Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof.

Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
CHAPTER 7: POLITICS, SOCIETY AND IDENTITY

Questions for discussions:

1. Why has social connectedness become ‘thinner’?

Answer:

Social connectedness becomes thinner because of the advent of post-

industrialism, the fading significance of social class, the emergence of so-called
“information society”, and the growth of individualism.

The advent of post-industrialism—from a manufacture-based workforce to a

service-based workforce—affected social connectedness and paved the way to the
fading significance of class because the expansion of service sector economies fosters
a more individualistic attitude of the people. Hence, in line with this, post-industrialist
economies resulted in the weakness of social connectedness because the mentioned
individualistic attitude of the people became the passage of “atomism”—the tendency
for a society to be made up of a collection of self-interested and largely self-sufficient
individuals.

On the other hand, in correlation to the emergence of the so-called “information

society”, social connectedness became weaker because the advancement of
information and communication technologies (ICT) gave individual citizens to have
independent access to such specialized knowledge—allowing them to escape from
dependency on technocratic elites. Moreover, this independency might be harmful to
the individuals because this can also result in the disintegration of solidarity due to such
criticisms that an uncontrollable “surfing” on the internet might affect the capacity of the
people to think and ruin the concreteness of information they absorb—new media may
be the reason why people are getting stupid rather than being better-informed (Carr,
2008, 2010). Lastly, the growth of individualism affects social connectedness because
industrial capitalism gives people a broader range of choices and social possibilities—
encouraging them to think for themselves and to think of themselves in personal terms.
The growing prominence of neoliberalism also further strengthened individualism due to
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
the tendency to extol the virtues of entrepreneurialism and the individual self-serving
philosophy of “greed is good”.

Therefore, contributory factors such as the emergence of post-industrialism,

fading significance of social class, the advent of so-called “information society”, and the
growth of individualism not only weaken the social connectedness but also diminish the
profound concept of community and the sense of belonging.

2. How class conflict in modern society been resolved or merely suppressed?

Answer:

Class conflict in modern society has been merely suppressed because Karl
Marx’s predictions regarding with two-class model—the relationship between the ruling
class of property owners (the bourgeoisie) who oppress and exploit a class of wage
slaves (the proletariat)—failed to materialize which resulted to the declining evidence of
class struggle, at least in advanced capitalist societies. In line with this, the advent of
industrial capitalism also helped to suppress class conflict because—at the end of
nineteenth century—the class structure in industrial societies became more complex,
and that it varies from system to system, as well as over time.

Hence, the decline of the political significance of class was also evidently sprung
in the so-called “post-industrial societies” because the goal of these societies was to
employ the process of “de-industrialization” which to decrease the subscription from the
labor-intensive characteristic of industries (e.g., coal, steel, and shipbuilding) to the
expansion of service-based economies that resulted to more individualistic and
instrumentalist attitudes of the socioeconomic classes (particularly with the working
class). In this matter, class conflict was not the principal issue anymore but the deep
concern with the weakening of social connectedness and the tendency towards social
leveling that is associated with mass education, rising affluence, and consumerism
(Hutton, 1995). Moreover, J.K. Galbraith in “The Culture of Contentment” (1992)
emphasized that in modern societies, those who are politically active (contented
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
majority) opt to be political conservative—through the electoral base for the anti-
welfarist and tax-cutting policies—to preserve nor sustain their material affluence and
economic security. In addition, because of the self-serving interest of the contented
majority, the consequence of social inequalities increased which not focused anymore
on social class but more on the “underclass”—pertaining to the people who suffer from
multiple deprivations such as unemployment or low pay, poor housing, inadequate
education, and so on.

Therefore, class conflict in modern society has been merely suppressed because
of the emergence of post-industrial societies whose individualistic characteristic became
the vehicle for the politically active ones or the contented majority to uphold their status-
quo by means of anti-welfarist and tax-cutting policies—further perpetuating social
inequalities and social exclusion that is not focused anymore on social class but to
those in the underclass.

