I’ve done other reviews on Bauman’s books and have mentioned his theory of ‘the liquid modern’, but given the title of this one, it would be impossible to not mention it again. For Bauman, the enlightenment was the birth of the modern. It was about removing the old certainties and replacing them with new certainties – replacing solid for solid. These new certainties would be based on the most up-to-date science and therefore be a manifestation of pure reason. As such they could be expected to last forever in ways that the previous metaphysics and theology could not be expected to. Modernity was in a temporary and necessary phase of change – laying new foundations that would later ensure that the new structures (built outside of superstitions) would then be permanent. Bauman’s argument is that the revolutionary aspect of the modern was misrecognised by these early theorists – that permanence was something that modernity was actively overturning in ways that would never again allow such to exist. And thus modernity is fundamentally fluid in its very essence.
This book is a working out of the implications of this idea of liquidity as applied to various key aspects of modernity: emancipation, work, community, the individual, time and space.
The point of this book is probably best understood in the afterword – here he explains that the point of sociology is to understand the relationship between fate and destiny. Fate is the ‘TINA’ world (There Is No Alternative) that we just have to accept – whereas, destiny is the extent to which we are able to change our future to match our desires. Understanding the constraints that fate imposes on our destinies is important as it illuminates the extent of our actual freedom – and also the extent to which we need to overcome restrictions if we are to have more options for our destiny.
One of the major constraints imposed on our freedom (as well as one of the greatest – or even only facilitators) is society. It is impossible to imagine us having any freedom at all outside society – but that freedom comes at costs and often these are costs remain outside out conscious awareness.
As society changes, so does our way of living within society. Bauman’s point is that society has been changing in ways that make most of the solid constraints acting upon us – in the sense of morality or ways of being more generally – much more fluid. For instance, at one point he says that one of the only things in life that is extending its duration is our lives themselves – that is we are living longer, while everything around us is getting replaced faster. As someone who grew up in a major city this is particularly clear. There are buildings in my city that are still there from when I was a child, but the whole feel, culture, look and ways in which the city is used have all changed so much it is hard to see it as really the same place. As a child, the only non-white faces one might see in Melbourne were Asians in Chinese restaurants – today the CBD is population is dominated by Asian students and the faces one sees on the streets reflects this. Not just in their being Asian, but also in the age of these people. When I was growing up the CBD was a business centre, a place of work, and so the faces in the street were older and more obviously middle class. There is little doubt the city will be unrecognisable again in another 30 years. Change is all.
But this constant change, this fluidity, impacts on us in many ways. And the fluidity and change isn’t limited to the look and feel of the cities we inhabit. Time and space have both fundamentally changed in ways that make space much less important. Years ago I went to a talk by Edward Said – he was meant to come to Australia, but he was very unwell and so he spoke to us and answered our questions via a video link while being projected onto a screen. I can’t really say that it was a much worse experience. This contraction of time and space, however, have been a constant theme in sociology – often concerned with the implications for privacy presented – but the major issue here is that such contractions of time and space are not equally available to everyone. Certain people are able to move unhindered across all space – or, at least, the spaces that they would choose to move across – while others are restricted in ways that make any movement by them virtually (or literally) impossible. Refugees being a case in point. This is interesting as a major theme of liquidity is this notion of free movement and the near impossibility of retaining fixed structures – particularly of capital and investment and thus of labour – but such is simply not allowed for certain classes of people.
There was a time when to be a capitalist meant to own solid things – factories in particular – and the bigger those things were, the better off you could show yourself to be. People were considered civilised first and foremost by being fixed in one place. Free movement – as defined by nomadic peoples, for instance – was considered uncivilised. In fact, given civil, citizen and city are all from the same Latin root, the connection with ‘fixed’, as opposed to nomad, as a condition of civilisation runs deep. But today this has been inverted – the very rich don’t own factories anymore (the example given is Bill Gates – who, despite saying he is giving all his money away, has only gotten much richer over time and after leaving Microsoft). These people live in places of flows, spaces that are basically non-spaces (airports, malls and so on) and these spaces are ever-increasing in size – they are also private spaces, not public in older notions of what made a civilised society. These spaces are identical internationally and in them we are only allowed to be consumers, not citizens.
