Article Summary

Antony Giddens: Modernity and self-identity

This article speaks about modernity and the self. Modern society is described as 'societies where modernity is well developed' and self-identity is inescapable. Choices based on clothing, appearance, leisure, relationships, beliefs and occupations are made to form an identity. We determine our own roles:

"What to do? How to act? Who to be? These are focal questions for everyone living in circumstances of late modernity - and ones which, on some level or another, all of us answer either discursively or through day-to-day social behaviour."
- Giddens (1991: 70)

Giddens makes the connections between the 'micro' aspects of society and the 'macro' picture of state. The factors all have influences on each other and can't be understood separately (how some sociologists look at them).

An example of this is the change in relationships over the past 60 years. Higher levels of divorce, more openness about sexuality and conspicuous sexual diversity are all interlinked as changes that have come about. Traditional thinking has changed and the 'moral authorities' of state would prefer people to "have stable monogamous family lives". Decline in religion and rise of rationality are causes of this change along with social influences and observations. Social movements such as women's liberation and egalitarianism ("the doctrine of the equality of mankind and the desirability of political and economic and social equality").

Mass media is a likely factor to have influenced people's decisions too. The need for 'good stories' supports an emphasis on change in relationships. The message that "monogamous hetrosexual stability is, at best, a rare 'ideal', which few can expect to achieve".

"Information and ideas from the media do not merely reflect the social world, then, but controbute to its shape, and are central to modern reflexivity".

Gauntlett, David (2002), Media, Gener and Identity: An Introduction, Routledge, London and New York.

Drug laws driven by "moral panic"

This article, much like the title suggests, talks about how drug laws are driven by a mass social panic about their physical and social effects. "Most drug users harm neither themselves nor those around them" - proving that they're driven by a moral panic. Drug users pay no attention to the differenct classifications (ABC). Iain Duncan Smith agreed that drugs laws were "chaotic" but said that the study conducted ignored the need to help addicts get off drugs.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is intended "to prevent the non-medical use of certain drugs". Medicinal and non-medical drugs are included in the act. Drugs sucject to the act are called "controlled" drugs. This law is enforced by the fact that police have been given the power to stop, detain and search people on 'reasonable suspicion' that they are in possession of a controlled drug. It also divides the drugs into the three classifications: A, B and C. A are the most dangerous and action can be taken if the suspect is even in possession of the controlled drug.

The article then looks into the effects of ecstacy: people feel more alert and alive. They are in tune with their surroundings and they have a great love for people they're with. People feel chatty and they can get hooked - they can also build a tolerance to it. Depression, personality change and memory loss are also side effects. It talks about the law (it's illegal) and the risks: "over 200 ecstacy-related deaths in the UK since 1996".