Recently in [4-30] (Post)Modernity I: Elias, Bauman, Latour Category

1- According to introduction to Part IX, what is the fundamental difference between modernist and postmodernist theories? What are the main characteristics associated with postmodernism?

Both Modernists and Postmodernists agree theoretically that there has been a fundamental split between past societies and the societies of today. They believe that this split has caused major changes in the patterns of social relations, economic flows, and moral regulations, thus it has created a new type of society. Diagreements on how to classify this new type of society and these new changes, however, are what consitute the major differences in their theories about society. The modernists, such as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, tend towards the idea of functionalism. To them, the idea of functionalism accounts for the changes we have seen, such as the rise of rationalism. The modernists think that all types of institutions function in their ability to hold society together through different modes of solidarity. The modernists, then, classify modern societies as "part of the ever-changing 'modern' era (411)," which the founders of sociological inquiry spent their lives studying. The Postmodernists, however, find this classification troubling; therefore, they posit that these new societies should be classified as a new "postmodern" era. Although the postmodern movement is in itself largely unclassifiable, most sociologists associate the trend with the appearance of the theories of Jean-Francois Lyotard and Richard Rorty. Postmodernism is essentially an aesthetic movement that is meant to replace functionalist thought and, especially, the modernist aesthetic, which is a proponent of functionalist thought. In this sense, postmodernism arose as a response to modernism, which was viewed as being inadequate as an inspiration for artist expression and lacking in aesthetic value. The modernist aesthetic, in promoting functionalism, focuses on totalities as the main aesthetic end while it complains about the fragmentary nature of modern life. In contrast, the postmodernist movement celebrates, or at the very least, accepts the fragmentary nature of modern life, while critiquing the aestheticization of totalities. Postmodernism has its theoretical roots in the French poststructuralist movement that sought to decenter the subject, as opposed to the structural project of integration. Thus, they are very critical of the capability of reason and understanding, which had earlier been the cornerstone of all social projects. In opposition to the modernist focus on objective science as the source of knowledge, the postmodernists embed science in the broader linguistic discourse around the production of knowledge. In this way, the postmodernists represent a linguistic turn in the social sciences. As a linguistic movement, postmodernism challenges the overriding narratives of modernism, which had earlier acted as unquestionable and universal truths. They focus, then, on more localized narratives about social life, which "take into account the contingent, provisional, and unstable nature of the social world (413)." Furthermore because the Marxist narrative no longer fits with the recent changes in capitalism, capitalist critique needs to be re-theorized. Thus postmodernity can be viewed as "a vantage point for the rewriting of modernity (414)." In this way, postmodernity is a specific phase of modernity and not a replacement for it. In addition, postmodernism is even skeptical of our claim to having ever been modern. Finally, there really is no way to finally classify the current era as modern nor postmodern. It is not readily possible to describe a truly postmodern society nor is a modern society a fully real concept. Instead, the postmodernist dialogue can be seen as a critique of the project of modernity and a new way to account for modernity.

1. In order to understand the fundamental difference between modernist and postmodernist theories, it is important to understand what modernism is. Modernism looks at the grand theories that are associated with Marx and Freud, in which they assume to be universal, thus making any internal differentiation (414). In contrast, postmodernism favors more small-scale, local narratives that take into account contingent, provisional, and unstable nature of social world. (414). However, the main differences within modernism and postmodernism are whether the changes of "social relations, economic flows, and moral regulation in modern societies" should be considered "part and parcel of the same ever-transforming "modern" era" (411). More specially, postmodernist questions the founding figures of sociology and the ways in which they spend their lives studying on social relation, economic flows, and moral regulation. Most of the earlier sociologist looked at the grand social theories that are favorable to the society which they lived or experience but postmodernist looks at the "particular humanism and the Enlightenment" within our society.

Postmodernism came out of the intellectual movement that emerged in "France following at the political and social events of May 1968" (412). Postmodernism tries to bring a challenge to the "modernist belief in the subject-center reason" meaning that "it questions the assumption that the rational mind is capable of understanding and depicting the "real" world around us (412). In addition, the position is critical of truth claims and monological texts or reading (412). Moreover, postmodernist also questions of the very status of knowledge in modern discourse (412). The questioning arises from earlier theories in which modernism "privileges science as the source of objective knowledge and truth (412).

