CONTEMPORARY THEORY

Mia Joyce R. Panesa

Rona Mae M. Decena
Jamie Rose S. Aragones
Rachel. P. Gesmundo
Allysa H. Alcaraz

In terms of period, contemporary means set of ideas or facts happening or existing in the recent times or in the same period of times. It is a scientifically

acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Different Definitions of Contemporary:

 A class of behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. Instead, the optimal

course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation.

 Argued that technologies directly determine differences in such organizational attributes as span of control, centralization of authority, and the

formalization of rules and procedures.

1. Technology

2. Suppliers and distributors

3. Consumer interest groups

4. Customers and competitors

5. Government

6. Unions

 Describes the main ideas underlying contingency in a nutshell: Organizations are open systems that need careful management to satisfy and balance

internal needs and to adapt to environmental circumstances. There is no one best way of organizing. The appropriate form depends on the kind of task or environment

one is dealing with. Management must be concerned, above all else, with achieving alignments and good fits. Different types or species of organizations are needed in

different types of environments

 Focused on a contingency model of leadership in organizations. This model contains the relationship between leadership style and the favorableness of the

situation. Situational favorableness was described by Fiedler in terms of three empirically derived dimensions.

 Leader-member relationship; the most important variable in determining the situation's favorableness referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and

confidence between the leader and the subordinates. The leader is generally accepted and respected by follower.

 The second most important input into the favorableness of the situation  referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured  the task is

very structured obtained through formal authority, which is the third most important dimension of the situation  referring to the power inherent in the leader's position

itself if a great deal of authority and power are formally attributed to the leader's position.
 Management and Decision Making the task of rational decision making is to select the alternative that results in the more preferred set of all the possible

consequences. A specific organization has to deliberately determine and specify in appropriate detail and clear language its own goals, objectives, means, ends, and

values.

 Managers are constantly called upon to make decisions in order to solve problems. Decision making and problem solving are ongoing processes of

evaluating situations or problems, considering alternatives, making choices, and following them up with the necessary actions. Sometimes the decision-making

process is extremely short, and mental reflection is essentially instantaneous. In other situations, the process can drag on for weeks or even months. The entire

decision-making process is dependent upon the right information being available to the right people at the right times.

 Symptoms Underlying Problem Low profits and/or declining sales Poor market research High costs Poor design process; poorly trained employees Low

morale Lack of communication between management and subordinates High employee turnover Rate of pay too low; job design not suitable High rate of absenteeism

Employees believe that they are not valued.

 Quite literally, organizations operate by people making decisions. A manager plans, organizes, staffs, leads, and controls her team by executing decisions.

The effectiveness and quality of those decisions determine how successful a manager will be.

The decision-making process involves the following steps:

1. Define the problem.

2. Identify limiting factors.

3. Develop potential alternatives.

4. Analyze the alternatives.

5. Select the best alternative.

6. Implement the decision.

7. Establish a control and evaluation system.

 Managers need to have the ideal resources information, time, personnel, equipment, and supplies and identify any limiting factors. Realistically, managers

operate in an environment that normally doesn't provide ideal resources.

 Satisfice to make the best decision possible with the information, resources, and time available.

 Brainstorming one of the best known methods for developing alternatives is through.

 Brainstorming usually requires 30 minutes to an hour.

The following specific rules should be followed during brainstorming sessions:

 Concentrate on the problem at hand keeps the discussion very specific.

 Entertain all ideas the more ideas, the better. Encouragement to freely offer all thoughts on the subject is important and to present ideas no matter how

ridiculous they seem.

  Refrain from allowing members to evaluate others' ideas on the spot. All judgments should be deferred until all thoughts are presented, and the group

concurs on the best ideas.

 Determine the pros & cons

 Perform a cost-benefit analysis

 Weigh each factor important in the decision, ranking each alternative relative to its ability to meet each factor

The alternative should meet:

 Feasibility — Can it be done?

 Effectiveness — How well does it resolve the problem situation?

 Consequences — What will be its costs (financial and non)to the organization?

 The best alternative is the one that produces the most advantages and the fewest serious disadvantages, such as the alternative with the most pros and fewest cons

 In cases where chances of success takes place, a manager simply selects the alternative with the highest probability of success.

 Managers are paid to make decisions, but they are also paid to get results from these decisions. Positive results must follow decisions. Everyone involved with

the decision must know his or her role in ensuring a successful outcome. To make certain that employees understand their roles, managers must thoughtfully

devise programs, procedures, rules, or policies to help aid them in the problem-solving process.

 Ongoing actions need to be monitored. An evaluation system should provide feedback on how well the decision is being implemented, what the results are, and

what adjustments are necessary to get the results that were intended when the solution was chosen.

 Was the original problem resolved? If a manager's plan hasn't resolved the problem

 Was the wrong alternative selected?

 Was the correct alternative selected, but implemented improperly?

