Abstract
As mentioned in Chap. 1, Beck does not agree with the sociologists and philosophers who see change in contemporary society as a reflection of the emergence of a postmodern society. The risk society does not denote the end of modernity, but a new phase: reflexive modernity. Beck suggests that we are now moving not towards postmodernity, but rather—as the subtitle to Risk Society suggests—into a new or different form of modernity (Towards a New Modernity) (Beck, 1992 [1986]). From the viewpoint of a theory of modernity, the transition from an industrial society to a risk society therefore denotes a transition from simple to reflexive modernity. With his theory of the (world) risk society, Beck also seeks to make a contribution to a more general theory of a ‘meta-change’ in modernity, which he terms reflexive modernisation and reflexive modernity. In his late opus World at Risk (2009), Beck explains that his theory of reflexive modernisation and reflexive modernity consists of three interconnected theorems: (1) the theorem of risk society (which we looked at in Chap. 3); (2) the theorem of forced individualisation (which we looked at in Chap. 4) and (3) the theorem of multidimensional globalisation and cosmopolitanisation (which we will look at in greater depth in Chap. 7) (Beck, 2009: 236, note 6).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Beck does not elucidate how the relationship between the concepts ‘(world) risk society’ and ‘reflexive modernity’ is meant to be understood. In his original seminal work Risk Society (1992 [1986]), he introduced the concept of ‘the risk society’ as the overall category for the diagnosis of our times (an overarching concept) (cf. the book’s title), whereas the concept of reflexive modernisation seems to be more of a sub-concept. However, in the later major work World at Risk (2009), the concept of the risk society is described—as stated above—as a ‘sub-element’ (a sub-concept) in the more comprehensive theory of reflexive modernisation (an overarching concept). The two concepts seem to alternate as overarching concepts and sub-concepts.
- 2.
The question, however, is how new these ideas of the postmodern really are. As early as 1959, some two decades before Lyotard published the above-mentioned book on the postmodern condition, the American sociologist C. Wright Mills noted that the ‘postmodern society’ was emerging (Mills, 2000 [1959]: 165–66). It may well be that ‘the postmodern’ is not as new a phenomenon as is sometimes claimed—instead, perhaps it has always been part of modernity, that is, as its potential negation.
- 3.
I am not claiming that Beck and the early Frankfurt School agree on all points. Beck himself draws attention to these similarities, but also disassociates himself from the pessimism of Horkheimer and Adorno. He also stresses that, in his view, the subject of the critique—the ‘dialectical opposite’ (das Gegenüber)—is not ‘enlightenment’, but ‘non-enlightenment’ (Beck, 1993: 66; 1994b: 177).
- 4.
It must be stressed that Bauman does not claim that the Holocaust is a necessary (irresistible) consequence of modernity and instrumental (bureaucratic) rationality, but rather that the former would not be possible without the latter. According to Bauman, the Holocaust does not herald the collapse of modernity, but is a product of modernity (Bauman, 1989: xiii, 5, 17–18).
- 5.
The question is, however, whether Bauman here confuses Beck’s ‘structural reflexivity’ with individual (self)-reflection— from which Beck, as we have seen, distances himself.
- 6.
Beck, however, criticises Latour for going too far in his thoughts on the dissolution of boundaries and ending up in an ‘ontological monism’ (Beck & Lau, 2005: 546).
- 7.
However, this should not be misunderstood Latour being a ‘social constructivist’. While Latour does not completely reject this characterisation, he nevertheless stipulates a number of reservations. For example, he emphasises that the actor-network approach does not ‘extend subjectivity to things’, but instead analyses the ways in which ‘humanity’ and ‘non-humanity’ (subject and object, people and things, society and nature) permeate each other (Latour, 1996: 370, 374–75). Latour’s position, as pointed out by Lash, is a reflection of an ‘immanentism’ that seeks to transcend the subject/object dualism that underlies both social constructivism and realism (Lash, 2003: 55–56).
- 8.
Latour poses six questions as his test criteria: (1) Has ‘modern’ become a negatively charged adjective? (2) Are objects gradually being replaced by quasi-objects? (3) Is the separation between nature and society becoming blurred? (4) Does time pass differently in first, post- and re-modernisation? (5) Are subjects being replaced by quasi-subjects? (6) Has there been a shift in the economy from infra- to supra-structure? (Latour, 2003: 42–45). It should be noted, however, that Latour’s deliberations on this subject seem somewhat provisional and are not always very clear.
References
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1997 [1944/47]). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Verso.
Arnoldi, J. (2006). Introduktion. In B. Latour (Ed.), Vi har aldrig været moderne. Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2004). Liquid Sociality. In N. Gane (Ed.), The Future of Social Theory. London/New York.
Beck, U. (1992). How Modern is Modern Society? Theory, Culture and Society, 9(2), 163–169.
Beck, U. (1992 [1986]). The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage.
