liquid modernity is a term coined by philosopher Zygmunt Bauman (1925-2017) to define the globalized world.
Liquidity and its volatility would be characteristics that came to disorganize all spheres of social life, such as love, culture, work, etc. as we knew it until now.
Characteristics of Liquid Modernity
In liquid modernity, the individual will mold society to his personality.
First, without the parameters of solid modernity, the individual will be defined by his lifestyle, by what he consumes and how he consumes.
Second, in liquid modernity, there is always movement. People now move around more easily and can live in various parts of the world, whenever they have the resources to do so.
Third, economic competition, which caused wages to decline and workers to lose job security. In liquid modernity, it is no longer possible to work all your life in the same company.
Thus, liquid modernity:
- it's fluid;
- he is on the move;
- it's unpredictable.
This opens up a new paradigm, as it is now necessary to think of society in fluid terms, in terms of processes and no longer in terms of blocks.
net life
Bauman argues that individuals in liquid society tend to consider that the most rational attitude is not to commit to anything. Thus, when a new opportunity or idea appears, this individual engages without major drama.
How does this volatility impact our life? Liquid modernity gives us a sense of failure because of so much fragmentation.
Therefore, a very important issue for Bauman will be the construction of ethics within this fluid scenario.
The conditions necessary to guarantee human survival (or at least to increase its probabilities) are no longer divisible and 'localizable'. The suffering and problems of our day have, in all their multiple forms and truths, planetary roots that need planetary solutions. (BAUMAN, Z. Net Life, 9th Edition, Austral:Paidos, 2015).
Solid Modernity vs. Liquid Modernity
Bauman uses the liquidity metaphor to make a counterpoint to the times of certainty that would be identified by the solid state.
In solid modernity, institutions were firm, there was job security and a salary that allowed the individual to live with dignity.
With this, a system based on rationality was built, where it was important for the individual to adapt to the society in which he was inserted.
Religion and nationalism gave a sense of community and a sense of belonging. Thus, the human being built his identity from these references.
There is, however, a change in the 60s and 70s when institutions began to weaken. provided the keys for the individual to build their identity as religious beliefs, family and school.
Due to market competition and increased competitiveness, the individual is no longer certain. In this way, all those truths that solid modernity had as immutable are questioned.
Therefore, in liquid modernity, these concepts are constantly adapting, as they adapt to the environment in which they are inserted.
Without external references and in a society where everything is allowed (at least in theory), individuals have to build their identity based on their personal experience.
This generates the anguish and discomfort already recommended by Jean-Paul Sartre, but also a sense of freedom, where the individual is fully responsible for his/her actions.
See the table below for a summary of the differences between solid and liquid modernity.
| solid modernity | net modernity |
|---|---|
| Society of consumers and producers | consumer society |
| consumption for survival | Consumption to be socially accepted |
| solid institutions | fluid institutions |
| Geographical and labor immobility | Geographical mobility and labor flexibility |
| Durability | scheduled obsolescence |
Read more about some related topics:
- Contemporary Philosophy
- Postmodernism
- Y generation
- What is Ideology?
- Enem Sociology Issues
- Sociology in Enem: what to study
