Sociology

In societies where modernity is well developed, self-identity becomes an inescapable issue. Earlier societies with social order based firmly in tradition and social roles with defined roles, post-traditional and traditional societies, and individual roles are constantly figured out as it together with the self, the environment and the society also change with you. As Giddens explains, for people living in the late modernity, three focal questions are being asked. What to do, how to act, and who to be. These questions are either discussed openly or simply figured out by everybody through the day-to-day social behavior.  According to Giddens, these questions of identity in modern society are both a consequence and a cause of changes at the institutional level. His analysis brings forth a connection between the micro and macro aspects of the modern society, micro being the internal sense of self and identity, and macro meaning the different institutions like capitalist corporations, development on societies. Such concept has traditionally been separated under study in sociology, the field understands the influence they bring on each other, but somehow cannot be directly understood in isolation.

Giddens sees how various social changes happened through the changes which individuals view life, which in turn stems from the social influences and observations. For example, in understanding marriage and the rise in divorce cases in the country reflects on the changes reflected on marriage and sexuality, which are on macro levels, but originated from the changes which came from the demands from everyday lives, which is micro. Thus, as Giddens examined, brought social movements such as womens liberation for example, this had grown out of the dissatisfactions within everyday life. Modern societies reflect social change which stems from micro and macro forces.
 
Giddens published in the Consequences of Modernity the argument on high or late modernity as a post traditional order characterized by a developed institutional reflexivity. His analysis concerns how the period of modernity, the globalising tendencies of modern institutions is accompanied by a transformation of day to day social life having profound implications for personal activities.

According to Giddens, the self becomes a reflexive project, which is sustained through a revisable narrative of self- identity. Giddens explains that the reflexive project of the self is a control or mastery which parallels the overall orientation of modern institutions towards colonizing the future. Yet it also helps promote tendencies which place that orientation radically in question and which provide the substance for discussions on late modernity.

Jurgen Habermas, a contemporary philosopher gained worldwide reputation after promoting his idea on communicative action. Communicative action as he defined is where actors in society seek to arrive at a common understanding and to coordinate actions by reasoned argument, thus reaching consensus and cooperation rather than doing a strategic pursuit of their individual goals. Habermas elaborated a critique of methods of domination in modern societies. Despite this, Harbermas greatly referred to the ideas in classical philosophical views, particularly the enlightenment. The enlightenment has greatly influenced the work of Habermas, and he studied it in a reflexive way through his works for over two decades through a systematical critical analysis of the present times.  Habermas was consistently criticized for his strong inclination in the reconstruction of the modern enlightenment tradition in understanding the concept of modernity.

In view of modernity, Habermas regarded the concept as something which can be redeemed, thus reconstructing the idea through a distinct communication theory. Hence, his work was focused on overcoming the pessimism of late modernity by resolving the dilemmas of subject-centered reason in the paradigm of the communicative action. In dealing with modernity, most theorists either ignore or acknowledge the role of technology. Habermas influence is brought primarily by the fact that he elaborated the concept of modernity into a carefully-thought out and sophisticated theory without any reference at all to the role of technology. His approach is based on the Weberian rationalization theory which explains the varying differences in cultural spheres. For example, the state, religion, law, science, had each become a distinct social domain with each respective identity. Habermas explains further a system, in which each social domain is being governed by an internal logic of equivalent exchange. The systems organize and influence the daily life in individuals and groups in the modern societies. A situation wherein individuals discuss and act together for their own mutual benefit, or to maintain rituals and roles, according to Habermas is communication done through the functions of the system. The differentiated systems are the foundation of a complex modern society.

Modern societies are really different from each other. The difference between them might seem closely related to the impersonal functions for the system which in turn creates and forms new possibilities of communication. In his work entitled the Theory of Communicataive Action, Habermas locates the normative foundations of critical theory in the realm of communication, emphasizing the attempt to reach a mutual understanding. The idea of communicative action is an in-depth discussion and reflection on Max Webers pessimism on modernity. He even broadened his account of modernity into a full-fledged defense of modernity as an uncompleted project of enlightenment.  

Pierre Bourdieu on the other hand examines modernity through or within the concept of modern art. Unlike the previous theories, he regarded modernity as not only within the sociological hierarchy, but also within the system of social relations. In reference to modern art booming during Bourdieus time, his study on modernity deals with the central move to characterize the expense of capitalism as engendering complex inversion of the cosmos, in which the business are negated in the vision and intentions of an artist. Early modernism for him was a new world lost. Modernism can only be regained if the artistic mode of existence together with the various social realities experience can be interpreted.