Beck, U. (1993). Die Erfindung des Politischen. Zu einer Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung. Frankfurt/M.
Beck, U. (1994a). The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernization. Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1994b). Self-Dissolution and Self-Endangerment of Industrial Society: What Does This Mean? In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernization. Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1997). The Reinvention of Politics. Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order. Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1999a). Risk Society and the Welfare State. In U. Beck (Ed.), World Risk Society. Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1999b). Knowledge or Unawareness? Two Perspectives on “Reflexive Modernization”. In U. Beck (Ed.), World Risk Society. Polity Press.
Beck, U. (2000). The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology of the second age of modernity. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 79–105.
Beck, U. (2002a). Overgangen fra det første til det andet moderne – fem udfordringer. Slagmark, 34, 79–93.
Beck, U. (2002b). Interview ved Mads P. Sørensen. Slagmark, 34, 125–144.
Beck, U. (2005). How Not to Become a Museum Piece. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 335–343.
Beck, U. (2009). World at Risk. Polity Press.
Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2001). Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung – Fragestellungen, Hypothesen, Forschungsprogramme. In U. Beck & W. Bonss (Eds.), Die Modernisierung der Moderne. Suhrkamp.
Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The Theory of Reflexive Modernization. Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(2), 1–33.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Polity Press.
Beck, U., & Grande, E. (2007). Cosmopolitan Europe. Polity Press.
Beck, U., & Lau, C. (2005). Second Modernity as a Research Agenda: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations in the ‘meta-change’ of Modern Society. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 525–557.
Beck, U., & Willms, J. (2004). Conversations with Ulrich Beck. Polity Press.
Bell, D. (1976). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. A Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books.
Carleheden, M. (2001). Rethinking the Epochs of Western Modernity. In M. Carleheden & M. H. Jacobsen (Eds.), The Transformation of Modernity. Aspects of the Past, Present and Future of an Era. Ashgate.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple Modernities’. Dædalus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 129(1), 1–29.
Elling, B. (2008). Rationality and the Environment. Decision-making in Environmental Politics and Assessment. Earthscan.
Frisby, D. P. (1988). Soziologie und Moderne: F. Tönnies, G. Simmel und M. Weber. In O. Rammstedt (Ed.), Simmel und die frühen Soziologen. Nähe und Distanz zu Durkheim, Tönnies und Max Weber. Suhrkamp.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1994a). Beyond Left and Right. The Future of Radical Politics. Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1994b). Living in a Post-Traditional Society. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernization. Cambridge.
Habermas, J. (1987 [1968]). Knowledge and Human Interests. Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (2007 [1980]). Modernity: An Unfinished Project. In C. Calhoun et al. (Eds.), Contemporary Sociological Theory (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
Kant, I. (2006 [1795]). Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. In P. Kleingeld (Ed.), I. Kant Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Yale University Press.
Lash, S. (1990). Sociology of Postmodernism. Routledge.
Lash, S. (1994). Reflexivity and Its Doubles: Structure, Aesthetics, Community. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernization. Polity Press.
Lash, S. (2003). Reflexivity as Non-linearity. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(2), 49–57.
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network Theory: A Few Clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381.
Latour, B. (2003). Is Re-modernization Occurring – And If So, How to Prove It? A Commentary on Ulrich Beck. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(2), 35–48.
Lee, L. M. R. (2006). Reinventing Modernity. Reflexive Modernization vs Liquid Modernity vs Multiple Modernities. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(3), 355–368.
Lyon, D. (1999). Postmodernity (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester University Press.
Mills, C. W. (2000 [1959]). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Rasborg, K. (2001). From Industrial Modernity to Risk Modernity? A Critical Discussion of the Theory of the ’Risk Society. In M. Carleheden & M. H. Jacobsen (Eds.), The Transformation of Modernity. Aspects of the Past, Present and Future of an Era. Ashgate.
Rasborg, K. (2003). Sociologien som samtidsdiagnose. In M. Hviid Jacobsen (Ed.), Sociologiske visioner – sytten bidrag fra en sociologisk brydningstid. Systime.
Weber, M. (1962 [1921/22]). Basic Concepts in Sociology. Greenwood Press.
Wittrock, B. (2000). Modernity: One, None, or Many? European Origins and Modernity as a Global Condition. Dædalus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 129(1), 31–60.
Yakimova, M. (2002). A Postmodern Grid of the Worldmap? Interview with Zygmunt Bauman. Critique and Humanism.http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2002-11-08-bauman-en.html
Ziehe, T. (1989). Ambivalens og mangfoldighed. Tekster om ungdom, skole, æstetik og kultur. Forlaget Politisk Revy.
Ziehe, T. (2004). Øer af intensitet i et hav af rutine. Nye tekster om ungdom, skole og kultur. Forlaget Politisk Revy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rasborg, K. (2021). Reflexive Modernity. In: Ulrich Beck. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89201-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89201-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89200-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89201-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)