Characteristics of Modernity

In a sense, modernity gave birth to sociology. The rapid changes and dislocations of early modernity spurred the founders of the field to try to understand how and why society was changing, how social order could be maintained in the absence of traditional forms of solidarity, and how major institutions — the family, religion, education, the economy, and government — would evolve. Modernity has its roots in the intellectual revolutions that ended the Middle Ages and brought about such changes as the growth of science and rationality, the birth of the nation-state and the global shift toward capitalism, and shifts in work and family life. The term refers to both the modern era and also the ideology associated with the changes: a belief in progress, reliance on science, and faith in the value of objectivity.

Keywords Enlightenment; Individualism; Mechanical Solidarity; Modernity; Organic Solidarity; Postmodernism; Private Sphere; Public Sphere; Rationalization; Scientific Method

Social Change > Characteristics of Modernity

Overview

In a sense, modernity gave birth to sociology. The rapid changes and dislocations of early modernity spurred the founders of the field to try to understand how and why society was changing, how social order could be maintained in the absence of traditional forms of solidarity, and how major institutions — the family, religion, education, the economy, and government — would evolve.

Major theorists in the field have continued to explore the dynamics of modern life. Karl Marx and Max Weber questioned modern political forms while Emile Durkheim investigated transformation of solidarity and religious life (Collins & Makowsky, 1993; Eyerman, 1992). Because so much of sociology has modernity as a central concern (although often an unstated one) it is important to understand what is implied in the concept.

Modernity, Modernism & Modernization

Modernity generally refers to the changes associated with the post-Medieval era, beginning gradually sometime in the sixteenth century and taking root during the Enlightenment. It should be distinguished from modernism, which is the term used to refer broadly to aesthetic and social movements of the late nineteenth and early-to-mid twentieth centuries (e.g. "modern art" or "modern dance"), and modernization theory, which claims that progress, urbanization and industrialization inevitably lead to US-style capitalism.

Some theorists believe that modernity's "project" began with the eighteenth century's Enlightenment, a period of intellectual change that spread across Western Europe and America. The Enlightenment was characterized by,

Modernity developed from the Enlightenment, although the term modernity encompasses more than intellectual changes of the eighteenth century, usually including:

• A new concept of self based on individualism
• Rational and scientific thinking and the expansion of technology
• The breakdown of traditional authority and growth of rational/legal authority
• The birth of modern nation-state
• The spread of education, literacy, and print culture
• The birth and spread of mass media
• The creation of the middle class
• Enlightenment ideals and the expansion of civil/political/social rights and democracy
• A smaller, more autonomous family unit
• Increasing separation of the public and private spheres
• The growth of the idea of privacy
• Architectural changes to meet new ideas of civility, privacy, and family life
• The birth and growth of capitalism, modern manufacture, and industrialization
• The ideology of progress and development
• Urbanization

While these changes are all interrelated, some sociologists, following Marx, have prioritized the role of the shift to capitalism as the causal force behind the other shifts in society. Others, following Weber, think that cultural changes have more weight in explaining the onset of modernity.

Marx, Weber & Modernity

Marx was a materialist. That is, he believed that social analysis should begin with the material conditions of a society — the economy's form, the work people did to supply their needs and so on. He believed that the economy was primary and other social institutions — the family, religion, the government — were best understood as an outgrowth of the economic system. He also believed that each society contained structural contradictions that eventually caused it to fail and to be replaced by a new form of social organization. Using this logic, he thus thought that modernity (or more specifically in his theories, the modern capitalist system) came about because contradictions in the medieval system of feudalism had caused it to crumble. One such contradiction was the growth of the new merchant/middle class.

Marx believed that capitalism grew out of changes in labor. In the Middle Ages, households brought products to market. Some people gathered enough capital to set up cooperative ventures, where many workers engaged in production jointly. Cooperative labor is more productive than individual labor, so such ventures created more profits. This led to further experiments with the division of labor, which again increased the output of workers while it degraded the value of each worker's labor. The means of production gradually changed in this era, so that as workers shifted from individual to capitalist labor, they also shifted from tools to machinery. Both machines and workers began to specialize (Marx, 1906).

In contrast, Weber believed that capitalism sprang from cultural changes, specifically the increasing popularity of some sects of Protestantism. Calvinists (such as the Puritans) believed in predestination — people were either among the elect, or they were among the damned, and this was determined before their births. They therefore spent their lives searching for signs that they were among the elect; success in business was seen as a sign of God's approval. The development of Calvinism thus created a group of thrifty, sober people who were predisposed to work hard, save, and reinvest: perfect early capitalists (Weber, 1930).

