CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3. Introduction
3.3. The dynamic nature of Late modernity
determine time in pre-modern civilizations “when” was always linked to “where” or reference was made to natural phenomena such as the repetition of the seasons (Giddens, 1990: 17). Time and space were therefore bound together (Siapera, 2012: 28). In terms of communication, people had to be physically present to communicate a message to one another. In the Chinese empire one had to send a messenger or stage coaches to deliver a message to another (CRASSH Cambridge, 2012:
19:00-19:20). In more premodern societies, calendars and crude maps were created as formal techniques for the calculation of time and ordering of space (Giddens, 1990: 17; Giddens, 1991:
16). These formal techniques, in addition to mechanical clocks were of importance in the separation of time from space (Ibid., 17; Ibid., 16). Giddens (1990: 18; 1991: 17) notes that these forms of organization coordinate activities as they enabled individuals, to follow the same global event, for example, the millennium but be situated in different parts of the world.
3.3.2. Communication and “absent” others
Martins (2012: 144) following Giddens (1990: 18) “refers to space as an abstract, asocial conceptualization of geographical location.” Place denotes “a physical setting of social activity as situated geographically” (Ibid., 18). Giddens (1990: 18) argues that the arrival of modernity, separates space from place by encouraging associations between “absent” others. He further notes that “absent” others are those “locationally distant from any given situation of face-to-face interaction” (Ibid., 18). This suggests that communication is made possible through other means such as phone calls, emails, text messages, video interviews (Kenyon, 2006: 112) and SNSs. The term “absent” other is significant as it illustrates the importance of technology in enabling long distance communication.
3.3.3. Disembedding
According to Giddens (1990: 53) “disembedding mechanisms “lift out” social activity from localised contexts, reorganizing social relations across large time-space distances”. This means that these mechanisms remove social affairs from local settings, thereby restructuring social associations across the globe (Ibid., 53). Giddens (1990: 22) notes that disembedding mechanisms comprise symbolic tokens and expert systems. Symbolic tokens are referred to as a medium of
exchange, for example, money (Ibid., 22) which he sees as important to the disembedding of economic activity (Ibid., 26). Money can be removed from local settings and according to Giddens can be transmitted everywhere now via electronic means (The Hertie School of Governance, 2015:
33:05-34:13). The economic aspect of Giddens’s work is not applicable to this study: it is rather the technological aspect that is relevant and is therefore discussed below. The ability to function without being present in a location (Schlichter, 2010: 9) is because of developments in ICT’s, which according to Giddens and Pierson (1998: 99-100) is one aspect of disembedding.
3.3.3.1. Expert systems and trust
Expert systems organize parts of the world in which we live: these systems comprise both technical and professional abilities (Giddens, 1990: 27). These include the modes of transportation used, the houses we live in, Telecom companies, electricity networks, traffic lights, travel agencies and banks (Ibid., 28; Giddens, 1991: 18; Rasmussen, 2002: 97). In addition, expert systems (Giddens, 1990: 27) also include PSNSs such as LinkedIn. LinkedIn as an expert system is significant as it structures the working environment, thereby allowing representatives to engage in a variety of online activities. Social interactions individuals have with professionals from a variety of fields are also essential for expert systems (Giddens, 1991: 18). Moreover, trust is vital for relations people have with expert systems and it is the substance that brings communities together (Powell, 2014: 19). That all disembedding mechanisms depend on trust (Giddens, 1990: 26), is emphasized by Giddens (1990) who defines trust as the
“confidence in the reliability of a person or system, regarding a given set of outcomes or events, where that confidence expresses a faith in the probity or love of another, or in the correctness of abstract principles” (p.34).
There’s always some kind of calculative basis to trust and you are not going to trust another person unless you get some kind of evidence of her or his trustworthiness (Giddens and Pierson, 1998:
109). Disembedding is founded on trust and aids the formation of procedures with not as much personal contact, while re-embedding is a procedure in which trust is re-built during personal interaction (Schlichter, 2010: 10). In terms of trust and expertise, Giddens (1990: 88) argues that
an uncertainty is found at the basis of every trust relation, much like the typical uncertainty of lay attitudes to science and technical knowledge. Giddens (1990: 89) notes that “… trust is only demanded where there is ignorance – either of the knowledge claims of technical experts…”
Nevertheless, ignorance always produces a reason for skepticism - or at least caution (Ibid., 89).
The issue of trust, is addressed in this study by looking at the credibility of information posted on LinkedIn.
3.3.4. Trust and risk, security and danger
According to Giddens (1990: 35) risk and trust are entwined, with trust helping to reduce the dangers to which certain kinds of activity are subject. Danger and risk are closely connected terms but are not the same (Ibid., 34). A person who engages in a risky activity, attracts danger, where danger is interpreted as a threat to an expected result (Ibid., 35). Giddens proposes that individuals who take calculated risks are cognizant of the threats involved in a particular course of action (Ibid., 35). Nevertheless, it is also possible to be guided by a specific course of action and not be mindful of how risky it is (Ibid., 35). That is to say, they are unmindful of the dangers they run (Ibid., 35). Acceptable risk occurs when individuals have to minimize danger in order to sustain trust (Ibid., 35). Risk is not just an issue of personal activity (Ibid., 35). There are environments of risk that collectively impact many people, for example, the risk of ecological catastrophe (Ibid., 35). Security is defined as a situation in which a certain set of dangers is counteracted or reduced (Ibid., 36). Moreover, security may concern large groups of people, including global security or to the feeling of security rooted in the unconscious (Giddens (1979) in Giddens, 1990: 92; Giddens, 1990: 36). The experience of security is generally based on a balance of trust and acceptable risk (Ibid., 36).
3.3.5. Opposite of trust
Giddens (1990: 99) argues that there are situations where the absence of trust could be described as mistrust, either regarding abstract systems or persons. The term mistrust is relevant when discussing the association of an agent to a specific system, person, or type of person (Ibid., 99).
Regarding, abstract systems, “mistrust means being skeptical about, or having an actively negative attitude toward, the claims to expertise that system incorporates” (Ibid., 99). With respect to persons, it means disbelieving the claims to sincerity their conduct displays (Ibid., 99). According to Giddens (1990: 94, 100) mistrust is too weak a term to reveal the opposite of basic trust, the central feature in a generalized set of associations to the social and material world. Although not a focus of this study, basic trust is important as it is the measure of trust in early life that reduces existential vulnerabilities (Ibid., 94). The building of trust here is the very state of acknowledging the actual identity of objects and individuals (Ibid., 100). If basic trust is not established, or its intrinsic ambivalence not contained, the result according to Giddens, is continual existential anxiety (Ibid., 100). The opposite of trust is defined as “existential angst or dread” (Ibid., 100).
3.3.6. Reflexive appropriation of knowledge definition
Giddens (1990: 53) defines the reflexive appropriation of knowledge or the reflexivity of modernity as the creation of regular knowledge about social life which becomes essential to system reproduction, thereby moving social life away from the hold of tradition. Communication technologies are “an essential element of the reflexivity of modernity…” (Giddens, 1990: 77).
Embedded within mediums of communication, is information (for example the news) which may assist people to break free from traditional practices (Ibid., 53, 77, 78). This study did not focus on the news. However, the internet, for example, comprises multiple sites which can be used for recruitment: this therefore can enable individuals to break free from tradition.