Liquid modernity is a term coined by the Polish sociologist and philosopher, Zygmunt Bauman. This concept pretends to characterize today's highly westernized (aka globalized) developed societies.
Bauman claims:
Forms of modern life may differ in quite a few respects – but what unites them all is precisely their fragility, temporariness, vulnerability, and inclination to constant change. To ‘be modern’ means to modernize – compulsively, obsessively; not so much just ‘to be’, let alone to keep its identity intact, but forever ‘becoming’, avoiding completion, staying underdefined.
In my opinion, Bauman very precisely hits upon his illustration of modern times. And, of course, I'm not a bit of a sociologist, but these claims raise a few questions for me. Isn't precisely culture a process, a continuous development, a shift of status quo? If we were to say that the only permanent thing is change (here I'm paraphrasing Bauman), isn't that trait present all along human history? Has, perhaps, all human history been liquid? I'm not implying I radically disagree with Bauman, I certainly agree on the fact that there has been a tendency (in the last two centuries at least, so far I know) of striving to attain some impalpable perfection, some never-ending improvement. Culturally, I can identify with this belief of the soon-coming-better-future. That's why we are constantly presented to gazillion technological innovations. I'm not here judging if they truly serve a purpose, though. I'm just puzzled by the paradox of describing postmodernity as endlessly mutable and history being the collection of progressive never-stopping changes. In my point of view, societies are doomed to change. It's inevitable.
What are your views on this subject?
Thanks for reading.