2. Norbert Elias shows how the emergence of civilized behavior is closely interrelated to the sociogenesis of the state. Elias argues that the "formation of gradually more effective monopolies of force, the threat which one person represents for another is subject to control" (415). In other words, the state corresponds to the controlling agency forming itself as the controlling agency at the larger level of society. In addition, individual live hood and other externalities determine that individuals overall as well as the dominated manner, or self restraint. In addition, the exercise of force becomes increasingly more centralized in the organization of the modern states because the state tries to control on what they see as undesirable. For instance, littering is considered tattoo within our society. This notion resulted out of our early childhood which our parents and relatives taught us to not toss anything within our society. In addition, we also know that if we caught doing littering, then we will pay a fine. However, in the Middle East or Africa, littering is not that serious. Individuals litter within their streets and there is no controlling agency that punishes offenders.

According to the introduction of Part IX, what is the fundamental difference between modernist and postmodernist theories? What are the main characteristics associated with postmodernism?

There is much debate over postmodernism vs. modernism in current sociology. "Theorists in both camps generally agree that something has fundamentally changed in the patterns of social relations, economic flows, and moral regulation in modern societies." (p. 411). Both sides agree there has been a shift. Where the debate comes in is how to define the product of this shift. Scholars debate whether it is a new school of thought or a just continuation of modernism, the definition of postmodernism, and when and where it started. At the center of this debate are the fundamental ideas of each school of thought. "In general, it may be said that where modernists tend to thing in terms of totality, genre, or system, postmodernists think in terms of fragmentation, ephemerality, and discontinuity." (p. 412) Modernist thought is grand and overarching. Its overall goal is to maximize life function by constructing the best possible "machine for modern life." Modernism deals with what is functional and searches for universal truths. Postmodernism, on the other hand, thrives in chaos and fragmentation. It questions the functionalism that modernism accepts so readily. Rather than try to step over the discontinuity to find some grand narrative, postmodernism works with the fragments and to create small-scale micro theories that explain smaller parts of the world. Modernism uses science as the way of finding objective truth and knowledge. Postmodernism rejects the idea of universal truth, knowledge or logic. Instead, ideas of knowledge and truth in postmodernism are rooted in language. "Texts must be treated as linguistic products, independent of authors with presence of meaning." (p. 412). There is a difference between what is read and how it is interpreted, and what the author said and how he meant it. There is room for subjectivity.
Postmodernism can be marked by certain economic changes in society. "The economy, for instance, has witnessed deindustrialization and the increasing dominance of post-Fordist practices in which capital has become more flexible and disorganized." (p.413). The accumulation of capital has become more flexible in both space and practice as we entered the information age where the speed and quality of knowledge increased vastly. The information age also affected personal relationships, making us more globalized and connected. There is also a shift in the focus of capitalism itself. We have gone from production-oriented capitalism to consumption-oriented capitalism. These shifts in economy would necessitate a new school of thought, putting postmodernism in its own category as opposed to just a branch of modernism. This is where there is much debate. David Harvey agues that the fundamental element of capitalism, capital accumulation, has remained the same, so postmodernism shouldn't be in its own category. Instead, some theorists argue that postmodernism is just an offshoot of modernism that serves to reflect upon and criticize it. They argue that postmodernism has no fundamental elements of it's own, so it cant be considered a new school of thought.

"Postmodernism arose as a rejection of modernism... that sought to redefine literature, music, architecture, and the visual arts. While modernism rejects formal aesthetic theories in favor of the functional, postmodernism questions the adequacy of the functional as an inspiration of artistic expression" (412). In the introduction to Part IX, the authors describe the main differences between modernist theories and postmodernist theories. The sentence(s) above are basically describing how postmodernism came about; it was a rejected form of thought and way of life, particularly in the artistic expressions people possess. Art was a way people could shared their thoughts and feelings about the shift society underwent to become more modern. There are so many examples in the world today of how postmodernism has affected our world. One of the ways, as mentioned in the quote, is a shift from the non-functional to the functional in terms of free expression. The two are completely opposite at times and similar at others. "This emphasis on fragmentation and discontinuity in postmodernist though is carried over from modernism, the distinction between the two has more to do with attitude" (412). It is clear that postmodernist thought would not have even come about unless the groundwork was laid by the thinkers and theorists of modernist thought. It is almost like postmodernism is an extension of modernism, with a big change in how people thought about the world. While modernism rejects the fragmentary and the chaotic, postmodernism accepts it. When society changes, thought has to change with it; meaning that new theories about postmodernist societies are being surfaced.

