Living In A Global World

In the late 19th century, societies began to coalesce around urban centers, and Western Europe entered a phase known as modernity, characterized by industrialization and capitalism. According to Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, societies have moved away from that first phase of modernity—which he termed “solid modernity”—and now occupy a period in human history called “liquid modernity.” This new period is, according to Bauman, one marked by unrelenting uncertainty and change that affects society at the global, systemic level, and also at the level of individual experience. Bauman’s use of the term “liquid” is a powerful metaphor for present-day life: it is mobile, fast-flowing, changeable, amorphous, without a center of gravity, and difficult to contain and predict. In essence, liquid modernity is a way of life that exists in the continuous, unceasing reshaping of the modern world in ways that are unpredictable, uncertain, and plagued by increasing levels of risk. Liquid modernity, for Bauman, is the current stage in the broader evolution of Western—and now also global—society. Like Karl Marx, Bauman believes that human society progresses in a way that means each “new” stage develops out of the stage before it. Thus it is necessary to define solid modernity before it is possible to understand liquid modernity.

Defining solid modernity

Bauman sees solid modernity as ordered, rational, predictable, and relatively stable. Its defining feature is the organization of human activity and institutions along bureaucratic lines, where practical reasoning can be employed to solve problems and create technical solutions. Bureaucracy persists because it is the most efficient way of organizing and ordering the actions and interactions of large numbers of people. While bureaucracy has its distinctly negative aspects (for example, that human life can become dehumanized and devoid of spontaneity and creativity), it is highly effective at accomplishing goal-oriented tasks.

Another key characteristic of solid modernity, according to Bauman, is a very high degree of equilibrium in social structures—meaning that people live with a relatively stable set of norms, traditions, and institutions. By this, Bauman is not suggesting

Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland was built and run by the Nazis. Bauman cites the Holocaust as a product of the highly rational, planned nature of solid modernity. that social, political, and economic changes do not occur in solid modernity, just that changes occur in ways that are relatively ordered and predictable. The economy provides a good example: in solid modernity, the majority of people — from members of the working class through to middle-class professionals—enjoyed relatively high levels of job security. As a consequence, they tended to remain in the same geographical area, grow up in the same neighborhood, and attend the same school as their parents and other family members.

Bauman regards solid modernity as one-directional and progressive — a realization of the Enlightenment view that reason leads to the emancipation of humankind. As scientific knowledge advances, so does society’s understanding of, and control over, the natural and social worlds. In solid modernism, according to Bauman, this supreme faith in scientific reasoning was embodied in the social and political institutions that addressed primarily national issues and problems. Enlightenment values were institutionally entrenched in the figurehead of the State—the primary point of reference from which emerged the development of social, political, and economic ideals.

At the level of the individual, claims Bauman, solid modernity gave rise to a stable repertoire of personal identities and possible versions of selfhood. Solid modern individuals have a unified, rational, and stable sense of personal identity, because it is informed by a number of stable categories, such as occupation, religious affiliation, nationality, gender, ethnicity, leisure pursuits, lifestyle, and so on. Social life under the conditions of solid modernity—like the individuals it created—was selfassured rational, bureaucratically organized, and relatively predictable and stable.

From solid to liquid

The transition from solid to liquid modernity, according to Bauman, has occurred as a result of a confluence of profound and connected economic, political, and social changes. The result is a global order propelled by what Bauman describes as a “compulsive, obsessive, and addictive reinventing of the world.”

Bauman identifies five distinct, but interrelated, developments that have brought about the transition from solid to liquid modernity. First, nation-states are no longer the “key load-bearing structures” of society; national governments today have considerably less power to determine events both at home and abroad. Second, global capitalism has risen and multiand transnational corporations have proliferated, resulting in a decentering of state authority. Third, electronic technologies and the Internet now allow for near-instant, supranational flows of communication. Fourth, societies have become ever more preoccupied by risk—dwelling on insecurities and potential hazards. And fifth, there has been huge growth in human migration across the globe.

Defining liquid modernity 

As Bauman himself observes, attempting to define liquid modernity is something of a paradox, because the term refers to a global condition that is characterized by unrelenting change, flux, and uncertainty. However, having identified the traits of solid modernity, he claims it is possible to define the most prominent aspects of liquid modernity

At an ideological level, liquid modernity undermines the Enlightenment ideal that scientific knowledge can ameliorate natural and social problems. In liquid modernity, science, experts, university-based academics, and government officials—once the supreme figures of authority in solid modernity—occupy a highly ambiguous status as guardians of the truth. Scientists are increasingly perceived as being as much the cause of environmental and sociopolitical problems as they are the solution. This inevitably leads to increased skepticism and general apathy on the part of the general public

Liquid modernity has undermined the certainties of individuals regarding employment, education, and welfare. Today, many workers must either retrain or change occupation altogether, sometimes several times—the notion of a “job for life,” which was typical in the age of solid modernity, has been rendered unrealistic and unachievable

The practice of “re-engineering,” or the downsizing of firms—a term that Bauman borrows from the US sociologist, Richard Sennett—has become increasingly common, as it enables corporations to remain financially competitive in the global market by reducing labor costs significantly. As part of this process, stable, permanent work—which typified solid modernism—is being replaced by temporary employment contracts that are issued to a largely mobile workforce. Closely related to this occupational instability is the shifting role and nature of education. Individuals are now required to continue their education—often at their own expense—throughout their careers in order to remain up to date with developments in their respective professions, or as a means of ensuring they remain “marketable” in case of redundancy.

