Self-Help & Questioning Modernity

This week I found the Giddens article most intriguing. Although I had heard the term “modernity” before and generally knew what it meant, I never really considered its relation to reflexivity. Growing up in this generation, I never questioned the vast amount of available self-help literature; I just assumed individuals had been teaching themselves ways of coping from the beginning. When Giddens described how individuals “help actively to reconstruct the universe of social activity around [struggles with intimate problems]” (p.12), I began to realize that this had not always been the case. In fact, now I would even go as far as saying with modernity came the gradual backing away from society as a collective toward the focus on oneself/the individual.

The connection between modernity and personal identity strikes me as an odd one because before having read this piece, I never would have put those two terms together. As Giddens explains, with modernity came the need for autonomy, or at least the feeling of needing to be autonomous. In the past, if someone were struggling with intimate problems, he/she would usually consult a professional such as a priest or counselor for advice; however, in today’s society, individuals increasingly turn to themselves for help. With the vast amount of self-help literature available, it is no surprise individuals feel the need to investigate and try to “fix” their own problems first. Giddens affirms that modernity is reflexive and the expansion of lifestyle manuals and self-help guides demonstrate this. Giddens ends by asserting, “The altered self has to be explored and constructed as part of a reflexive process of connecting personal and social change” (p.33). This illustrates the reliance on ourselves to continually adapt to changes, and improve our self and sense of well being in order to go along with the changes brought about as a result of modernity.

Additionally, when Giddens notes the “reflexivity of modernity actually undermines the certainty of knowledge” (p.21), I immediately thought of how the world was once “proven” flat, but as the years passed and society became more modern, this “fact” was overturned. It makes me wonder how many other “things we know” will eventually become invalidated. While teaching Research Methods last semester, we discussed the concepts of ontology (what we know) and epistemology (how we know what we know). To me, the terms did not signify a great deal then, but their importance is much clearer now. Although we heavily regard science as objective, and producing factual and reliable results, we must entertain the notion that due to our evolving world, these facts can change in light of new evidence. Therefore, it is critical that the certainty of knowledge Giddens speaks about is continually tested and not simply taken for granted as true and irrefutable.