1

Sociological characterizations of contemporary global society tend to divide into two broad forms, as follows:

However, the core observation has attracted little controversy that in recent decades, with transitional events most discernible in the 1960's, the broad characterization of ongoing social change has shifted away from one of continued and incremental progress, and toward one of turmoil lacking an overarching progressional narrative.

Zygmunt Bauman has used the term liquid modernity instead of late modernity, to emphasize the ever-changing conditions, in particular the fear resulting from constant uncertainty.

However, despite discussions comparing the two views, I perceive no broad difference between late modernity and postmodernity, other than the semantic nuance of whether modernity is considered to have ended.

What is the substantive difference between the characterization of the current period as late modernity versus postmodernity?

brainchild
  • 131
  • 7
  • 2
    No tag is currently available called *postmodernity* (which is different from *postmodernism*, just as *modernity* and *modernism* are different). I would request to anyone with permission to add this tag to the question. – brainchild Aug 03 '22 at 17:40
  • 1
    I think the point is not that there are differences between liquid modernity and postmodernity, they are meant to describe the same social condition after all, but rather whether this condition is judged to be a "clear continuation" of industrial capitalism or a "break" with it heralding a new epoch. Whether the transition from "progress" to "flux", from industrial to information technologies, from nation states to globalism, etc., constitutes "evolution" or "revolution" (especially in comparison with prior "revolutions", like the industrial one) is more a question of sensibilities. – Conifold Aug 03 '22 at 20:45
  • @Conifold, That which is characterized by each of the terms is not different, but is the characterization different given by each term? – brainchild Aug 03 '22 at 21:39
  • Not really, it is more of a half-full/half-empty shift of emphasis. The discussions (e.g. by Bauman and Giddens) usually revolve around taking features of the current situation and citing precedents (or lack thereof, on the opposite side) for them in prior times. – Conifold Aug 03 '22 at 21:55
  • @Conifold, I find in your response an unresolved tension. *Half full* verses *half empty* have the same meaning in a discursive context only if within the context none are debating the merits of each. – brainchild Aug 03 '22 at 22:10
  • 2
    The word 'modern' means: "relating to the current time or recent past." Because the current time is always changing, I have never understood how the word *modern* can refer to a particular point in time? – Scott Rowe Aug 04 '22 at 12:16

1 Answers1

-1

Modernity (as the term is used in critical theory) is a condition where modern (Western/technical/Liberal/capitalist) society is reified and idealized as 'best', if not actually 'perfect': something to be exported and imposed everywhere. 'Postmodernity' (not a term I see frequently) merely breaks down that monolithic ideal to allow other cultural, political, social, and economic conceptualizations.

Giddens (ever the romantic) and others are working off the fact that this 'ideal' of modernity has never been strictly defined; it is something alluded to and implied, a kind of bogieman of systemic (linguistic) oppression used as a foil to get at certain problems endemic to the modern world. From that perspective, addressing such problems doesn't end modernity: it merely changes modernity to be more fluid and inclusive.

What they are all talking about is a shift of attitude: from the small-minded and parochial worldview of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the inclusive and cosmopolitan views of the late 20th and 21st. The question is whether we should see that as a gradual (accumulative) or a radical (definitive) shift.

Ted Wrigley
  • 17,769
  • 2
  • 20
  • 51