 Was the original problem identified incorrectly?

 Has the implemented alternative been given enough time to be successful?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs a theory of psychological health predicated on fulfilling innate human needs in priority, culminating in self- actualization.

According to Maslow, self-actualising people share the following qualities:

 Truth: honest, reality, beauty, pure, clean and unadulterated completeness

 Goodness: rightness, desirability, uprightness, benevolence, honesty

 Beauty: rightness, form, aliveness, simplicity, richness, wholeness, perfection, completion,

 Wholeness: unity, integration, tendency to oneness, interconnectedness, simplicity, organization, structure, order, not dissociated, synergy

 Dichotomy-transcendence: acceptance, resolution, integration, polarities, opposites, contradictions

 Aliveness: process, not-deadness, spontaneity, self- regulation, full-functioning

  Unique: idiosyncrasy, individuality, non comparability, novelty

 Perfection: nothing superfluous, nothing lacking, everything in its right place, just-rightness, suitability, justice

 Necessity: inevitability: it must be just that way, not changed in any slightest way

 Completion: ending, justice, fulfillment

 Justice: fairness, suitability, disinterestedness, nonpartiality,

 Order: lawfulness, rightness, perfectly arranged

 Simplicity: nakedness, abstract, essential skeletal, bluntness

 Richness: differentiation, complexity, intricacy, totality

 Effortlessness: ease; lack of strain, striving, or difficulty

 Playfulness: fun, joy, amusement

 Self-sufficiency: autonomy, independence, self- determining.

 Maslow described human needs as ordered in a prepotent hierarchy a pressing need would need to be mostly satisfied before someone would give their

attention to the next highest need.

 Maslow described human needs as being relatively fluid with many needs being present in a person simultaneously.

 The hierarchy of human needs model suggests that human needs will only be fulfilled one level at a time.

According to Maslow's theory, when a human being ascends the levels of the hierarchy having fulfilled the needs in the hierarchy, one may eventually achieve self-

actualization. However, late in his life, Maslow came to conclude that self-actualization was not an automatic outcome of satisfying the other human needs.

 The first four levels are known as 'Deficit needs' or 'D-needs'. This means that if you don't have enough of one of those 4 needs, you'll have the feeling that

you need to get it. But when you do get them then you feel content. These needs alone are not motivating.

Metamotivation

Maslow used the term metamotivation to describe self actualized people who are driven by innate forces beyond their basic needs, so that they may

explore and reach their full human potential.

Management Roles He argued that there are ten primary roles or behaviors that can be used to categorize a manager's different functions.

 As a manager, you probably fulfill many different roles every day: as well as leading your team, you might find yourself resolving a conflict, negotiating

new contracts, representing your department at a board meeting, or approving a request for a new computer system. Put simply, you're constantly

switching roles as tasks, situations, and expectations change.

Mintzberg published his Ten Management Roles in his book, "Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organizations," in 1990. The ten roles are:

Figurehead.

 Spokesperson.

Leader.

Entrepreneur.

Liaison.

Disturbance Handler.

Monitor.

Resource Allocator.

Disseminator.

Negotiator.

Category Role Interpersonal Figurehead Leader Liaison Informational Monitor Disseminator Spokesperson Decisional Entrepreneur Disturbance Handler Resource

Allocator Negotiator

The roles in this category involve providing information and ideas.

 Figurehead - As a manager, you have social, ceremonial and legal responsibilities. You're expected to be a source of inspiration. People look up to you as a

person with authority, and as a figurehead.

 Leader - This is where you provide leadership for your team, your department or perhaps your entire organization; and it's where you manage the

performance and responsibilities of everyone in the group.

 Liaison - Managers must communicate with internal and external contacts. You need to be able to network effectively on behalf of your organization.

The roles in this category involve processing information.

 Monitor - In this role, you regularly seek out information related to your organization and industry, looking for relevant changes in the environment. You

also monitor your team, in terms of both their productivity, and their well-being.

 Disseminator - This is where you communicate potentially useful information to your colleagues and your team.

 Spokesperson - Managers represent and speak for their organization. In this role you're responsible for transmitting information about your organization

and its goals to the people outside it.

The roles in this category involve using information.

 Entrepreneur - As a manager, you create and control change within the organization. This means solving problems, generating new ideas, and

implementing them.

 Disturbance Handler - When an organization or team hits an unexpected roadblock, it's the manager who must take charge. You also need to help mediate

disputes within it.

  Resource Allocator - You'll also need to determine where organizational resources are best applied. This involves allocating funding, as well as assigning

staff and other organizational resources.

 Negotiator - You may be needed to take part in, and direct, important negotiations within your team, department, or organization.

Statement Not at all Rarely Some times Often Very Often

When assigning tasks, I consider people’s skills and interests.

