Conceptualizing Self-Governance in Post-Modernity: In the modern world, power is increasingly exercised by individuals upon themselves, that is, through forms of self-governance.
The authority of major institutions such as the government, church, and economy, is critical to understanding the relation of personal lives and societal development. These associations shape the development of individual identities. Self-governance is demonstrated by one’s identity dovetailed with the role one might take in society. Irrespective of major institutions or other outside influence, individuals will govern their lives autonomously to some degree. In post-modernity no outside force can completely control every thought an individual has, due to the desire for independence and convenience of social networking. According to Severyn Bruyn, an individual’s sense of ‘duty, obligation, privilege, conscience, and beliefs’ is formed in society’s associations (p. 34, 2011). Therefore the history of such major associations as the family, government, the corporation, and the church, show much about one’s identity. This essay will critically examine the idea that power is increasingly being exercised by individuals upon themselves, through forms of self-governance in the modern world. The roles of self-governance in relation to political and religious orders will be explored to demonstrate sociological theory and modern world societal development with focus on Western culture.
Regardless of outside controls and guidelines, self-governance as a theory indicates the ability of individuals to manage their own thoughts and activities (Turnbull 1997, p. 11). Hence self-governance allows an individual to form their own identity. In post-modernity, power is increasingly exercised by individuals upon themselves. This rise in self-governance is largely due to the increase of social media and access to other data bases along with the idea of questioning what was previously regarded as fact and widely accepted. The Enlightenment era continues today as new inventions, questioning of old customs and public forums are assiduously shaping society. Self-governance has developed and continues to develop, slowly, because of the change in institutional power, customs and political ideas.
Self-governance increased as material knowledge became available to the masses. During the Enlightenment era people began to question the discourse of society in relation to the government, religion, toleration and education. Ruling powers such as the Church had hitherto oppressed universal ideologies and suppressed opposing voices (Inglis 1951, p. 234). Without the social reconstruction that began in the 15th century the individual autonomy of post-modernity would have been unachievable. Self-governance has continued to increase in the 21st century as social networking and other forms of media have made ideas, events and theories obtainable throughout the modern world.
Self-governance revolves around one’s opinion on political and public events, which are often demonstrated via media influence. Along with access to media increasing self-governance, certain common beliefs seem to continually emerge. The influence of these beliefs is very noticeable on political events and public acts of post-modernity. Generally individuals’ acts dither between ‘tradition and the new’ gravitating more toward tradition (Wells 1946, pp. 2-5). Yet, compared with the ideas of the 20th century, there does seem to be a general trend towards a new order in human affairs. In many aspects through a variety of affairs, mankind is becoming one community (Wells 1946, p. 5). World-wide concerns in some ways hinder individual autonomy as repetition of a particular idea or objective effects general individual acts and on various levels thoughts and formation of ideas. Throughout the middle ages the Catholic Church certainly demonstrated this kind of control.
In post-modernity religion holds lesser meaning within large institutions, such as government organisations. Likewise individuals as a whole tend to practice and preach religion less. Although religious rule has become much less authoritarian, basic principles of Christianity, for example, have become rooted in everyday aspects of countries such as America and Australia. Observants of traditional Christmas and Easter demonstrates this: for many, the religious significance is lost. These traditional foundations are not a hindrance to self-governance but rather a motivation. Bruyn mentions, the Christian tradition in terms of ‘self’, where one is encouraged to expand upon self-identity to the point of fulfilling one’s humanity (Bruyn 2011, p. 178). In this sense existentialism becomes the focus of one’s life and self-governance would increasingly be recognised on a daily basis. Self-governance is supported through religion in a second way: religious thought can be seen objectively in post-modernity as an autonomous development. People in today’s society have the ability to question religions, change religion and research other cultures’ religions, mainly due to social media. This idea is demonstrated by the increase in different religions and religious branches throughout the modern world. Although these two factors of religion support the rise in self-governance, a major sociological focus involves the way in which social setting creates and constrains individuals (Ritzer, Kammeyer, Yetman 1979, p. 8).
An individual is modelled from birth via various experiences. The individual is taught to act in a certain way and shown how to behave in social settings (Ritzer 1979, p. 9). Through adulthood, an individual continues to be formed by social media and new social settings. In post-modernity a multitude of choices arise in what life path an individual will take and the ability of that individual to change aspects of their life path. Because of the influences of the modern world a person is shaped by society. Likewise a person has the ability to simultaneously reinvent their setting in society through forms of self-governance.