Concurrent with these changes to employment patterns is the retreat of the welfare state. What was once regarded historically as a reliable “safety net” guarding against personal misfortune such as ill-health and unemployment, state provision of welfare is rapidly being withdrawn, especially in the areas of social housing, statefunded higher education, and national health care.

 

Fluid identities

Where solid modernity was based on the industrial production of consumer goods in factories and industrial plants, liquid modernity is instead based on the rapid and relentless consumption of consumer goods and services.

This transition from production to consumption, says Bauman, is a result of the dissolution of the social structures, such as occupation and nationality, to which identity was anchored in solid modernity. But in liquid modernity selfhood is not so fixed: it is fragmented, unstable, often internally incoherent, and frequently no more than the sum of consumer choices out of which it is simultaneously constituted and represented. In liquid modernity, the boundary between the authentic self and the representation of the self through consumer choice breaks down : we are—according to Bauman— what we buy and no more. Depth and surface meaning have fused together, and it is impossible to separate them out.

 

Consumption and identity

The central importance of consumption in the construction of individual self-identity goes beyond the acquisition of consumer goods. Without the unchanging sources of identity provided by solid modernity, individuals in the modern world seek guidance, stability, and personal direction from an ever-broadening range of alternative sources, such as lifestyle coaches, psychoanalysts, sex therapists, holistic life-experts, health gurus, and so on. Self-identity has become problematic for the individual in ways that are historically unprecedented, and the consequence is a cycle of endless self-questioning and introspection that serves only to confound the individual even more. Ultimately, the result is that our experience of ourselves and everyday life is increasingly played out against a backdrop of ongoing anxiety, restlessness, and unease about who we are, our place in the world, and the rapidity of the changes taking place around us.

Liquid modernity thus principally refers to a global society that is plagued by uncertainty and instability. However, these destabilizing forces are not evenly distributed across global society. Bauman identifies and explains the importance of the variables of mobility, time, and space for understanding why. For Bauman, the capacity to remain mobile is an extremely valuable attribute in liquid modernity, because it facilitates the successful pursuit of wealth and personal fulfillment

Tourists and vagabonds

Bauman distinguishes between the winners and losers in liquid modernity. The people who benefit most from the fluidity of liquid modernity are the socially privileged individuals who are able to float freely around the world. These people, who Bauman refers to as “tourists,” exist in time rather than space. By this he means that through their easy access to Internet-based technologies and transnational flights, tourists are able—virtually and in reality—to span the entire globe and operate in locations where the economic conditions are the most favorable and standards of living the highest. By stark contrast, the “vagabonds,” as Bauman calls them, are people who are immobile, or subject to forced mobility, and excluded from consumer culture. Life for them involves either being mired in places where unemployment is

high and the standard of living is very poor, or being forced to leave their country of origin as economic or political refugees in search of employment, or in response to the threat of war or persecution. Anywhere they stay for too long soon becomes inhospitable.

For Bauman, mass migration and transnational flows of people around the globe are among the hallmarks of liquid modernity and are factors contributing to the unpredictable and constantly changing nature of everyday life: Bauman’s social categories of tourists and vagabonds occupy two extremes of this phenomenon

Applying Bauman’s theory

Zygmunt Bauman is considered one of the most influential and eminent sociologists of the modern age. He prefers not to align himself with any particular intellectual tradition—his writings are relevant to a vast range of disciplines, from ethics, media, and cultural studies to political theory and philosophy. Within sociology, his work on liquid modernity is regarded by the vast majority of thinkers as a unique contribution to the field.

The Irish sociologist Donncha Marron has applied Bauman’s concept of liquid modernity to a critical rethinking of consumer credit within the US. Following Bauman’s suggestion that consumption of goods and brands is a key feature of how individuals construct personal identity, Marron notes that the credit card is an important tool in this process because it is ideally suited for enabling people to adapt to the kind of fluid ways of living Bauman depicts. The credit card can, for example, be used to fund shopping trips to satisfy consumer desire. It makes paying for things easier, quicker, and considerably more manageable. The credit card of course also serves the function, says Marron, of meeting day-to-day bills and expenses, as people move between jobs or make significant career moves. And the physical card itself can often be co-branded with things the owner is interested in, such as football teams, charities, or stores. These co-branded cards represent a small but revealing means whereby a person is able to select and present a sense of who they are to the outside world