Some of the main characteristics of postmodernism, as highlighted in the introduction, are laid as followed. "This theoretical position poses a challenge to the modernist belief in subject-centered reason. In other words, it questions the assumption that the rational mind is capable of understanding and depicting the 'real' world around us" (412). Not only must the minds of the theorists themselves be changing, but the rational minds of society need to be open to new interpretations of what the world has become. What postmodernism tries to explain is that, it challenges how modernist peoples has one thought and sets out to establish a new mind set in which people can start to interpret the world through their own senses, beliefs, and values. "Poststructuralism (postmodernism) makes the claim instead that language is central to the production of knowledge..." (412). We are living in a world where social media and communication are central to the processes of life. No one can a whole day without saying a word to someone else and we have found this new obsession of being actively involved in other people's lives (whether they want us too or not). How people communicate and interact with one another is how society functions; it is how society creates knowledge and continues to evolve throughout time. Modernism saw science as the key to obtaining knowledge. Most people get their educations by sitting in a classroom and listening to someone (with prior knowledge) talk. Although some may learn better by doing, most are taught through the use of language. This is a huge shift in going from a modernist society to a postmodernist one.

1- According to introduction to Part IX, what is the fundamental difference between modernist and postmodernist theories? What are the main characteristics associated with postmodernism?


In both modernism and postmodernism, sociologists agree that, " that something has fundamentally changed in the patterns of social relations, economic flows, and moral regulation in modern societies"(411). They differ in when they decide that one era has ended and another has started. Postmodernism, "questions the adequacy of the functional as an inspiration of artistic expression"(412). Postmodernists simply criticize the basis of modernism and where postmodernism has separated from modernism. They suggest that much has changed over time and that we are now in a completely new era because there is an increasing amount of information flowing into the economic sphere, and what used to be original is now a simulation and a system of signs and symbols (413). Modernists, however, would not say that we are currently in a new state of social understanding. Modernists focus on how society functions as a whole and what makes up a fluid, functioning system. Modernism would also reject forms of chaos as flaw rather than just an imperfection; they would suggest that these flaws act negatively against the proper function of society. Postmodernism embraces these imperfections and flaws.
Our textbook suggests that postmodernism and modernism are very closely related and that postmodernism is a part of modernity. This being said, both points of view are just different ways of looking at how society today functions. There is no defined right or wrong yet, but, "perhaps most importantly, is has brought into the scholarly and popular discourse, for instance, the "problem" of difference."(415).

Post modernism is "an aesthetic movement in the cultural sphere" that is a "rejection of modernism"(411). One main characteristic of postmodernism is that postmodernism questions the idea that functional creations can be inspiration for the arts. Another characteristic is that postmodernists, "think in terms of fragmentation, ephemerality, and discontinuity"(412). Postmodernism focuses on chaos in a more positive light, suggesting that chaos is a natural and necessary part of social construct; all social constructions have imperfection. Another key characteristic is the decentralization of the subject-centered ideology. According to postmodernists, there is no one universal truth. There is a thick woven fabric of truths and understanding that differs between individuals. For these reasons, they reject the ideas held in the enlightenment. The enlightenment suggested that there was one universal truth for all people and that an individual can come to completely understand their surroundings, but postmodernists believe that an individual cannot truly understand everything around them. Postmodernists believe that there is no common understanding that people can come to, and that each individual interprets the same situation differently. It is said that, "instead, postmodernism favors more small-scale, local narratives that take into account the contingent, provisional, and unstable nature of the social world"(413). This emphasizes how postmodernism focuses on individual experience, social circle and spheres rather than a collective understanding of experiences.

1- According to introduction to Part IX, what is the fundamental difference between modernist and postmodernist theories? What are the main characteristics associated with postmodernism?

Well the Intro in this section talking about Modernity and post modernity starts off by talking about how in both areas the patterns of social relations, economic flows, and moral regulation in modern societies have changed. (pg411) The author say that Postmodernity is a part of the modern and also how it helps us to interpret and reinterpret our understanding of the modern. Really the modern is clearer cut than that of the postmodern. The modern takes truth as solely based on science, While the postmodern is more critical of what is called truth and who calls and accepts it as truth, postmodernity is more critical in that area. Not only does modernity uphold science as basis for truth but it holds it as the central production of knowledge by which all things are compared and take place, and again as a contrast Postmodernity does not hold science alone in that same esteem. Postmodernity holds language as the central to the production of all knowledge (which includes scientific knowledge but not limited to it and solely based on it.) Another contrast would be that modernity seeks to centralize the subject while postmodernity seeks to decentralize it.