In understanding modernity, these three theorists each presented their takes with different influences, which can be summed into two general understanding of modernity. Given the period in which they conceptualized these theories, it can be understood by looking at the difference between civilizations, bearing individual cultures. Or understanding by noting the time or change during or from earlier centuries, synonymous with development or progress, from traditional to modern. Two takes in which these theorists explained modernity is either cultural or acultural. Cultural define the theory on modernity pegged on transformations made in a rise of a new culture. Acultural theory on the other hand is one which describes transformations in terms of the type by which any traditional culture can undergo. Habermas and Bordieu explained a paradigm shift on the modernity as a result of growth reason, enlightenment, the rise of instrumental rationality, or the difference between fact-finding and evaluation. Giddens describes the individual changes seen in the lens of modernity, how the self deals and reacts to the changes around him. Modernity in the aculture type can be explained by these three theorists, meaning they conceived the concept of modernity through transformations with increased mobility, concentration on populations, industrialization, or other similar concepts. Common to the theories presented is the explanation on how every culture can go through, and that all will probably forced to undergo because of the social realities within them. in this kind of theory, modernity is seen as a rational or social operation that regards culture as neutral.    

The mass media is also likely to influence individuals perceptions of their relationships. Whether in serious drama, or celebrity gossip, the need for good stories would always support an emphasis on change in relationships. Since almost nobody on TV remains happily married for a lifetime - whether were talking about fictional characters or real-life public figures - we inevitably receive a message that monogamous heterosexual stability is, at best, a rare ideal, which few can expect to achieve. We are encouraged to reflect on our relationships in magazines and self-help books (explicitly), and in movies, comedy and drama (implicitly). The news and factual media inform us about the findings of lifestyle research, and actual social changes in family life. This knowledge is then reappropriated by ordinary people, often lending support to non-traditional models of living. Information and ideas from the media do not merely reflect the social world, then, but contribute to its shape, and are central to modern reflexivity.

Personality in Greek is defined in a dramatic meaning, the mask we wear whenever we present ourselves to ourselves as well as to others. Personality reflects the self concept which is internal, the self mask or what we want others to see ourselves. It is socially constructed and people are free to attribute different characteristics. However, as an individual, no one can understand hisher self better apart from the social realms we mingle in. Goffman used a metaphor to explain how social meaning is attributed to the concept of the self in the real world. He explained it as being a performer, where the persona has an on and off stage, with various audiences, manifested by the personality he has. It includes the performance, the roles, the scripts, and how each delivers and interprets her role and lines. Individuals and audiences are taken with a performance, and thus becoming the reality people want. But the performances may be less than convincing - seen insincere, interpreted as a masquerade of self-interest. Judgments about them may be cynical or dismissive.

Through the drama actors give meaning to themselves, to others (and of others) and their situation. Interactions (performances before observers) deliver impressions to others according to the actors goals (teleology). Information is exchanged to confirm identity and the significance of behavior. Goffman refers to this the front as a concept as expressive equipment that is employed. It expresses a dramatic realization of the interpersonal self that individuals through impression management activity, generate, present and others expect.

Through the front, the actors social role, interactive behaviours and audience expectations are brought together. It is manifest in appearance and manner in a setting. It is created from controlled (or uncontrolled) performance and information exchange. A front must be convincing - in-line with expectations. This is significant in terms of attributing ethical, correct or inappropriate (if not quite so clearly unethical) characteristics. The actor transmits information via various channels (a process to be controlled if others are to be convinced that behaviour is in line with the role and person they assume). Such credibility is won by satisfying the expected duties and manners of an attributed role being consistent in communication of activities and traits. Various signs and signifiers are used in projecting the front including the Social setting (scenery, props, location)

The front incorporates the setting and baggage we bring with us. We enter, reside in perform in and leave settings and these may offer protections. Some are relatively fixed - some vary according to time (years or moments) or place. Goffman differentiates between

Appearance is an element of front or role. Expectations about appearance are often regularized or normative within a culture - although this is more varied today as fashion designers and followers of fashion challenge expectations. Manner is how we play the role the personal touch - works to warn others of how the performer will act or seek to act in role - dominant, aggressive, yielding, receptive etc). A manner is expected - of the doctor, the sales person, the mother, exposed politician.

Inconsistency with appearance and manner may confuse and upset an audienceobserver until enough information is gathered to decide what is coherent or what is not. Definition of the full self can also involve performance in voluntary, consequential actions (not always available in standard role settings). Outside of their normal roles, many seek excitement in recreation. Experience of higher risk action in other, outward oriented performances (outside of home, family, a steady low risk job) becomes more important in defining strength of character. Many high risk and action settings provide occasion and place for expression of moral sensibilities such as bravery, courage, determination, reliability, mastery of valued arts which inspires the confidence of others.

We have a repertoire and vocabulary of manageable fronts (Goffmans term) which we use across a multitude of settings. Personality trait definitions become collective, normative terms, common understandings in a vocabulary. Thus social fronts are institutionalized.