1.
I doubt myself and my ability to succeed.
2.
I expect nothing less than top- notch results from people.
3.
I expect higher quality work from my people than I sometimes deliver myself.
4.
When someone is upset, I try to understand how he or she is feeling.
5.
When circumstances change, I can struggle to know what to do.
6.
I think that personal feelings should be allowed to get in the way of performance and productivity.
7.
I am highly motivated because I know I have what it takes to be successful.
8.
Time spent worrying about team morale is time that’s wasted.
9.
10. I get upset and worried quite often in the workplace.
My actions show people what I want from them.
11.
12. When working with a team, I encourage everyone to work toward the same goal.
I make exceptions to my rules and expectations – it’s easier than being the enforcer all the time!
13.
14. I enjoy planning for the future.
15. I feel threatened when someone criticizes me.
16. I take time to learn what people need from me so they can be successful.
I’m optimistic about life, and I can see beyond temporary setbacks and problems.
17.
18. I think that teams perform best when individuals keep doing the same tasks and perfecting them, instead of learning new skills and challenging themselves.
Motivation Hygiene Theory To better understand employee attitudes and motivation, he performed studies to determine which factors in an employee’s work

environment causes satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Herzberg proposed the Motivation-Hygiene Theory, also known as the Two factor theory (1959) of job satisfaction. According to his theory, people are influenced by

two sets of factors:

those causing job satisfaction (and presumably motivation)


those causing job dissatisfaction.

He called the satisfiers the motivators and the dissatisfiers the hygiene factors. Using the term hygiene in the sense that they are considered maintenance factors that are

necessary to avoid dissatisfaction but that by themselves do not provide satisfaction.

Motivator Factors (Leading to Satisfaction) Hygiene Factors (Leading to Dissatisfaction)

•Achievement

•Recognition

•Work Itself

•Responsibility

•Promotion / Advancement

•Growth

•Pay and Benefits

•Company Policy and Administration

•Relationship with the boss

•Relationships with co- workers

•Supervision

•Work conditions

The distinction between the two opposites portray the two distinct human needs.

First, there are physiological needs that can be fulfilled by money to purchase food and shelter.

Second, there is the psychological need to achieve and grow ad this need is fulfilled by activities that cause one to grow.

 Management assumes employees are: › inherently lazy › will avoid work if they can › they inherently dislike work › show little ambition without an

enticing incentive program › will avoid responsibility whenever they can

 Management anagement believes that workers need to be closely supervised and comprehensive systems of controls developed

 If the organizational goals are to be met,managers rely heavily on threat and coercion to gain their employees' compliance

Beliefs of this theory lead to: › mistrust › highly restrictive supervision › a punitive atmosphere › blaming someone in the end

Management assumes employees to be: › ambitious › self motivated › exercise self-control › enjoying their mental and physical work duties › creative

problem solvers › viewing work as natural as pla

Managers believe that employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility and to exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing objectives

to which they are committed

Manager believes that: › most people will want to do well at work › the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation › Theory Y as a positive set

of beliefs about workers

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT includes: › managers communicating openly with subordinates › minimizing the difference between superior

subordinate relationships › creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can develop and use their abilities

This theory would lead to: › trust › sharing of decision making › having subordinates have a say in decisions that influence them

Theory Z Theory Z focused on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the employee, both on

and off the job promoting stable employment, high productivity, and high employee morale and satisfaction

 Japanese consensus management style based on the assumptions that: › employees want to build cooperative relationships with their employers, peers, and

other employees in the firm; for this they › require high degree of support in the form of secure employment and facilities for development of multiple

skills through training and job rotation › they value family life, culture and traditions, and social institutions as much as material success › they have well-

developed sense of dedication, moral obligations, and self-discipline › they can make collective decisions through consensus

 Theory Z include: › an improvement of people skills › empowering employees › stimulating change › helping employees balance work with life conflicts ›

improving ethical behavior

 Companies using these theories have shown improvements in: › turnover rates › productivity › effectiveness › efficiency › organizational behavior › job

satisfaction

Lalaine Shem Charone Karl Mabelle

Management is one or the other form has existed in every nook and corner of the world since the dawn of civilization. Modern Management has grown

with the growth of social-economics and scientific institution. Modern view consists that a worker does not work for only money. They work for their satisfaction and

happiness with good living style. Here Non- financial award is most important factor.

Also, it is recognized as modern management theories wherein it started after 1950s. Modern management theory focuses the development of each factor

of workers and organization. Modern management theory refers to emphasizing the use of systematic mathematical techniques in the system with analyzing and

understanding the inter-relationship of management and workers in all aspect.

 It has following three Streams-

 Quantitative Approach

 System Approach

 Contingency Approach

1.) Quantitative Approach:

Quantitative approach also called Operation Research.  Quantitative approach is a scientific method. It emphasizes the use of statistical model and

systematic mathematical techniques to solving complex management problems. Its helps the management to making decisions in operations. It can only suggest the

alternatives based on statistical data. It cannot take final decision.