So with these two modernity is a part of post modernity, we should understand it as post modernity expanding on and maybe in some places redefining concepts of modernity . Because many of the ideas are in some ways similar this area of the book talks about how ," The distinctions between the two have more to do with the attitudes."(Pg412) Also explains modernism as not liking and not operating in fragmentary and chaotic, but then how the postmodernist likes, accepts, and holds it in high esteem , valorizing it. (Pg412)

Then they go on to talk about capitalism and the effects that it has had on our world, our people, and the communication between the two and how postmodernity seemed to fuel this. Because postmodernist are in a constant search of new more advanced technologies and ways to communicate it is causes them to make more and more radical pronouncements.(P413) An example of this they talk about is that of the new digital technologies and how they can make pretty much anything seem real, but in all actuality it is not and does really originate from anything it is completely made up. In this section they also talk about how there are major disparities between work, labor, and wages between the upper class and lower working class. Through this reading it shows that this new postmodernism has turned into an economy and social climate of consumption and capitalism and how this constant need and expansion of technology and digital communication is in part behind all of this. With this reading and the examples that were provided in it we can tell the differences and similarities of modernity and post modernity and how the concepts of postmodernity have affected our world today.

According to introduction to Part IX, what is the fundamental difference between modernist and postmodernist theories?

The fundamental difference between modernism and postmodernism is stated as: "While modernism laments the fragmentary and the chaotic, postmodernism accepts, and even valorizes it" in the text (412). From my understanding, according to postmodernism they see things as no absolute truth. Like for example, for "language" they see it as it creates "reality". "Reality" in postmodernists view is seen as constructed or made-up by society. I think they see that society construct the meaning of our reality and create a 'language' to give it meaning within our culture/society. According to the text, "while modernism rejects formal an aesthetic theories in favor of the functional, postmodernism questions the adequacy of the functional as an inspiration of artistic expression" (412). From my understanding, I think modernists don't accept the idea of realism. I think that postmodernism don't look at something as it is constructed because it has no fixed meaning to it. For example, a meaning behind a text can be chose by the reader and can be applied to it. Like the meaning of the text is not determined by what it is linked or constructed to because social construction changes from culture to culture. It is applied and viewed differently. In the text, it states: "In general, it may be said that where modernists tend to think in terms of totality, genre, or system, postmodernists think in terms of fragmentation, ephemrality and discontinuity" (412). Modernism appear to obviously to believe in rational thought. They are also more science-based thinkers. They seem to reflect more on western values. They are objective and see life as purposeful. And they are unpolitical. Postmodernists beliefs and practice are personal from my understanding. They seek to decenter the subject and they make claims. They think irrationally, they don't believe in science-based thinking. They believe or value more of a multicultural value. They are subjective and see life as meaningless. They also seem to politicize everything."Instead, postmodernism favors more small-scale, local narratives that take into account that contingent, provisional, and unstable nature of the social world (413). I think that postmodernists see the social world as it changes from culture to culture and that meanings are applied and constructed differently especially since the new entrance or phase of capitalism. Perhaps our nature is not stable to think logically about our reality."Theorists in both camps generally agree that something has fundamentally changed in the patterns of social relations, economic flows, and moral regulation in modern societies" (411). I assume that psychologically and socially construction shapes our relation patterns and the way our world flows. Its like a behavioral pattern that is constructed within our society and that it shapes our perception and way of viewing things and the way we live our lives.

According to introduction to Part IX, what is the fundamental difference between modernist and postmodernist theories? What are the main characteristics associated with postmodernism?

In the introduction, there are many differences between modernist and postmodernist theories. First, modernist are different from postmodernist because modernist try to use big grand theories to explain how everything works. Secondly, postmodern theorists have changed the way we perceive culture, and lastly the manner in which they choose how to determine what is truth.
In the past modern theorist tried to explain society with using grand theories. This has been a turning point for postmodern theorist such as Foucault and P. Collins. " Such grand theories, like those associated with Marx and Freud, are taken to have at their center a category (or a set of categories) that is assumed to be universal, thereby masking any internal differentiation" (413). This is true for modern theorist but not postmodern theorist. P. Collins challenged this in her work "Black Feminist Epistemology" when she critiqued E. Smith's "The Conceptual Practice of Power" standpoint theory. Collins basically said that Smith tried to put all women in the same category but this unacceptable because different realms connect each woman's life, which Collins called intersectuality. Foucault on the other hand said that we create power, discipline, and authority by making the social norms for ourselves and we individually monitor our behavior to avoid being discipline. This is different from Durkheim because Durkheim said these social facts exist outside of us while Foucault has said that we consciously think about them until the rules become engrained in our life.
Second, postmodernist have acknowledge culture as being a significant part of our lives. Fanon in his work has also said there is a difference in the way blacks and whites interact with each other. This is important because Marx only accounted for poor and rich being different from each other. Fanon has said this is important for blacks to be recognized and considered human. In modern theory white educated males mainly dominated it and now postmodern theory has a more diverse background. Also in the introduction it says the use of symbols are important for theorist of postmodern because they say these are different for each culture.
Lastly postmodern theorist and modern theorist arrive at truth differently. Postmodernist believe language helps arrive at truth. Modernism privileges science, above all, as the source of objective knowledge and truth. Poststructalism (and postmodernism) makes the claim instead language is central in the production of knowledge" (412). This is one big difference between modern theorist and post modern theorist.