I think it is in relation to employment and investment – capital and labour – where the societal pressures towards increased fluidity of our lives become most apparent. Bauman makes the point that Henry Ford doubled his workers’ wages at one time. This was said to have been done to allow his workers to buy the cars they produced – which is, of course, just a kind of joke. What Ford was really doing was applying golden handcuffs to his employees. They couldn’t leave their jobs as they would never be able get better wages anywhere else. Their skills and labour became Ford’s for life. But today the needs of capital are much different to this. Whatever it is you do today, you can be certain it will not be what you will be doing tomorrow – few people start and end their careers in the one company, doing the same job. Again, change is all.
The point being that while previously we had people who were employed and beside them a reserve army of the unemployed (as Marx said) to keep wages down – and where that reserve army actually was a reserve – that is, needed to be kept in readiness for a time when their labour might become necessary and usable – today that is no longer the case. Not only is work changing at an ever-increasing rate, but capital has a decreasing need for labour of any description, particularly skilled labour. This is, as Marx pointed out, fundamental to how capitalism works – but what is interesting today is that this now means capital is less interested in meeting the needs of the ‘reserve army’ of unemployed, as these people don’t function as a reserve army any more. In fact, as with the time of the agricultural revolution, where farm workers were displaced from the countryside and dumped in the growing cities of Europe, what is increasingly being created by our societies are ‘waste humans’ – humans with no real role in society at all and who would be dumped, if somewhere could be found to dump them. Hence, our excessive concerns about refugees – the strangers who are eternally a danger to us (potentially terrorists, likely to take our jobs, wanting to change our societies…), even when we really know that they are more endangered by us then we are by them.
If work requires constantly updated skills, then it is up to us to make sure that we update those skills. Society no longer provides these other than at a direct cost to the individual who will ‘benefit’ from those skills. Education and training become major cost centres and sources of profit and debt. That increased productivity and an increasingly skilled work force has not lead workers with these increased skills to having an increased share of the wealth of society is an uncomfortable fact that we generally ignore.
Globalisation is such that corporations now effectively avoid taxation and starve governments of funds – governments then make social welfare (in all its guises) forms of individual welfare that individual citizens are forced to supply for themselves, and since these citizens are increasingly employed on short-term contracts with no loyalty from their employers and no certainty in the ongoing nature of their work or ongoing relationship with workmates, the natural tendency is to avoid collective action (the decline in union membership across the first world as a case in point), to have less community feeling, and to develop a more ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude towards others. Self-preservation and protection are inevitably linked with the individualisation of the threats and risks society increasingly has. The problem is that the individual is the least able to adequately respond to these threats and risks, all of which remain social in nature.
The problem here is that in a world that is changing as quickly as ours, individual resourcefulness becomes a constant project for the individual – and like the red queen, you have to run as fast as you can just to remain in the same spot. No one’s resources are enough to ensure their own future and so everyone becomes part of the precarious many with dog-eat-dog becoming the major theme of social life.
This has real world impacts. It is becoming increasingly pointless to save for a future that is so uncertain. Living in the moment and in debt is something that makes sense in such a world and that is increasingly what people do. Relationships stop being of the ‘happily ever after’ kind, and become ‘until further notice’ with each person just as likely to break off the relationship without warning when something better presents itself. Everything is defined by its ability to provide delight – but that is under the prior assumption that nothing will go on providing delight indefinitely. We may be living longer, but permanence isn’t something we expect any more from anything.
The world is not only divided into nomads and those fixed in place – but also between those who are like us, part of our community, and those who are not. We need to decide how to treat those who are not ‘like us’ – and the alternatives seem to be to either vomit them out (Trump’s wall and deportations is a case in point) or to swallow them whole (what is otherwise called ‘assimilation’). This consumption or vomiting metaphors provide a schema for understanding not only ‘the other’ but also ‘ourselves’. The relationship between ourselves as individuals and the community that we belong to isn’t as obvious as it might otherwise seem. Here notions of patriotism and nationalism (the twin evils) cover over differences while also asserting contingency in the sense that those ‘like us’ are given leeway, while those ‘not like us’ are always presented as ‘exemplars’ of their ‘kind’.