It helps the management for improving their decision making by increasing the number of alternatives and giving faster decisions on any problem.

Management can easily calculate the risk and benefit of various actions.

This approach suffers from the following drawbacks:

(i) This approach does not give any weight age to human element which plays a dominant role in all
organisations.

(ii) In actual life executives have to take decisions quickly without waiting for full information to develop
models.

(iii) The various mathematical tools help in decision making. But decision making is one part of
managerial activities. Management has many other functions than decision-making.

(iv) This approach supposes that all variables to decision-making are measurable and inter-dependent.
This assumption is not realistic.

(v) Sometimes, the information available in the business for developing mathematical models are not
upto date and may lead to wrong decision-making.

Major contributors in Quantitative Approach are-

 Johan MacDonald

 George R. Terry

 Andrew Szilagyi

2.) System approach:

System approach was developed inlate1960s. Herbert A. Simon is the father of system theory. A  System is defined as a set of regularly interacting or inter

- dependent components that create as a whole unit. The system concept enables us to see the critical variables and constraints and their interactions with one another.

The system approach is to look upon management as a system or as an organised wholemade up of sub-
systems integrated into a unity or orderly totality.

Systems theory is useful to management because it aims at achieving the objectives and it views
organization as an open system. Chester Barnard was the first person to utilise the systems approach in
the field of management

According to Cleland and King; “ A system is composed of related and dependent elements which  when in interaction from a unity whole”.

Characteristics of system approach:

 A system must have some specific components, units or sub units.

 A Change in one system affects the other subsystems.

 Every system is influenced by super system.

 All systems along their subsystem must have some common objectives.

 A system is a goal-oriented.

 A system cannot survive in isolation.

The basic features of systems approach are as under:

(i) A system consists of interacting elements. It is set of inter related and interdependent parts arranged
in a manner that produces a unified whole.

(ii) The various sub-systems should be studied in their inter- relationships rather, than in isolation from
each other.

(iii) An organisational system has a boundary that determines which parts are internal and which are
external.

(iv) A system does not exist in a vaccum. It receives information, material and energy from other
systems as inputs. These inputs undergo a transformation process within the system and leave the
system as output to other systems.

(v) An organisation is a dynamic system as it is responsive to its environment. It is vulnerable to change

in its environment.

Major contributors in system theories are-

 Daniel Katz,

 Robert L. Khan,

 Richard A. Johnson.

3.) Contingency Approach:

Contingency Approach also knows as situational approach. In 1980s, it is recognized as a key to effective management. This approach accepts the

dynamics and complexities of the organization structure. An organization is affected by its environment and environment is composed by physical resources, climate,

persons, culture, economic and market conditions and their laws.  This approach argues that there is no one universally applicable set of rules by which to manage

organization.  

The contingency theory aims at integrating theory with practice in systems framework. The behaviour of
an organisation is said to be contingent on forces of environment. Hence, a contingency approach is an
approach, where behaviour of one sub-unit is dependent on its environment and relationship to other
units or sub-units that have some control over the sequences desired by that sub- unit.

Kast and Rosenzweig give a broader view of the contingency approach. They say, The
contingency view seeks to understand the inter-relationships within and among sub-systems as well as
between the organization and its environment and to define patterns of relationships or configurations
of variables contingency views are ultimately directed toward suggesting organization designs and
managerial actions most appropriate for specific situations

Features of Contingency Approach:

Firstly, the contingency approach does not accept the universality of management theory. It stresses
that there is no one best way of doing things. Management is situation, and managers should explain
objectives, design organisations and prepare strategies, policies and plans according to prevailing
circumstances. Secondly, managerial policies and practices to be effective, must adjust to changes in
environment.

Thirdly, it should improve diagnostic skills so as to anticipate and ready for environmental changes.
Fourthly, managers should have sufficient human relations skill to accommodate and stabilise change.

Finally, it should apply the contingency model in designing the organization, developing its information
and communication system, following proper leadership styles and preparing suitable objectives,
policies, strategies, programmes and practices. Thus, contingency approach looks to hold a great deal of
promise for the future development of management theory and practice.

Major contributors in the contingency theories are-

 G.M. Stalker,

 Joan Woodward,

 Tom Burns,

 Paul R. Lawrence,

 L.W. Lorsch.

Modern management theory depends upon System approach and Contingency approach. Management is influenced by Internal and external environment.

Appropriate techniques are determined by situation and Environmental factors of an organization.  Thus the conclusion is that there cannot be any fixed universal

principles of management and organizations.

Your Article Library

5 Contemporary Theorists of Modernity (Who are Defining Modernity Clearly)

Article shared by :

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The five contemporary theorists of modernity are as follows:

For classical theorists, the term ‘modernity’ largely meant industrialization. But, in contemporary world, it has gone beyond that. There are a good number of

sociologists who are working on this theme to develop a viable theory, which could lead us to the road to progress.

