Anthony Giddens

Baron Giddens

(DOB 18 -01-1938)

A British sociologist who is known for his theory of structuration and his holistic view of modern societies. He is considered to be one of the most prominent modern contributors in the field of sociology, the author of at least 34 books, published in at least 29 languages, issuing on average more than one book every year. In 2007, Giddens was listed as the fifth most-referenced author of books in the humanities.

Background (Wikipedia):

Three notable stages can be identified in his academic life.

1)      involved outlining a new vision of what sociology is, presenting a theoretical and methodological understanding of that field, based on a critical reinterpretation of the classics. His major publications of that era include Capitalism and Modern Social Theory (1971) and New Rules of Sociological Method (1976).

2)      Giddens developed the theory of structuration, an analysis of agency and structure, in which primacy is granted to neither. His works of that period, such as Central Problems in Social Theory (1979) and The Constitution of Society (1984), brought him international fame on the sociological arena.

3)      Concerns of modernity, globalization and politics, especially the impact of modernity on social and personal life. This stage is reflected by his critique of postmodernity, and discussions of a new "utopian-realist" third way in politics, visible in the Consequence of Modernity (1990), Modernity and Self-Identity (1991), The Transformation of Intimacy (1992), Beyond Left and Right (1994) and The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (1998). Giddens's ambition is both to recast social theory and to re-examine our understanding of the development and trajectory of modernity.

Currently, Giddens serves as Emeritus Professor at the London School of Economics.

--------------------------------------

The Third Way (tw)

on the lecture AG (Sir Giddens) is referring to his book “The Third Way” (1998) that has gone come under fire from both right and left only weeks after its release.  The Economist described it as “awesomely, magisterially, and in some ways disturbingly vacuous”. The Guardian published an editorial headlined “There is no tw” (AG talks about "life politics"). AG challenges a welfare state as undemocratic, suppresses personal liberty, is bureaucratic, alienating, and inefficient. The meaning of the book - no one could argue that “the role of AG in igniting debate over the future of social democracy is applauded” (Parliament House, Canberra). The discussion in general goes about the concept of civil society as distinct from political society or the state.

AG wasn’t the first to use the term “third way” – it was used mostly by authors on the left but also by those on the right. The phrase was resurrected by the Swedish Social Democrats in the late 1980s, but its return to popularity came mainly from its adoption at roughly the same time by Bill Clinton and the thinktank were closely connected to the Democratic Leadership Council. Tw was self-consciously associated with the invention of the term the “New Democrats” in the US – and later with “New Labour” in Britain under the leadership of Tony Blair. The book initially was a result of dialogues between Bill and Hillary Clinton with Tony Blair in 1997 and which continued in expanded form for some years afterwards.

The tw for AG was NOT a “middle way” between left and right, socialism and capitalism, or anything else, but a left-of-centre political philosophy, concerned with exactly what was stated in the original title, the renewal of social democracy. It was NOT a succumbing to neo-liberalism or market fundamentalism. AG argued  that social democrats had to move beyond two failed, or compromised, philosophies of the past, one being neo-liberalism, the other being “old-style social democracy,” characterized by a top-down state ownership of the “commanding heights of the economy” and Keynesian national demand management. The tw was NOT some sort of pragmatism. The values of the left retain their essential relevance, but as AG saw it far-reaching policy innovation was needed to realize them in a world experiencing major social and economic changes. AG identified these changes as the intensifying of globalisation; expanding individualism; the growth of reflexivity; and the increasing intrusion of ecological risk into the political field.

In the work AG gave a lot of attention to civil society – the Big Society. Yet civil society will not flourish if the state is pared back. Public goals can best be achieved if there is an effective and dynamic balance between the state, marketplace and the civic order. Each acts as a check on the other and also provides a stimulus and challenge to them. The recovery of community, civic pride and local cohesion should be a major concern of social democratic politics. These can’t be founded but have to be achieved through new mechanisms. This theorem applies to the family as well as other areas.

What Future for Social Democracy?

2008

The speech is based on the book, which is about social democracy and its development in past years and in 21 century. The first way (II WW) – the era of Keynesian economics: state dominating economy, nationalization. The second way (market fundamentalism) - counter revolution of markets (Thacher, Reagan, now in Estonia), which reversed the emphases of the first way, massive era of privatization. AG doesn’t believe in neither of those ways => we need a third alternative. It was never for AG in between of the first and the second way but beyond of those two. The third way should relate to big changes in the world.   

The values of the third way would be emphases on:

• Solidarity
• Equality
• Protecting vulnerable people

Based on this policies need to be produced that those values (revival of the left way thinking) would become alive again.  Modernization is therefore a technical term, not just an empty notion. There are number of specified changes that would transform society.  When the book was written, those ides were not accepted by the majority of intellectuals and politicians. Now they become so widely accepted but it has been a struggle. 