3. Has the network society substituted “virtual” communities for real communities,
and with what consequences?

Answer:

Indeed. The network society substituted “virtual” communities for real

communities because the birth of information age became the passage for broader
connectivity and higher quantity of the information as well as faster communication
exchanges through the help of digital technologies and accelerated globalization. On
the other hand, this phenomenon resulted in Manuel Castells’ (1996) notion of the
“network society” which pertains that because of the broader connectivity and help of
technologies, more complex and pluralized information societies began to operate either
on the basis of markets—reflecting the wider role of market economics, as well as the
impact of economic globalization—or on the basis of looser and more diffuse networks.
According to Castells, businesses increasingly function as “network corporations”
because, for instance, many transnational corporations are organized as networks of
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
franchises and subsidiaries which undermine the essence of real communities (e.g.,
trade unions and pressure groups) through the advent of network-based social
movements. Therefore, the network society definitely substituted “virtual” communities
for real communities by the help of the information age which became the vehicle for
broader connectivity (such in business, movement of markets, and economic
globalization) and higher quantity of information as well as faster communication
exchanges through digital technologies and accelerated form of globalization—much
efficient and advantageous than real communities.

4. Is individualism the enemy of social solidarity and cohesion?

Answer:

No. Individualism is not the enemy of social solidarity and cohesion because
rather than viewing it as a detrimental factor that weakens the essence of a community
and sense of social belongingness—it definitely promotes social progressiveness and
social reflexivity.

Beyond this context, the emergence of post-industrialism and the spread of

information technology-based network relationships encouraged the rise of
individualism. Thus, because of this, it affects social connectedness because industrial
capitalism gives the people a broader range of choices and social possibilities—
encouraging them to think for themselves and to think of themselves in personal terms.
Hence, for instance, the notion of individualism sees people as self-seeking, acting in
accordance with their own interests, and encouraging them to be self-sufficient in the
sense of taking responsibility for their economic and social circumstances. Moreover, in
the perspective of economic individualism, this matter has been further strengthened by
the growth of the consumer society and the general shift in favor of neoliberal
economics. In short, the growing prominence of neoliberalism also further strengthened
individualism due to the tendency to extol the virtues of entrepreneurialism and the
individual self-serving philosophy of “greed is good”.
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
However, liberal theorists viewed the rise of individualism as the mark of social
progress because they believed that it affiliates and interconnected with the spread of
progressiveness; it enlightens the idea of social values specifically toleration and
egalitarian access to opportunities. To further expound, liberal theorists give emphasis
on individualism as the contradictory force against the traditional-conservative belief of
collectivism. They believed that if human beings are thought of as individuals, then they
must be entitled to the same rights and the same respect which encompasses the idea
that all forms of disadvantage or discrimination based on factors such as gender, race,
creed, religion, or social background are viewed as morally questionable and
indefensible. On the other hand, the linkage between individualism and the expansion of
choice and opportunity has also been highlighted by the spread in modern societies of
“social reflexivity” (Giddens, 1994). To elaborate, the context behind this idea is that the
development of mass education (much wider and accessible access to information
through radio, television, the internet, and so on) and intensified cultural flows within
and between societies widens the sphere of personal freedom, the ability of people to
define who they are and how they wish to live (shifting from the traditional-conservative
thought), and a tendency to reflect the increasing domination of politics by the so-called
“lifestyle” issues.

Therefore, individualism is not the enemy of social solidarity and cohesion

because it promotes social progressiveness and social reflexivity which give individuals
a higher level of self-awareness, self-knowledge, and contemplation to such social
structures—promoting the essence of toleration and equality of opportunity for all (e.g.,
the rise of feminism movement).

5. Does consumerism liberate people or enslave them?

Answer:

Consumerism does not liberate people and more likely enslave them by their
own interest and gratification. Ironically, as industrial capitalism gives a broader range of
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
choices and social possibilities to the individuals, this notion can be a danger not only
for the individuals but also to the society and environment per se. A consumer society
(consumer capitalism)—which encouraged people to define themselves increasingly in
terms of what they own and how much they own—can create a massive fiasco ranging
from the socioeconomic and sociopolitical landscape because it has the involvement of
profit maximization, rapacious extraction from natural resources to make profit and
satisfy the needs of individuals, and an inevitable consequence of overproduction
(because of upsurge consumerist trait of individuals) which could cause negative
externalities to nature and economic system.

Furthermore, consumerism also encourages people to think and act more in

individual terms, focusing on personal gratification—seeing the consumption as a form
of self-expression. In this case, individuals are not only viewed as slaves of capitalism
but also the core of its existence (e.g., the domination of iPhones in the age of
technology, strategic enforcement of “sales” (advertising and marketing techniques) by
businesses which attracts the interest of the consumers, and the propensity of “loans” in
the baking system by individuals as the key solution to satisfy their personal
gratification. As Daniel Bell (1976) emphasized that this is an evidence of a cultural
contradiction that lies at the heart of the capitalist system, arguing that the ethic of
acquisitiveness and immediate gratification (which encourages consumers to consume)
was winning out over the ethic of asceticism and delayed gratification (which
encourages workers to work).