The term ‘modernization’ came into widespread use in the early 1960s, as a consequence of the efforts by a group of development specialists in the United States of

America to develop an alternative to the Marxist account of social development in its most sophisticated variants. The modernization theory explains modernization by

reference to the onset of the process that Talcott Parsons refers to as structural differentiation.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

This is a process which may be triggered in many different ways, but which is most likely to be initiated by changes in either technology or values. As a result of this

process, institutions multiply the simple structures of traditional societies into the complex ones of modern societies, and values come to bear a striking resemblance to

those current in the U.S. of the 1960s.

There is little agreement on the definition of modernity given by contemporary theorists. In fact, there is more disagreement than agreement in defining modernity. For

instance, Anthony Giddens considers modernity as an inexorable force – a juggernaut which offers a number of advantages but also poses a series of dangers.

The dangers are so powerful that they can crush the society and tear it asunder. Ulrich Beck follows the track of Giddens. He rather looks at the dark side of modernity

only saying that the modern society is a risk society.

It, therefore, makes it obligatory for the people to prevent risk and to protect themselves from it. George Ritzer, on the other side, looks at the brighter side of

modernity. He is optimistic. For him, rationality is the key characteristic of a modern society. He stresses the importance of hyper-rationality. And it is exemplified

through McDonaldization, credit card and fast food.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Zygmunt Bauman argues that modernity is nothing but a bundle of irregularities, and more generally the dangers. Finally, there is yet another theorist Jurgen

Habermas, who looks at modernity as an unfinished project. He too focuses on rationality of the life-world. The process of modernization would be completed when

the social system along with the social world is enriched rationally.

It is difficult indeed to define modernity in the context of contemporary theorists. There are definitions, there are meanings, but all these are controversial, debatable.

The theorists agree that the present society is passing through modernity. They also accept the beneficial notion of modernity.

But that is not all. The theorists are also scared of the risks involved in the modern society. Perhaps, Ritzer is closer to the meaning of modernity when he says that it is

a juggernaut. Juggernaut is like a huge giant-like machine, which can carry any load and cross any land. But it has also a capacity to crush anybody which dares to

resist it. Control over this juggernaut requires a sustained exercise. Despite the difficulties involved in defining modernity, we attempt to provide a few.

1. Anthony Giddens: Modernity is multi-dimensional:

Giddens, in his book, The Constitution of Society (1985), has argued that modernity cannot be explained by a single term only. It is in all respects multi-dimensional.

Giddens is among those who have resisted the equation of modernity with liberalism or capitalism. It would be mistaken to say that modernity is liberalism, capitalism,

industrialization or rationality.
No single variable can provide a satisfactory definition of modernity. Giddens draws heavily on the thoughts of Marx; among others he does so in a critical way

emphasizing the multi-dimensional nature of modernity, its complex casual patterns and institutional logics, and the inherently contingent qualities of political and

social change.

In Giddens’ view, there are four main institutional aspects of modernity:

1. Capitalism:

The system of production of commodities for markets in which wage labour is also a commodity.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

2. Industrialization:

The application of inanimate sources of power through productive techniques for transformation of nature.

3. Coordinated administrative power focused through surveillance:

The control of information and the monitoring of the activities of subject populations by states and other organizations.

4. Military power:

The concentration of the means of violence in the hands of the state. Giddens says that these four institutional dimensions of modernity are irreducible to one another,

for the form and logic of each one are quite different from those of the others. The development and dynamics of military power and warfare, for example, affected the

shape and structure of capitalist development as well as particular patterns of class and class conflict and helped generate an alternative power system to capital: the

modern system of nation-states.

Giddens argues that the formation of nation-states and the subsequent emergence of international relations cannot be analyzed only from the variable of capitalism. In

Giddens’ judgement, each of the four institutional dimensions consists of a distinctive set of causal processes and structures. Taken together, however, they provide a

framework for understanding some of the central features, developments and tensions in modern societies.

Thus, according to Giddens, the first and foremost thing about modernity is that:

(1) It is multi-dimensional, not monolithic, and

(2) It has four dimensions, viz.,

(a) Capitalism,

(b) Industrialism,
(c) Administrative power, and

(d) Military power.

2. Ulrich Beck: Modernity leads towards risk society:

It was in 1992 that Ulrich Beck came with his book. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Beck, the German sociologist, has written extensively about risk and

globalization. He says that modern society has created a large number of risks for the people.

The western modern world is now faced with fast food, global warming and several other risks, including the degradation of environment. There is no ‘road map’ to

these dangers. Because there are no definitive answers about the causes and outcomes of such risks, the people are obliged to face these and suffer the consequences.

Beck argues that the modernity of the consequence of enlightenment – social justice, reasoning and mass production – has become a thing of the past. The world is fast

changing and we are now living in a world, which is beyond the modern. Now we have second modernity.

