First Published in 2004. Confusion reigns in sociological accounts of the curent condition of modernity. The story-lines from the 'end of the subject' to 'a new individualism', from the 'dissolution of society' to the re-emergence of 'civil society', from the 'end of modernity' to an 'other modernoity' to 'neo-modernization'. This book offers a sociology of modernity in terms of a historical account of social transformations over the past two centuries, focusing on Western Europe but also looking at the USA and at Soviet socialism as distinct variants of modernity. A fundamental ambivalence of modernity is captured by the double notion of liberty and discipline in its three major the relations between individual liberty and political community , betwen agency and structure, and between locally situated human lives and widely extended social institutions. Two major historical transformations of modernity are distinguished, the first one beginning in the late nineteenth century and leading to a social formation that can be called organized modernity, and the second being the one that dissolves organized modernity. It is this current transformation which revives some key concerns of the 'modern project', ideas of liberty, plurality and individual autonomy. But it imperils others, especially the creation of social identities as ties between human beings that allow meaningful and socially viable development of individual autonomy, and the possibility of politics as communicative interaction and collaborative deliberation about what human beings have in common.
A very good book to trace the meaning of modernity, different phases of modernity, crisis of modernity and ultimately the question whether there is any need for reorganizing modernity or possibility of postmodernity. A very lucid description of phases of modernity has been offered in this book. A brief overview is given below. Modernity is about freedom and rationality but at the same time it need to be disciplinized. The first phase being the 'restricted liberal modernity' where there was freedom for carving one's identity however that freedom was limited to only bourgeois class. with the mobilization of people those boundaries were overcome, it was called 'first crisis of modernity'. More people started getting membership of modernity and became a mass society however again with the inclusion of masses there arose the need for managebility which again led to organizing social practices of creating identity within the boundaries of ,say, nation, class etc. This was called 'Organized modernity'. This organized modernity phase was characterized by the introduction of conventions, standardization, institutionalization to bring stability and certainty in lives and society. however this phase was not to continue for long and came the 'second crisis of modernity' where these conventions and boundaries were broken and individuals were endowed with more autonomy to construct their identities. This called for the emergence of postmodernity where de-conventionalization, de-standardization was the norm. It was characterized by uncertainty, creativity, leisure, probing yet another reality etc. so, this did not spell an end of modernity rather a different path set for modernity.
Modernitenin pratik hale dönüşümünü ve değişimini tarihsel olarak iktisat, siyaset ve anlamlandırma(bilimsel) açısından görebilmek için kısa ancak kapsamlı olduğunu düşündüğüm bir çalışma. Bu kitabı okuduktan sonra modernite üzerinde ilgi alanınızı belirleyip okumalarını yapmak size kalmış. İlk başlarken Mehmet Küçük'ün kendine has kelimelerinden dolayı sıkıntı çeksemde ikinci bölümden sonra daha rahat ilerledi.