Therefore, the notion of consumerism enslaves both producers and consumers

because of their material self-interest and egoistic gratification which can be dangerous
to the society per se (deeper inequality and shallow social dynamics), environment
(rapacious extraction that can cause negative externalities), and even diminish the spirit
of humanity by the force of self-serving materialism.

6. What are the main factors explaining the growth of identity politics?
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
Answer:

The main factors in explaining the growth of identity politics are the deep
marginalization of dominant groups and the notion that subordination can be
challenged. Identity politics—a style of politics that seeks to counter group
marginalization by embracing a positive and assertive sense of collective identity—is a
complex matter that is heavily embedded with such sociocultural and historical
background of unbalanced power dynamics by different groups; as the book says, the
“politics of difference”. The first factor pertains that group marginalization operates
through stereotypes and values developed by dominant groups that structure how
marginalized groups see themselves and are seen by others—resulting in the
inculcation of a sense of inferiority. To further expound, dominant groups (e.g., the
ruling elites and white supremacists) tend to oppress and suppress minority groups or
even groups they see as inferior through the usage of stereotypes, derogatory
sentiments, prejudice, and even wrong values (which they weaponize) to degrade their
status-quo and negatively alter their identity in the society and from the perception of
other individuals. Meanwhile, the second factor emphasizes the belief that such
subordination can be challenged by reshaping identity to give the group concerned a
sense of pride and self-respect. Considering it as the antithesis of the first factor, in this
matter, groups who are oppressed and suppressed believe that they have the power
and capability to counter the sense of inferiority which been imposed on them by
dominant groups—reshaping and reclaiming their genuine identity that gives them the
chance to prosper and have access to justice and equality. Therefore, the main factors
explaining the growth of identity politics are the marginalization of dominant groups and
the belief that subordination can be challenged which are both heavily contextualized in
such sociocultural and historical aspects.

7. Is identity politics a liberating or oppressive force?

Answer:
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
Identity politics is clearly a liberating force because it emphasizes and expresses
defiance against marginalization and social disadvantage in seeking to reclaim a “pure”
or “authentic” sense of such identity which gives it a combative character and imbues it
with psycho-emotional force. For instance, in race and ethnicity, identity politics became
the source of liberation for the Blacks and Black Americans through the uprising of
Black consciousness movement and reformist movement for civil rights in the United
States of America against racial discrimination (that is rooted out of the struggle against
colonialism) and deep economic and social marginalization. Meanwhile, in gender
politics, identity politics became the core of series of feminism movements that
transcends the action against sexual discrimination, women suffrage, and woman
empowerment that seek to diminish socioeconomic and sociopolitical inequalities that
women encounter. On the other hand, identity politics also became the liberating force
in the issue of religion and politics through liberal secularism which pertains to the
establishment of a proper sphere and role for religion—emphasizing the importance of
the public/private divide. Lastly, identity politics became the passage of cultural diversity
through the acceptance and respect for differences (multiculturalism) that is brought by
the intensification of cross-border migration across the globe which seeks to enshrine
social cohesion and balanced diversity. Therefore, identity politics is indeed a liberating
force and not an oppressive force because its sole essence is to amplify the voice of the
silenced and the rights of the oppressed ranging from the concern of race, gender,
religion, and culture.

8. To what extent has the recognition of ethnic and gender divisions produced
meaningful political change?

Answer:

The recognition of ethnic and gender divisions produced meaningful political

change through the advent of racial consciousness and feminism movements which
both made an impact on such minorities in the political arena.
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
Focusing on race and ethnicity, for instance, the evident struggle of racial
discrimination and profound disadvantage (in general) fueled the Black consciousness
movement in the United States of America in the early twentieth century through the
emphasis on “consciousness-raising” among Black people—seeking to challenge
economic and social marginalization. Hence, this movement or the so-called “Black
politics” gained greater prominence in the 1960s with an upsurge in both the reformist
and revolutionary wings of the movement. In its reformist guise, the movement took the
form of a struggle for civil rights that reached national prominence in the USA under the
leadership of Martin Luther King and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP). However, the strategy of protest and non-violent civil
movement was rejected by the emerging Black Power movement—which supported
black separatism—under the leadership of the Black Panther Party, founded in 1966,
promoted the use of physical force and armed confrontation.