Social setting not only forms an individual, but also limits them. This is easily demonstrated in a work setting. As large corporations are notoriously difficult to change, an individual who works within a large corporation, and who attempts to implement a way to improving the current actions of the corporation, would face many factors preventing the application of their ideas (Ritzer 1979, p. 9). In such a situation people are generally comfortable within current and accepted ways of operation and often reluctant to test new methods (Ritzer 1979, p. 9). Any new idea would go through such excessive bureaucracy or have to adhere to so many official rules and formalities, that it often becomes misplaced or overlooked. In this way individual self-governance within large corporations is hindered due to, copious prevention toward innovation.
Social media, on the other hand, allows such ideas to stay in circulation. As such, freedom through the use of social media, other technologies and the ability to voice one’s own opinions demonstrates more opportunity for people to realise and actively change their individual identity. Increasingly, in post-modernity, people have the potential to change it when an individual’s social setting failed to meet their needs and requirements. Conversely, laws and regulations are in place if an individual chose to deviate from societal expectations or rules (Ritzer 1979, p. 28). This social control reduces individual self-governance. However, in a case where a crime or deviation occurs that affects another individual negatively self-governance of the affected individual is also respected. It is necessary in this aspect to have a form of government. The type of government an individual lives under is a major factor of their self-governance. Foucault mentions power in a positive rather than a negative manner (Foucault 2000, p. 120). The government can be shown in this context as it ‘forms knowledge’ and ‘produces discourse’ (Foucault 2000, p. 120). This is shown by the democratic governments of the Western world. Such governments primarily demonstrate a ‘productive network which runs through the entire social body’ (Foucault 2000, p. 120). As such, a democratic society allows the voiced opinions of the masses to determine economic, political and social discourse. In this way, individual self-governance is continually recognised, through change and development of one’s society at the demonstrated opinion of the populace. The productive networking of democratic governments in post-modernity, has been supported by the population’s access to a wide range of media and through internet usage.
The rise in social media and networking use of 21st century, has become a certainty in life. Throughout the West, the ability of a democratic individual to create a politically able self, depends upon ‘technologies of subjectivity’ and the ability to access information freely (Cruikshank 2006, p. 1). Foucault illustrated the centralisation of political power analogous to an emergence of systems of power oriented toward individuals (van Krieken 2014, p. 150). This orientation toward the individuals within a society has increased during post-modernity. In Australia, for example, individuals now have the ability to state concerns with current systems of government, run for government themselves (by setting up a political party or joining an existing party) (AEC 2014) and vote to change the existing leading government. This system only slightly obstructs individual self-governance. Community votes determine societal discourse and election outcomes, in some instances an individual’s desired outcome may be rejected.
In conclusion, post-modernity has seen an increase in individual self-governance. Likewise many aspects of modern life offer the opportunity of self-governance. Social settings form and limit an individual’s experiences and actions, which hinder existentialism. Through conceptualising self-governance in post-modernity, it is easy to demonstrate conflictions regarding a concept of ‘self’ within different organisations such as the church and government. Social media is crucial to the development of individual autonomy, for it provides information and allows opinions to be voiced. The continuation of Enlightenment throughout post-modernity has sustained the questioning of humanity and treatment of individuals. With focus on Western culture it is apparent that although social setting and education shape an individual, the individual has the active ability to change their social setting and question their education. Likewise an individual can question and change their religion openly. Just as social setting can be shaped and also shape and constrain an individual, individuals can shape and change the extent to which they self-govern.
Bibliography
Bruyn, R., 2011. Self-Governance in Puerto Rico. [Online]
Available at: https://www2.bc.edu/~bruyn/PuertoRicoResearch.pdf
[Accessed 6 May 2014].
Cernea, M., 1994. Soicology, Anthropology and Development. Washington: The International World Bank.
Commission, A. A. E., 2014. Current Register of Political Parties. [Online]
Available at: http://aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/index.htm
[Accessed 24 May 2014].
Cruikshank, B., 1993. Revolutions within: self-government and self-esteem. Economy and Society, 22(3), pp. 327-334.
Foucault, M., 2000. Truth and Power. In: Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 108-132, 200.
Inglis, T., 1998. Moral monopoly: The rise and fall of the Catholic Church in modern Ireland. Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
Markula, P. &. P. R., 2006. Foucault, sport and exercise. New York: Routledge.
Ritzer G, K. K. Y. N., 1979. Sociology experiencing a changing society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc. .
Turbull, S., 1997. Corporate Governance: Its scope, concerns & theories. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(4), pp. 180-205. van Krieken R, H. D. S. P. H. B. M. G. M. K., 2014. Sociology. 5th ed. Frenchs Forest: Peasons.