The Future of Radical Politics by Gidden - Essay Example

Module Book Summary This paper aims to present a precise but comprehensive summary of Giddens’ work Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics (1994). One of the primary reasons behind exploring the work under review includes the writer’s profound elaboration of political thoughtfulness on the global issues that have been in vogue in the modern times for the last few decades on the one side, and the setbacks and challenges that the age-old notions refer to international relations and political experience at the hands of the rival groups and communities on the other side. Consequently, the paper is also intended to unearth the author’s command over rethinking governance, power and agency within the fast changing global scenario. While expressing his opinion regarding the contemporary era governance and power, the author contends that the purported radicals of the day, according to Giddens, look for bringing significant alterations in the prevailing system in order to turn the contemporary world to be administered in accordance with their personal whims and wishes, which is certainly contrary to the collective global thought and philosophy at large (230). Since the debate of left and right has been valid and intact for the last several decades, portraying the images of modern and conservative respectively while exercising power and ensuring good governance, the author strives to depict the realities, concepts and misconceptions associated with it in general in the contemporary times (67). Giddens claims that although modernity has made its sure headway, the imperative significance of traditionalism and conservatism could never be negated or refuted at any cost. It appears to be more explicit in the sense that the previous era rightists used to look for sticking to the age-old ways of life, and used to defend the patterns of their life in a conventional manner; nevertheless, the same characteristics have been shifted to the modern, or leftist, communities, which observe great perils regarding the spread of purported contemporary era radicalism (82–5). As a result, dealing with the radicals has turned out to be a great challenge for the peace-seeking political administrations. Hence, the western societies appear to be maintaining a defensive approach while supporting the modernity at the time when the purported radicals seem to be standing against modern patterns of life with the aim of crushing the ways that are contrary to the social norms and moral values abided by almost all societies of the world for the last centuries to go. Hence, the governments of the developed nations appear to be afraid of the consequences of the reaction of radicals to allowing such freedoms including extra-marital cohabitations, same-sex relationships and marriages, illegitimate pregnancies, government controlled economic activities and application of latest scientific and technological equipment on a massive scale. Thus, the political administrations have to undergo serious reservations because of the perils of a severe reaction to the modern ways of life from the radicals. One of the most distinguished characteristics attributed to the contemporary radicals includes their support of the free market instead of keeping their weight in favour of the government controlled economic system advocated by socialism to be the essential element of a welfare state (136–7). Hence, the concept of welfare state with regard to the socialist economic system seems to be opposed and rebutted by the present-day radicals, who used to organise demonstrations and launch social movements for immediate enforcement of the same (192). Therefore, power appears to be shifting from modernity to radicalism-conservatism in various parts of the globe, and the developed nations have to make strong decisions in order to combat with the opposition from radicals. The Marxist-Socialist perspective, Giddens asserts, looks retrospective while narrating the relation between man and history; nevertheless, Marx’s ideas reflect his proficiency and command over establishing association of history with future in the sense that the (then rightist) proletariat, or working classes, would be in a position of challenging the exploitation exercised against them by the leftists, by demanding the state control of all economic institutions and activities in order to establish a just and equal society (52–56). Somehow the present-day social and human rights movements, led by the feminists, homosexuals, minority ethno-racial communities and other liberals, are being advocated by the leftists, whereas the rightists, with the claim and image of radicals, refuse to submit to such movements, which they consider to be violating the ethical and moral principles (80–84). Consequently, the liberals appear to become defensive while advocating their views because of the fears of severe reactions from the contemporary era radical conservatives. The concept of agency, as per the sociological perspective, is set to allow people to exercise their free will without having any reservations with regard to being persecuted on a state or social scale. Mills in his utilitarian approach also supports the seeking of unflinching pleasure opportunities provided they do not cause any harm to society at large. Somehow, the moralists vehemently discourage and condemn the granting of unchecked permission to individuals in order to indulge in immoral activities that would surely cause and bring collective harm to society in the wake of it. The modern society, enjoying unrestricted and unabated liberty granted by the state, is being condemned by the radicals, which view the uncontrolled spread of immorality to be strictly against the collective welfare of society. Hence, agency witnesses strong opposition from the radicals in modern