Globalization is:

1. NOT expanding market but is primarily driven by instant communication, which is transforming, especially linked to computerization. Globalization started at the end of 1960s/ beginning of 1970s (first satellites). Collapse of Soviet Union was simply inability of this community to survive in this new environment. 
2. knowledge-based service economy. Absolutely crucial in transformation of social democracy. 40 years ago in UK appr 50% of labor force were occupied in agriculture or manufacturing. Today this number is 14%. The reason is not rise of China (and other cheap places) but technology. This changes the class system that we used to have before. Social democrats were a class-based politics. 80% of population makes their livelihood in symbolic communication and prevision of services. 
3. rise of new forms of individualism. Release from the past and release from the nature. Previous generations used to live more according to tradition, habit, custom, and boundaries between us and nature were more fixed than today. What is natural is no longer the same as just few generations ago. It changes the nature of our lives, incl new emancipation and breadwinner’s position. 

So, it is a world of really tremendous structural transformation. We have to define social democracy coping with those while still preserving traditional values of the past.

After 15 years if experience of the third way let’s just list the main characteristics of it:  

1. Recovery of the public role, public institutions; public institutions are not simply defined as a state. The state is necessarily a friend of the public sphere. The public sphere is undermined, attacked and weakened. We have not to accept the state but transform it – to make it more responsive, less bureaucratic, and often smaller; have to create smart and integrant state. It is important how flexible is the state, how far it meets citizens’ needs, how far is it responsible for democratic rights. 
2. Emphases on employment rather than unemployment on a market (so, not the Unemployment rate matters). This takes flexible labor market. More employed people with social guarantees saves much more money for social benefits. In places (like UK) where the third way has been successful, about 76% of workforce has been employed compared to e.g Germany – 64% employment, France – 63%, Italy – 52%. Unemployment puts welfare state into debts through unsupportive welfare systems. Job creation might be even more important in times of recession, where you don’t want old static labor market policies. 
3. Creating enough funds you can spend it on public institutions.  In Brittan was tremendous level of investment in health service, in education, and in other areas made possible by high level of employment. Countries which were not able to generate that revenue struggled in welfare system. *you don’t invest in public services without reforming them. Public services are part of the sate in large, therefore, they must be reformed to be accessible to citizens. Traditional public services were remote from citizens, not personalized, voters were not involved. 
4. Education *3 – Tony Blair’s three priorities in building cosmopolitan society and its prime medium. It is crucial to try to equalize educational possibilities, to give open access. It takes a lot of investment. At age three (by tests) kids from poor home are often more intelligent than from middle class homes. By age six it is reversed. Early intervention in unlocking human potential is most important. You have to break the cycle of poverty, which again, takes early intervention. 
5. To not seed any political fields to the right - affects the whole faith of social democracy over the past 6-7 years in Europe.  Core issues like immigration, crime, national identity and sovereignty take left-center approach across borders.

What explains the raise and the fall of social democracy in Europe? 
There are many reasons, some political, but the main reason according to AG is that were the parties did not follow the program of the third way (even when declared) they were not successful and made it not staying in power. G. Schröder (social democrat) was unable to make labor market reforms that would revitalize German economy. He was able to make some of those just a year before he left and A. Merkel benefit from this. Social democrats in Europe failed to deal with the issues of immigration, failed to tackle with crime, and failed to define what national identity means. Thanks to that the rights were able to monopolize those areas. Social democrats have had difficulty trying to define their constituency, going back to traditional working class base. This doesn’t, however, bring electoral success (7-9% supporters). 

It leads us to continuing process of modernization rather than abandoning it. We have to reach wider constituency. Traditional working class has turned to the right, they are normally heavily anti immigrant, often develop non-progressive views. This leaves social democrats without a clear base, without the core constituency of the population.

How to set modernization process back on track? 
From 15 (?) EU countries only in three central-left are still in power: UK (the longest in EU), Spain, and Portugal. Can we find the way back? Certainly! 
Here are the reasons why that is so (in terms of about five years): 

1. Receding importance of migration. We have got beyond threshold in most EU 15 countries with immigration.  Success of Canada and Australia shows that one of the keys is offering citizenship quite generously, with conditions attached (not necessarily linguistic capability). Immigration comes in waves and this wave is now receding. 
2. We are passing through crises of deregulation, through the catastrophic closing end of it. We could describe today’s (2008) financial markets as markets of 1989. It will be a very difficult period of two-three years but there is no going back. We must already think of restructuring – it will not be going back to Keynesianism – the old left, traditional economic mechanisms; we have to be thinking as social democrats of recovering role of government. This role won’t be traditional top-down state rule. It will be renewed role of government based upon   regulation rather than directing invention. 
3. Economic collapse was caused by many entrepreneurial risks (enriching few) that governments (regulators) didn’t take account of was the risk that this caused to the system as whole. Systemic risk was not protected against. It is more of the failure of regulators than the failure of banking system. For government that new role means more multilateralism, more things that are sympathetic. In addition, it means defense of markets.