Moreover, concerning with gender politics, the political change in this matter was
brought about by series of feminism movements that transcends the action against
sexual discrimination, women suffrage, and woman empowerment that seek to diminish
socioeconomic and sociopolitical inequalities. For instance, the first-wave feminism put
emphasis on the campaign for female suffrage—the right to vote—because feminists
believed that if women possess the same legal and political rights as men, all other
forms of sexual discrimination or prejudice would quickly disappear. However, the
advent of second-wave feminism focuses that gender divisions are the deepest and
most politically significant of all social cleavages—which is deeply rooted by patriarchy
—wherein the role of “sexual revolution” would fundamentally transform cultural and
personal relationships, as well as economic and political structures, that could bring an
end to gender inequality. Meanwhile, another movement of young generation of
feminists began to rise in the 1990s which held the notion to rectify the earlier forms of
feminism on the aspirations and experiences of middle-class white women in developed
societies that the contemporary women’s movement should be characterized by
diversity, hybridity, and even contradiction. Briefly saying, this allowed the voices of low-
income women, women in the developing world, and women of color (black feminism) to
be heard more effectively.
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
Therefore, ethnic and gender divisions produced meaningful political change
through the emergence of racial consciousness (among Black people, Black Muslims,
and even in different races in the global context) against racial discrimination and
sociopolitical and socioeconomic marginalization on the basis of race; and feminism
movements with regards to gender concern for equal rights against sexual
discrimination.

9. Do modern societies need to be protected from cultural diversity?

Answer:

Definitely. Modern societies need to be protected or strengthened from cultural

diversity—particularly those minorities or vulnerable groups—because, without
protection, the mentioned groups could deprive or lose their identity due to
multiculturalism. To further elaborate, the central theme within all forms of
multiculturalism is that individual identity is culturally embedded, in the sense that
people largely derive their understanding of the world and their framework of moral
beliefs form the culture in which they live and develop. Hence, if this would not be
protected, the foundation of their identity could be diminished because of the influence
of cultural diversity that is brought by the intensification of cross-border migration across
the globe.

Moreover, Will Kymlicka (1995) constructed three kinds of minority rights that
could protect their identity, and these are: (1) Self-government rights, (2) Polyethnic
rights, and (3) Representation rights. According to Kymlicka, self-government rights
belong and must be enshrined to “national minorities”—people who are territorially
concentrated, possess a shared language, and are characterized by a meaningful way
of life across the full range of human activities—which involves the devolution of political
power (federalism) that can grant them the right of secession and sovereign
independence. On the other hand, polyethnic rights are believed to be the rights that
help ethnic groups and religious minorities—that have developed through immigration—
to express and maintain their cultural distinctiveness. For instance, the legal exemption
of Jews and Muslims from animal slaughtering laws, the exemption of Sikh men from
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
wearing motorcycle helmets, and the exemption of Muslim girls from school dress
codes. Lastly, special representation emphasized the rights to redress the under-
representation of minority or disadvantaged groups in education, and in senior positions
in both political and public life which ensure full and equal participation in the mentioned
areas.

Therefore, modern societies, especially the minorities or vulnerable groups,

should be protected and strengthened from cultural diversity because this could
preserve and maintain their individual and distinct cultural identity which is their
foundational framework upon understanding the world.

RELEVANT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CHAPTER

1. Does the transition from industrialism to post-industrialism conform the humanity

in the realm of materialism? (see p. 152-153; par. 1)
2. Is Daniel Bell’s “information society” paved the way to Shoshana Zuboff’s notion
of “surveillance capitalism”? (see p. 153-154; par. 2) (own perspective)
3. Does a knowledge-based economy is much efficient sphere for the interest of a
capitalist society rather than a labor-based economy? (see p. 154-157; par. 1)
4. Since industrial capitalism enshrines a broader range of choices and social
possibilities to the people, is this a viable force to end social inequalities and
deep social stratification? (see p. 157-159; par. 1)
5. Is individualism the future? (see p. 157-159; par. 4)
6. What is the role of consciousness (particularly in race and ethnicity) upon
building an egalitarian society? (see p. 160-162; par. 2) (own perspective)
7. Is the notion “men are trash” justifiable in the modern age of sociopolitical
progressiveness? (see p. 163-164; par. 2) (own perspective)
8. Bounded with the principle of secularism (separation of church from the state),
why do such politicians (e.g., Eddie Villanueva and Manny Pacquiao) keep using
the bible as the source of their argument in political deliberation? Is it justifiable
or useless? (see p. 164-165; par. 1)
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
9. In what parameter does the essence of Liberal multiculturalism, Pluralist
multiculturalism, and Cosmopolitan multiculturalism contribute to the
intensification of migration in a globalized world? (see p. 167-169) (own
perspective)