times, though the same was demanded by the liberals during the second half of the twentieth century. The author attempts to define and elaborate ‘radicalism’ (1–2), and associates the term with the revolutionary thoughtfulness first introduced by the Marxist-Socialist perspective and later re-determined by the rebels, who appeared to be resolute in disconnecting the past hold from the present and future (59–62). Giddens also points out towards the fall of the Soviet Union, which is considered to be the failure of the socialist perspective, and deems it to be the subsequent collapse of conservatism while replacing the European conservatism, or the rightist wing, with radicalism, or the leftist one, in the wake of it (2–13). Giddens further seeks to explore the relation between socialism and social movements (13–19), though the majority of such movements do not have any significant concerns with socialism altogether in the contemporary era (53–54). He discusses globalisation by comparing it with the prevailing traditional outlook of life as well as the state of uncertainty regarding imitation and adopting of both traditionalism and modernity by the supporters of the leftist and rightist socio-political wings respectively nowadays (24–37). Ethno-racial, regional, religious and family backgrounds, according to Giddens, also play an important role in shaping man’s political and social views, and subsequently influence their minds towards the left and right wings (152). One of the most noteworthy aspects of the argument made by Giddens in his work under consideration is that though radicalism also denotes modernity, conservatism reflects the emulation of age-old traditions and conventions in individual and collective life; nevertheless, radicalism has obtained absolutely divergent meanings, where the deviant sect of Muslims, i.e. extremists-rightists, has gained control of radicalism in order to bring the social change of their personal choice (243–4). Such a drastic state of affairs not only has corrupted the term ‘radicalism’ but has also affiliated it with terrorism, extremism and non-tolerance. Consequently, the notion ‘radicalism’ appears to be losing its age-old concept that had been in use for centuries, while defining modernity and positive changes introduced within the social establishment. While discussing poverty and its relationship with the capitalist economic system, as claimed by the socialist perspective, the author argues that the (traditional) socialist is always there to blame the free market system for inflicting economic oppression and poverty upon the proletariat by allowing, projecting and promoting a laissez-faire economic setup where the bourgeoisie administers private entrepreneurship and exploits the proletariat by taking the lion’s share out of the profit generated through the efforts made by the workers by rendering services for the growth and development of agricultural and/or industrial units (12). The magnitude of poverty is shifted from the poor classes to their next generations, who remain the victim of economic oppression for future decades to come (147–49). Somehow, instead of imitating the socialist economic system, the contemporary era radicals have started advocating the free economy, which portrays them to be the torch-bearers of capitalism. Hence, capitalism has obtained supporters from the radical circles in the present age, which is certainly contrary to the thought that has been attributed to the past revolutionaries and radicals at large. Giddens also endeavours to draw out the differences between ecological issues and life politics, where he associates food and edibles, health hazards and lifestyle with the changing natural, physical and cultural environment (216–19). The environmental pollution caused by technological equipment and mechanical devices is also condemned because of the fear of destruction of the healthy and normal life that nature offers to man (220–226). Additionally, these rightist radicals reiterate the observance and application of natural therapies instead of following the latest scientific methodologies as remedies for treatment and convalescence of patients undergoing different health issues (225). Consequently, the contemporary rightist radicals have completely stepped into the shoes of the traditional age-old leftists, who appear to be playing the part of conservatives despite adopting the latest ways the scientific and technological revolution offers to humans. Hence, liberalism and neo-liberalism seem to be in contrast to each other, where the former expresses the leftists while the latter denotes the rightist wing or socio-political community. To conclude, it becomes evident that Giddens has successfully elucidated the developments being witnessed within the political, social, economic and cultural scenario in the wake of the latest surge of radicalism in the context of challenges related to governance, power and agency in the modern era. He further dilated upon the traditional and modern concepts of welfare state in the eyes of liberals and conservatives, though the views have, according to Giddens, experienced heavy damage in the contemporary era, predominantly in the aftermath of present-day radicalism. Moreover, he attempted to determine the role of a modern state by explaining the agency and power, and their positions, all of which witness setbacks after the redefined standing of radicalism and conservatism. Consequently, changing positions, roles and statuses of the leftist and rightist views and movements, and their impact on the post-globalisation world communities, remain the focal point for the author while writing the work under review and expressing his valuable arguments therein. Works Cited Giddens, Anthony. Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics New York: Stanford University Press, 1994. Print. Read More