Weber and Emile Durkheim were among the first sociologists to argue that one of the defining characteristics of the modern era was the tendency toward specialization and differentiation. These processes occur on both the institutional and individual level — both people and institutions become more specialized (Alexander, 1992). Durkheim believed that this specialization and the ensuing division of labor would help keep society unified, as people would be dependent on each other for goods and services. He referred to this new form of solidarity as organic solidarity. This would replace the traditional forms of solidarity (mechanical solidarity) based on similarity of life experience (Collins & Makowsky, 1993).

Applications

Individualism & the Autonomous Self

Baumeister (1986) argues that in the Medieval West, identity was fixed and linked to social institutions — "lineage, gender, home, and social class" (p. 29). Changes in religion and the structure of social classes gradually created a new sense of identity. Baumeister identifies six themes that capture the new early modern idea of self:

1. The idea of an inner self;
2. The growth of the idea of individualism, of each person as unique;
3. A new concern with privacy;
4. A new concern with death;
5. More autonomy in choosing one's spouse, and
6. A new vision of childhood as a distinct stage of life.

This early modern idea of self continued to evolve from the Puritan emphasis on privacy, self-knowledge and self-consciousness to the Romantic era's ideal of a self searching for fulfillment and at odds with society, to the Victorian's concern with morality.

The twentieth century's quest for identity was shaped by a late capitalist economy dominated by intertwined bureaucratic institutions, which took control of socio-economic possibilities out of the individual's hands, limiting the possibilities for autonomy. At the same time, the demands of capitalism created a culture saturated with advertisements that sold products by eroding consumers' sense of self-worth. These transformations created a search for authenticity. The modern self has become increasingly problematic, represented by the "quest for identity," and the growth of alienation and fragmentation (Gergen, 2000).

Progress, Scientific Thinking & the Expansion of Technology

Early modernity was characterized by a belief in progress; that is, a belief that society and humankind were improving, moving toward a state of perfection. This is seen in the society's positive attitudes toward technology and in the optimism of early sociologists such as Comte, Durkheim and Marx (Collins & Makowsky, 1993; Ginsberg, 1972). The belief in progress was related to a faith that science held untold promise toward solving social problems.

Modern science relies on the scientific method — a method of searching for truth involving the identification of a problem, background data collection, the formation a hypotheses, hypothesis testing through experimentation, and analysis of results. While elements of these methods have existed throughout history (notably in Ancient Greek thought as epitomized by Aristotle), all the elements of the modern scientific method did not come together and develop free of religious constraints until the late Middle Ages. The shift to a scientific mode of thought can be seen in the increasing development of observation, experimentation, and rationality throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the works of Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton (Bierstedt, 1978).

Scientific research and theorizing is conducted following some basic norms (first described in these terms by Robert K. Merton and Barber):

• Universalism — scientific laws must apply everywhere;
• Organized skepticism — scientists must take nothing on faith;
• Communality — important findings must be shared with the community of scientists;
• Disinterestedness — scientists should be motivated by a search for truth rather than profit;
• Rationality — scientists must be committed to the idea of reason as the best path toward finding truth, and
• Emotional neutrality — scientists must not become attached to one idea, but must be open to truth wherever they find it (Storer, 1966, pp. 76-80).

Modernity is the Age of the Machine. Mumford (1962) points out that humans have long created machines; what separates the modern era from earlier ages is that machines now organize and control daily existence. For example, this is seen in the development of the mechanical clock, which now dictatorially synchronizes the actions of humans worldwide in a manner unthinkable to earlier societies. Many forms of technology make life easier and the world smaller, yet they foster dependence and reshape social life in unpredictable ways.

Literacy

The invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century led to a subsequent spread of literacy. The spread of reading throughout society led to many changes. Interestingly enough, given Weber's thesis on the link between capitalism and Protestantism, in the early modern era reading and book-owning were associated more with Protestants than with Catholics. As book became more available, the nature of reading changed from a public act into a private matter (Chartier, 1989).

Meyrowitz (1997) argues that changes in communications technology create changes in who is considered in-group. The shift from oral to written communication meant that people could create communities with others that they had never seen, which eased the development of the modern nation-state. Printing also served to divide people into groups based on their ability to read and the reading materials to which they had access. The change to electronic forms of communication has again shifted boundaries; people may feel more connected to those on the other side of the globe with whom they share hobbies or cultural interests and have little contact with people in their daily orbit.