The second modernity refers to the fact that modern institutions are becoming global, while everyday life is breaking free from the hold of tradition and customs. He

argues for the emergence of second modernity, which is to him a risk society as under:

The old industrial society is disappearing and is being replaced by a ‘risk society’ … The management of risk is the prime feature of the global order. The earlier

modernity largely consisted of industrialization. It was good for the society. It was advantageous for the people but the new avatar of modernity has created risks. With

the advances in science and technology, new risk situations are created that are different from those of previous ages.

Science and technology obviously provide many benefits for us. Yet, they create risks that are hard to measure. Thus, no one quite knows, for example, what the risks

involved in the production of genetically modified foods might be.

A generation ago, in the developed societies, marriage was a fairly straightforward process of life transition – one moved from being unmarried to the status of

marriage, and this was assumed to be a fairly permanent situation.

Today, many people live together without getting married and divorce rates are high. In developing countries, such as India, the sacramental character of marriage is

steadily diluted and among the middle class families there is a drive towards divorce. There are a large number of TV serials which profusely deal with the problem of

the breaking of marriage.

Beck seems to be talking about the ground realities of the contemporary modern world. It is certain that the world of 1920 when the founding theorists died has

changed radically. The earlier modernity had several advantages; the second modernity or the contemporary modernity has several risks.

It must be admitted that Beck is not arguing that the contemporary world is more risky than that of earlier ages. What he argued is that the risks, which we encounter

today, derive less from mutual dangers or hazards than from uncertainties created by our own social development and by the development of science and technology.

Beck has made comparison between the earlier modernity or the modernity of classical theorists and the second or revised modernity of contemporary theorists.

He observed:
The central issue in the classical modernity was wealth and how it could be distributed more evenly. In advanced modernity, the central issue is risk and how it can be

prevented, minimized, or channeled. In classical modernity the ideal was equality, while in advanced modernity it is safety.

In classical modernity people achieved solidarity in the research for the positive goal of equality, but in advanced modernity the attempt to achieve that solidarity is

found in the search for the largely negative and defensive goal of being spared from dangers.

But, after all, how does Beck define his second modernity which is sometimes also called late modernity. The fundamental specificity of the contemporary modernity is

that it is reflexive in its character. It is the people who should question the risks involved in modernity.

A valid explanation of the risks can be sought in the sub-politics of the state. According to Beck, the sub-politics consist of large companies, scientific laboratories, and

the like. It is in the sub-political system that the “structures of a new society are being implemented with regard to the ultimate goals of progress in knowledge, outside

the parliamentary system, not in opposition to it, but simply ignoring it”.

Take the case of India. The Supreme Court ordered the closure of hundreds of factories in and around New Delhi because of the environmental hazards created by them

for the community. This is the apt example of the role of sub-politics.

To summarize, it can be said that the old definition of modernity is no longer relevant today. The old modernity has witnessed dramatic changes. The new modernity,

which Beck calls the ‘second modernity’, is actually the late modernity. This avatar of modernity creates risks for the society.

But, the present generation cannot survive without the advantages of this form of modernity. In fact, there is no going back. Beck agrees with Habermas that the new

society does not spell the end of attempts at social and political reform. The sub-politics and the civil society have much to do in this field.

3. George Ritzer: Modernity is hyper-rationality, McDonaldization and Americanization

Indian and Asian students of sociology are familiar with George Ritzer. Ritzer has brought out popular textbooks on classical sociological theory and modern

sociological theory. Ritzer goes well with his students. But, in the field of modernity, he is known for his book.

The McDonaldization of Society:

An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life (1996). We know the McDonalds. They constitute a series of restaurants all over India.

They are a craze. The new generation considers it fashionable for refreshment and social meet. It may appear strange: for Ritzer, McDonald’s is a symbol of modernity.

Modernity, according to Ritzer, is rationality. It is the prime characteristic of contemporary society. McDonaldization is an example of hyper-rationality. Credit card

and fast food are also examples of hyper-rationality. But, there is an interesting question: why has Ritzer chosen McDonalds as a case study to illustrate the meaning of

modernity?

There is rationality. The McDonald’s is not simply a place for refreshment – a place for eating and getting out. It has started with logic, a solid rationality. The

restaurant, which is associated with the modern American values of convenience and disposability, is now cultivating a ‘green’ image.
The firm is careful to boast that its cattle farming do no damage to the world’s rainforests and that the company has withdrawn ozone-threatening material from its

burger packaging. Obviously, the restaurant shows its concern for environment, nutrition, purity and other aspects of health and hygiene. Ritzer calls it hyper-

rationality.

In sociological literature, Weber was the first theorist who talked about rationality as a characteristic feature of modern society. But, Weber talked of formal rationality,

which has importance in structures such as bureaucracy.

But, there are other two types of rationality:

(1) Substantive rationality, and

(2) Theoretical rationality.