As you can see, there are paradoxes in this modern fluid age, but those paradoxes are positioned so as to continue to provide benefits to those who hold the most power in our societies. It would be hard to say this book offers much in the way of hope – but I think ultimately why it is an important book is that it does provide ways of understanding how society is increasingly being structured to undermine moves towards great equity and social solidarity. Given that society is created and maintained by our own actions, it ought to be possible for us to change society so that it better meets the needs of everyone, rather than an ever-diminishing elite – the 1% or the 0.1%... Bauman says power needs to move towards the global – finding structures that will allow us to become global citizens appears to be the urgent task of the day.
Here are some quotes:
Solids are cast once and for all. Keeping fluids in shape requires a lot of attention, constant vigilance and perpetual effort – and even then the success of the effort is anything but a foregone conclusion. p.8
Travelling light, rather than holding tightly to things deemed attractive for their reliability and solidity – that is, for their heavy weight, substantially and unyielding power of resistance – is now the asset of power p.13
Rockefeller might have wished to make factories, railroads and oilrigs big and bulky and own them for a long, long time to come (for eternity, if one measures time by the duration of human and human family life). Bill Gates, however, feels no regret when parting with possessions in which he took pride yesterday; it is the mind-boggling speed of circulation, of recycling, ageing, dumping and replacement with brings profit today – not the durability and lasting reliability of the product pp.13-14
Being modern came to mean, as it means today, being unable to stop and even less able to stand still. We move and are bound to keep moving not so much because of the ‘delay of gratification’, as Max Weber suggested, as because of the impossibility of ever being gratified p.28
To put it in a nutshell, ‘individualization’ consists of transforming human ‘identity’ from a ‘given’ into a ‘task’ p. 31
Risks and contradictions go on being socially produced; it is just the duty and the necessity to cope with them which has been individualized p.34
Let me repeat: there is a wide and growing gap between the condition of individuals de jure and their chances to become individuals de facto – that is, to gain control over their fate and make the choices they truly desire p.39
The way human beings understand the world tends to be at all times praxeomorphic: it is always shaped by the know-how of the day, by what people can do and how they usually go about doing it p.56
“Who starts a career in Microsoft”, observes Cohen, “has no idea where it is going to end. Starting with Ford or Renault, entailed on the contrary the near-certitude that the career would run its course in the same place” p.58
Leaders demand and expect discipline; counsellors may at best count on the willingness to listen and pay heed p.64
‘We’ is the personal pronoun most frequently used by leaders. As to the counsellors, they have little use for it: ‘we’ is nothing more than an aggregate of I’s, and the aggregate, unlike Emile Durkheim’s ‘group’, is not greater than the sum of its parts. At the end of the counselling session the counselled persons are as alone as before the session started. If anything, they are reinforced in their loneliness: their hunch that they would be abandoned to their own devices has been corroborated and turned into near-certainty. Whatever the content of the advice, it referred to things which the counselled person must do themselves, accepting full responsibility for doing them properly and blaming no one for the unpleasant consequences which could be ascribed only to their own error or neglect p.65
since I know already that it is up to me and me alone to make (and go on making) the best of my life; and since I also know that whatever resources such an undertaking may require can be sought and found only in my own skills, courage and nerve, it is vital to know how other people, faced with similar challenges, cope p.68
(everything in a consumer society is a matter of choice, except the compulsion to choose – the compulsion which grows into addiction and so is no longer perceived as compulsion) p.73
Consumers guided by desire must be ‘produced’, ever anew, and at high cost p.75
The pursuit of fitness is a state of perpetual self-scrutiny and self-deprecation, and so also of continuous anxiety p.78
the style of the dominant tends to become the dominant style p.154
Unlike production, consumption is a lonely activity, endemically and irredeemably lonely, even at such moments as it is conducted in company with others p.165
An ‘inclusive community’ would be a contradiction in terms. Communal fraternity would be incomplete, perhaps unthinkable but certainly unviable, without that inborn fratricidal inclination p.172
In the nationalist narrative, ‘belonging’ is a fate, not a chosen destiny or a life project p.175