1- According to introduction to Part IX, what is the fundamental difference between modernist and postmodernist theories? What are the main characteristics associated with postmodernism?
Recently, self-proclaimed "modernists" and "modernists" have been fruitlessly debating about whether or not the changes in the patterns of social relations, economic flows, and moral regulation in modern societies should be best considered part of the same "modern" era that the founding figures of sociology studied, or whether it is best to define this as a new "postmodern" era. According to the introduction, "The concepts of modernity and postmodernity are deeply linked." (411) Jean-Francois Lyotard claimed that "postmodernity is undoubtedly part of the modern," and Calhoun said that "Postmodernism has actually been beneficial in helping us reinterpret our understanding of the modern." (411) Postmodernism first arose as a rejection of modernism, while modernism rejects formal aesthetic theories in favor of the functional. (412) Another characteristic of postmodernism is thinking in terms of fragmentation, ephemerality, and discontinuity. On the other hand, modernists tend to think in terms of totality, genre, or system. "While modernism laments the fragmentary and the chaotic, postmodernism accepts, and even valorizes it." (412) A postmodernist will be critical of claims of truth and monological readings. It is crucial for one to question the very status of knowledge in modern discourse. While modernism privileges science, above all, as the source of object knowledge and truth, postmodernism claims that language is central to the production of knowledge, scientific knowledge included. Jacques Derrida suggested that texts must be treated as linguistic products, independent of authors with specific intentions. In the words of Jean-Francois Lyotard, postmodernism may be characterized as "incredulity toward meta-narratives," (412) which refer to grand theories and are associated with those such as Marx and Freud. These grand theories are taken to have at their center a category that is assumed to be universal, thereby masking any internal differentiation. A postmodern approach favors focusing on the micro, rather than the macro. These narratives take into account that the nature of the social world is contingent, provisional, and unstable.

2) How, according to Elias, the emergence of "civilized" behavior is closely interrelated to the sociogenesis of the state? Can you provide examples from social life?

This question is one that Elias answers multiple times within the chapter of "The Social Restraint towards Self-Restraint". Essentially, what he posits is that civilization is not merely a something that came into being instantaneously nor as a directly conscious instrument of control, but rather is the product of a series off interconnected attempts at a "civilizing process". He also goes on to make the distinction that one should not observe or understand civilization/ civilizing process as being rational or irrational, for the same reason that one offers that mankind was conscious and self-aware perpetually of its efforts to create or enhance order, and the other offers that it was the opposite. Elias states that "It is set in motion blindly, and kept in motion by the autonomous dynamics of relationships, by specific changes in the way people are bound to live together." (418) I believe that this statement comes closest to a more fulfilled understanding of the difference Elias sees between the rational and irrational aspects of civilization, because the idea of mankind setting motions forth blindly indicates some level of awareness of what is occurring but with no possible foresight or even peripheral understanding of possible outcomes or ramifications.

As the chapter progresses, Elias begins to try and dissect sociogenesis and its relation to individual and societal social constraint. When I read it, there was a very Durkheimian feel to some of his thoughts and even in the terms (this feeling was even present on the second page of the chapter at the mentioning of the term "sui generis"). One excerpt in particular, which reminded me of the difference that Durkheim saw in forms of solidarity was: "...when compared to the psychological make-up of people in less complex societies, these differences and degrees within more complex societies become less significant, and the main line of transformation, which is the primary concern of this study, emerges very clearly: as the social fabric grows more intricate, the sociogenic apparatus of individual self-control also becomes more differentiated, more all-round and more stable." (419) This excerpt, as I read it, seemed to enhance the argument that he was making with my previous mentioning of rational and irrational means of achieving control, insofar as he is showing that some evidence for this theory is found when examining the differences between less complex and more complex societies and that stability is found in both but in different levels and as the result of different events and influencing factors. For the more complex, there seems to be more control based on a desire for the desire for continued peace, which is related to "...the acquisition of money or prestige" (421)

Essentially, what I think Elias was really trying to arrive at in this chapter was a formal and in-depth understanding of what exactly civilization is, how it is constructed, understood by those within it, and ultimately the ways in which it is continually being fluctuated and altered with the evolution and sometimes devolution of various social constraints and forms of control.