Substantive rationality entails the dominance of norms and values in the rational choice of means and ends, whereas theoretical rationality is concerned with rational

cognitive processes. What Ritzer finds is that in a modern society people pay all attention to formal rationality and the other two types – substantive and theoretical –

are callously marginalized. And, hence, the need for hyperrationality.

Defining hyper-rationality, Ritzer observes:

What is hyper-rationality?

Put simply, hyper-rational system is one that combines and interrelates all the three of Weber’s forms of rationality – formal, substantive and theoretical or intellectual.

This system is seen as more rational than a formally rational system because it makes use of formal rationality and the other two types of rationality.

What we find in Ritzer’s hyper-rationality can be presented in the following formula:

Hyper-rationality (of Ritzer) = Formal + Substantive + Theoretical Rationality (of Ritzer)

In other words, Ritzer’s concept of hyper-rationality is the combination of Weber’s three forms of rationality. It is this improved form of hyper-rationality that Ritzer

analyzes the American modern society. As an illustration of formal rationality, he refers to McDonaldization.

The restaurant represents a contemporary paradigm of formal rationality. For Weber, bureaucracy was the model of formal rationality but in contemporary times fast

food represents an even better paradigm of this type of rationality. The bureaucracy is still with us, but the fast food restaurant better exemplifies this type of rationality.

This implies that not only is formal rationality still with us, but so is the modern world, of which this type of rationality is a key component. Because of

McDonaldization, most recently, Ritzer has examined credit cards from various points of view including that of the rationalization thesis. It could be argued that what

credit cards have done is to McDonaldize the receipt and expenditure of credit. Instead of fast food, what the modern bank is doing is dispensing fast money.
Ritzer also takes up the case of Americanization, besides McDonaldization, fast food and credit card. America is generally seen as the centre of modernity to the rest of

the world. Ritzer believes that the idea of the continued Americanization of the world would tend to buttress the modernity rather than the postmodernity perspective.

Thus, Ritzer in his discussion of modernity has defined it in terms of hyper-rationality. It is an improvement over Max Weber.

4. Zygmunt Bauman: Modernity as holocaust:

Bauman has come out with a title, Intimations of Postmodernity (1992). He is a theorist who establishes that modernity and postmodernity have cast a gloom on world

society. These processes have rendered holocaust. As the Jews were destructed by the Nazis, so is the process of modernization which has meant loss of life to the

contemporary world.

Bauman puts it, “considered as a complex purposeful operation, the holocaust may serve as a paradigm of modern bureaucratic rationality”. To many it will seem

obscure to discuss fast food restaurants and the holocaust in the same context. Yet, there is a clear line in sociological thinking about modem rationality from the

bureaucracy to the holocaust and then to the fast food restaurant.

The perpetrators of the holocaust employed bureaucracy as one of their major tools. The conditions that made the holocaust possible, especially the formal rational

system, continue to exist today.

Indeed, what the process of McDonaldization indicates is not only that formally rational systems persist, but they are expanding dramatically. Thus, in Bauman’s view,

under the right set of circumstances the modern world would be ripe for an event of greater abomination than the holocaust.

Generally, the situation of holocaust or destruction is considered by people as abnormal, but Bauman thinks otherwise. In course of time, the condemned holocaust

would be seen as a normal event. In other words, holocaust would be taken as the handwork of rationality. In Bauman’s words:

The truth is that every ‘ingredient’ of the holocaust – all of those many things that rendered it possible – was normal; ‘normal’ not in the sense of familiar … but in the

sense of being fully in keeping with everything we know about our civilization, its guiding spirit, its priorities, its immanent vision of the world.

Ritzer, while successfully bringing to home the meaning of modernity as given by Bauman, observes:

Thus, the holocaust, to Bauman, was a product of modernity and not as most people view it, a result of the breakdown of modernity. In Weberian terms, there was an

“elective affinity” between the holocaust and modernity.

Modernity has been explained in a very strange way. On one hand, Ritzer argues that the introduction of fast food restaurants such as McDonald’s have employed

rationality and have caused efficiency to the system, and on the other hand by employing the same rationality, holocaust has also been cast on the society. Rationality,

therefore, is common to both for fast food and holocaust.

Bauman writes quite pointedly:

Modernity as embodied in these rational systems was not a sufficient condition for the holocaust, but it was clearly a necessary condition. Without modernity and

rationality, the holocaust would be unthinkable. How does holocaust work with rationality? See the holocaust of Germany.

Defining the Jew problem Hitler said:

“Get rid of the Jews and every problem is solved.” The German bureaucrats picked up the solution given by Hitler and meticulously applied bureaucratic rationality to

resolve a series of day-to-day problems, extermination emerged as the best means to the end.

Thus, Bauman argues that the holocaust was not the result of irrationality or pre-modern barbarity, but rather it was the product of the modern, rational bureaucracy. It

was not a crazed lunatic who created and managed the holocaust, but highly rational and otherwise quite normal bureaucrat.

