does not agree on the idea that governments should be shrunken to a minimal size. Liberalists think that the governments should be shrunken to their smallest essentials and that market will take control over the society. Giddens thinks that it’s ridiculous to think about minimizing the government to a local level in a global age. On the contrary, “social solidarity depends upon good government at all levels”. (Page 172) We need to invent a new form of government which will be different to the classical nation-state.
He also mentioned that European Union has to be seen now as both an expression of and a response to globalization. (Page 178) The increase of the transnational exchanges has led to a need for a bigger economic bloc. The economy of scale is the best way to help the industries to deal with the international trade. If a country is not big enough, the market is not big enough to absorb its own production The European Union creates an economy of scale and at the same time the goods and labor can flow more freely. Hence, I agree with Giddens on the European Union as a pioneering response to the globalization. This book is published in 1998 and since then the EU has had many new developments. The euro is now circulating in the world, which fits into Balassa’s model. Balassa thinks that the highest level of economic integration is becoming one economic entity after issuing the unique currency. Whether the EU is going to be one political and economic entity remains a question. However, many people blame the European slow economic growth to the asymmetry within the EU. The economic policy is concerted but not harmonized. Every country is different. The shock strikes the continent as a whole but every country’s reaction differs from the others. Yes, the response should be tailor-made, but if the European Central Bank can take decision for the member countries, it can allocate the resources more efficiently. The top-down vision might be a better way to have a really fully integrated economy. Giddens thinks that Europe won’t and can’t look like a super nation-state, with a common culture. It seems to me that Giddens does not want to see a unified Europe. He thinks that EU is a cosmopolitan society. In my eyes, the EU needs to a common identity to improve its economic growth. The mere monetary union is not enough. To consolidate what the Europeans have already built, we need also a down-top method.
Conclusion
In short, Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity opened my eye. It gave me an entry to Anthony Giddens’ thinking and facilitated my understanding about his theories. Among all the forces, modernity is a force that we cannot neglect. We have to review the structure of society because the society is under a perpetual transformation. The government also needs to reinvent itself in the modern society.
No comments:
Post a Comment