Expansion of Civil/Political/Social Rights & Democracy

T. H. Marshall (1964) argued that one aspect of modernization was the expansion of the rights of citizenship. He said that in ancient times, civil rights (those necessary for individual freedom — liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought, and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid contracts, and the right to justice), political rights (the right to participate in the exercise of political power, as a member of a body invested with political authority or as an elector of the members of such a body) and social rights (the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society) were intertwined because the state itself was undifferentiated. People held rights based on status, and there was no concept of universal, guaranteed rights (Marshall, 1964, 71-72). As the Enlightenment idea of equality and citizenship began to spread, these rights became distinct from each other. Civil rights were negotiated in England and the US colonies in the eighteenth century, political rights in the nineteenth, and social rights in the twentieth.

Public & Private Spheres, the Family & Privacy

The growth of capitalism led to changes in family structure. The early bourgeois family was usually organized as a unit of production in a domestically-based industry. As the industrial revolution and urbanization pulled more people out of the traditional agricultural, rural life into the world of wage labor and factory work, an ideology developed that separated life into two distinct spheres: the public sphere, seen as the domain of men, power, and paid labor, and the private sphere, which was the home, held to be the domain of women, children, and domestic labor. The family was seen as a source of emotional comfort, the refuge from the corrupt world. Even as the Victorian family ideal took root, it was attacked by feminists of the day who saw in the change from Medieval to late-bourgeois family styles the increasing powerlessness of women, and their oppression under the guise of domestic expertise (Zaretsky, 1986).

As society underwent major changes in the organization of work, political life, and family life, and as medieval institutions became so changed as to be unrecognizable, there was a corresponding shift in manners and civility. This change can be traced to the popularity of a book on manners, Erasmus' Manners for Children, first published in the sixteenth century and in use for at least three hundred years. Modern civility expanded the category of actions considered private (urinating, spitting, blowing one's nose), turned the body into a source of shame, and eventually placed a new emphasis on hygiene (Revel, 1989). The new desire for privacy was eventually translated into the architecture of the family home, as houses began to feature separate sleeping quarters and rooms with functions segregated by status (Hall, 1990).

Urbanization

Urbanization refers to an increase in the percentage of a population that lives in cities. Urbanization took place rapidly. Before 1850, there was no urbanized society. By the mid-twentieth century, all the industrialized nations were urbanized. Economic development and urbanization are closely linked. Wide-scale urbanization was not possible until agricultural techniques improved to the point where a small percent of the population could produce food to support the entire population.

Push and pull factors draw people into cities; improvements in agricultural technology push people off of the land as industrial wages beckon them to cities and the division of labor that results from increased specialization and differentiation encourages people to live closer together. While medieval cities existed for trade, early modern cities were focused on production (Davis, 1996; Pirenne, 1996).

Viewpoints

What Are the Disadvantages of Modern Life and/or the Ideology of Modernity?

Durkheim believed that the rapid changes of modern life brought about anomie — a breakdown in social control, leading to "a condition of relative 'normlessness'…[not] a state of mind, but… a property of the social structure" (Coser, 1971, p. 133). While he identified structural problems in modern societies, Durkheim, like Marx, believed in progress. Marx was optimistic about humankind's ultimate progress toward a more utopian future, although he was dismayed with the conditions of modernity that he witnessed, from the dismal living conditions of the average worker in Europe to the alienation that modern workers felt when divided from the fruits of their labor.

Unlike Durkheim and Marx, Weber was pessimistic about the results of modernity, believing that the emphasis on rationalization (which he defined as end-oriented, calculating behavior) caused a disenchantment of the world and created an "iron cage" for modern humans (Coser, 1971). More recently, Fromm (1969) has theorized that the freedom of the modern era has overwhelmed people with choices; many flee into totalitarianism as an escape from the demands of self-determination.

The belief in the inevitability of progress faded somewhat in the twentieth century, as some of the foundation on which it rested was called into question. The violence of two world wars, ecological threats, and nuclear weapons were a few of the factors that prompted people to doubt that all technological innovations were positive, that reason was infallible, or that growth and expansion were always desirable (Nisbet, 1980).

Are We Still Modern or Have We Moved to a Postmodern Era?

Modernity is an era and also a point of view or state of mind. The emphasis on science and rationality derived from the Enlightenment has given modernity one of its basic themes: that the world is objectively knowable, and that there are standards by which it can be judged.

Postmodernism refers to a reaction to modernity that claims that truth is subjective and that no objective standard of knowledge exists. It argues that metanarratives or "grand narratives" about human progress are illusions. Postmodernism refers to both this theoretical rejection of modernism's project, and also to artworks based in these theories.