5. Jurgen Habermas: Modernity is rationality and an unfinished project:

The German sociologist and philosopher, Jurgen Habermas is linked to the Frankfurt School of social thought. The Frankfurt School was a group of authors inspired by

Karl Marx who nevertheless believed that Marx’s views needed radical revision to bring them up-to-date. Habermas belonged to the tradition of Marx but analyzed

Marx in a different way.

Habermas revisited enlightenment. Enlightenment was revolutionary and it combined science, morality and art together. These three forms of human thinking made the

whole worldview. The forms were such in which religion exercised hegemony over science and art. Habermas stresses the importance of rationality over other three

forms of human thinking. Modernity, according to him, is the core of rationality.

He is said to be the leading defender of modernity and rationality. His views on modernity are elaborated in his work, Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1987).

Though postmodernists have made all possible assaults on Habermas, he has very strongly defended his position.

This has been stated by Seidman as under:

In contrast to many contemporary intellectuals who have for an anti-or postmodernist position, Habermas sees in the institutional orders of modernity structure of

rationality. Whereas many intellectuals have become cynical about the emancipatory potential of modernity…. Habermas continues to insist on the Utopian potential of

modernity. In a social context in which faith in the Enlightenment project of a good society promoted by reason sees a fading hope and spurned idol, Habermas remains

one of its strongest defenders.

Habermas has come to the conclusion that rationality has hegemony on the total way of life by analysis the social world of the men. He finds that the present society

has become increasingly complex, differentiated, integrated and characterized by rationality. The life world has also witnessed increasing differentiation, secularization

and institutionalization of norms of reflexivity and criticism.

Habermas says:
A rational society would be one in which both system and life-world were permitted to rationalize in their own way, following their own logics. The rationalization of

system and life-world would lead to a society with material abundance and control over its environment as a result of rational systems and one of truth, goodness, and

stemming from a rational world.

Habermas has put his thesis in plain and certain words: Modernity is guided by rationality. There is a life-world, which we all live, witness and experience. This life-

world has its social system. The social system is rational; the life-world so is rational. Thus, there is rationalization of social system and life-world. The end is the

society.

However, Habermas is not closed in his thinking. He says that the hegemony of system is so strong that sometimes life-world is deprived of some of the freedom which

it wants to enjoy. And, as a result of this, there is colonialization of the life-world by the rational system.

In other words, the “hallmark of modernity” to Habermas, as well as most of the classical theory, has been, in Habermas’ terms, “the colonization of the life-world by

the system”.

Habermas is convinced of the benefits of modernity. There are a few more things that modernity has to do. A large number of people in any society and particularly in

South Africa and Asia are marginalized, and live below the poverty line. They have yet to get the benefits of modernity.

And, it is in this context that Habermas sees modernity as an unfinished project implying that there is far more to be done in the modern world before we can begin

thinking about the possibility of postmodern world. He hopes that the final product of the modern society would be a fully rational society in which both system and

life-world were allowed to express themselves fully without one destroying the other.

Sponsored LinksYou May Like

5 Reasons Why Wedding Photographers Have Gone Full-Frame Mirrorless

CANON EOS R

Body Revolution - How to Lose А Few Kilos In A Week?

FruThin

Big Electric Bills? There is a Valid Way To Reduce It!

mixer-news

Expert's Advice: Tips to Lower Blood Sugar Naturally

Prestig

10 Foods to Prevent Hairloss

Nutrition Expert

6 Simple Exercises to Lose Thigh Fat Fast

Fitness Engage

Put Garlic Under Your Pillow and This Can Happen to You
Health & Human Research

4 Healthy Smoothie Recipes To Make On The Go

www.bleubloom.com

by Taboola

Related Articles:

Ritzer’s Theory of Modernity: A Shift towards Debureaucratization and Hyper- Rationality

4 Classical Theorists of Modernity (Their Approach to Modernity)

Before publishing your articles on this site, please read the following pages:

1. Content Guidelines 2. Prohibited Content 3. Plagiarism Prevention 4. Image Guidelines 5. Content Filtrations 6. TOS 7. Privacy Policy 8. Disclaimer 9. Copyright

10. Report a Violation

submit

ADVERTISEMENTS

Sponsored LinksYou May Like

5 Reasons Why Wedding Photographers Have Gone Full-Frame Mirrorless

CANON EOS R

Body Revolution - How to Lose А Few Kilos In A Week?

FruThin

Big Electric Bills? There is a Valid Way To Reduce It!

mixer-news

Expert's Advice: Tips to Lower Blood Sugar Naturally

Prestig

10 Foods to Prevent Hairloss

Nutrition Expert

by Taboola

Web

Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter

Risks in International Business | Foreign Exchange

5 Reasons Why Wedding Photographers Have Gone Full-Frame Mirrorless

CANON EOS R
|

Sponsored

Body Revolution - How to Lose А Few Kilos In A Week?

FruThin

Sponsored

Ad