Gergen (2000) believes that the self has become postmodern. The modern belief in an essential authentic core self has been replaced with a sense of multiple, fragmented selves. Belief in a stable, objective reality fades as people gain a sense that the reality they grasp in a given moment is a only a fleeting social construction. Rationality and expertise is replaced with contingency, authoritative truth with deconstruction.

Terms & Concepts

Enlightenment: The movement associated with reason, reform, and the spread of scientific ideals in eighteenth century Western Europe and America.

Mechanical Solidarity: Durkheim's term for social unity based on shared life experiences and similar worldviews.

Modernity: The era after the Middle Ages, beginning roughly in the 16th century, characterized by a belief in science, progress, and objectivity.

Organic Solidarity: Durkheim's term for social unity based on a division of labor.

Postmodernism: A response to modernism that became popular in the late twentieth century, it suggests that truth is subjective, and progress and other "grand narratives" are illusions.

Private Sphere: The domestic sphere, ideologically associated with femininity, the family, and unpaid domestic labor.

Public Sphere: The sphere of society outside the home, ideologically associated with paid labor, politics and masculinity.

Rationalization: Used by Weber, a term for the end-oriented, calculating behavior of bureaucratic capitalism.

Scientific Method: The modern procedure for the discovery of rational truth, it involves hypothesizing and experimenting.

Bibliography

Aakvaag, G. (2013). Social mechanisms and grand theories of modernity – worlds apart?. Acta Sociologica, 56, 199-212. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88938534

Alexander, J.C. (1992). Durkheim's problem and differentiation theory today. In H. Haferkamp & N.J Smelser (Eds.), Social Change and Modernity (pp. 179-204). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity: cultural change and the struggle for self. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bierstedt, R. (1978). Sociological thought in the eighteenth century. In T. Bottomore and R. Nisbet (Eds.), A history of sociological analysis (pp. 3-38). New York: Basic Books.

Chartier, R. (1989). The practical impact of writing. In R. Chartier (Ed.), A history of private life (Vol. III: Passions of the Renaissance) (pp. 111-159). Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press.

Collins, R. & Makowsky, M. (1993). The discovery of society ( 5th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Coser, L.A. (1971). Masters of sociological thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Davis, K. (1996). The urbanization of the human population. In R.T. Gates & F. Stout (Eds.), The City Reader (2nd ed) (pp. 3-13). New York: Routledge.

Doná, G. (2013). Interconnected modernities, ethnic relations and violence. Current Sociology, 61, 226-243. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85633967

Eyerman, R. ( 1992). Modernity and Social Movements. In H. Haferkamp and N.J Smelser (Ed.), Social Change and Modernity (pp. 37-54). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fromm, E. (1969). Escape from freedom. New York: Avon Books.

Gergen, K.J. (2000). The saturated self. New York: Basic Books.

Ginsberg, M. (1972). The idea of progress. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Hall, C. (1990). The sweet delights of home. In M. Perrot (Ed.), A history of private life (Vol. IV: From the fires of revolution to the great war) (pp. 47-93). Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press.

Lee, R. (2013). Modernity, modernities and modernization: Tradition reappraised. Social Science Information, 52, 409-424. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89566121

Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press.

Meyrowitz, J. (1997). Shifting worlds of strangers: Medium theory and changes in "them" versus "us." Sociological Inquiry, 67 , 59-71. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9708315659&site=ehost-live

Marx, K. (1906). Capital (F. Engles, Ed.; S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.). New York: The Modern Library.

Mumford, L. (1962). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Nisbet, R. (1980). History of the idea of progress. New York: Basic Books.

Pirenne, H. (1996). City origins & cities and European civilization. In R.T. Gates & F. Stout (Eds.), The city reader (2nd ed.) (pp.37-45). New York: Routledge.

Revel, J. (1989). The uses of civility. In R. Chartier (Ed.), A history of private life (Vol. III: Passions of the Renaissance) (pp. 167-205). Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press.

Storer, N.W. (1966). The social system of science. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Routledge.

Zaretsky, E. (1986). Capitalism, the family, and personal life. New York: Harper & Row.

Suggested Reading

Alexander, J. C. (2011). Dangerous frictions:The condition of modernity and its possible repair. Fudan Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, 4, 1-11.Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70127657

Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2011). Self-limitation of modernity? The theory of reflexive taboos. Theory & Society, 40, 417-436. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=61930158

Berman, M. (1982). All that is solid melts into air: the experience of modernity. New York: Penguin Books.

Giddens, A. & Pierson, C. (1998). Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rollison, D. (1992). The local origins of modern society: Gloucestershire 1500-1800. New York: Routledge.