and networks to voluntarily chosen “neo-communities” (of a religious or regional sort, for instance), each of which promises to be incomparable. Late modernity’s systems of evaluation typically frown upon that which is merely standardized and functional – “average” individuals who are mere role players, things that are industrial goods bought “off the rack,” spaces that are “faceless,” and temporal routines that are dull and forgettable – and instead direct society’s interest toward that which is felt to be singular and is valorized as such. Only the latter is attributed value in the true sense.
Broadly speaking, late modernity has thus turned out to be an extremely ambitious form of society in which it is no longer sufficient for anything to be average. Instead, it is expected of individuals, things, events, places, and collectives that they leave the average in the dust. It is only the singularization of the social that promises contentment, prestige, and the power of identification; it alone, from the perspective of late-modern culture, makes people and the world valuable. The transformation from the society of equals to the society of singularities has several causes: the most important among them are the structural shift of the economy from industrial to cognitive-cultural capitalism, the technological revolution of digitalization, and finally the socio-cultural process in which a new urban middle class of highly qualified and educated people, who are oriented toward self-development and individual prestige, has advanced to become society’s new leading milieu.
The “singularistic” structure of late-modern society, however, necessarily comes with its reverse side: that which is unable or unwilling to be singular (or forbidden from being so). Such entities are disdained; they remain invisible in the background, and they receive only minimal – if any – recognition. Inevitably, there are thus winners and losers; there is appreciation and devaluation. This insight is central: the singularization of the social is not a linear process in which everyone and everything receives recognition for his, her, or its uniqueness. Processes of singularization have not caused us to enter a postmodern “realm of freedom” on the heels of industrial modernity’s “realm of necessity.” Rather, society’s valorization of the singular entails the devaluation of that which is standardized and common (and therefore disappears into the background). Under today’s conditions, the ubiquitous singularization of the social inexorably and systematically generates structural asymmetries and disparities.
This dual structure of singularization and polarization applies to every dimension of the tectonic shift that late modern societies have been experiencing. Some of these dimensions will be discussed in the chapters of this book.
Regarding the economy, today’s ambitious and globally networked cognitive-cultural capitalism, which is oriented toward developing complex goods – things, services, events, media formats – that are highly innovative, creative, and appealing, has the reverse side that so-called simple services (routine and repetitive jobs held by low-qualified individuals, whose prestige and social security are minimal) have become more widespread. Conversely, cognitive-cultural capitalism is governed by market structures that follow a winner-take-all logic, so that extremely lucrative goods – from high-tech pharmaceuticals and top football players to globally renowned artwork and desirable real estate – lead to an excessive production of wealth.
In the late-modern educational system, the rapidly growing number of university graduates and the heated profile competition between schools, between universities, and between graduates for excellence and unique selling points is only one side of things. The reverse side of this is the indirect devaluation of lower or mid-rank educational degrees. Today, what was once a normal level of achievement is regarded as no more than average.
High ambition and devaluation also go hand in hand in the area of lifestyles. The lifestyle model of “successful self-actualization,” which strives for uniqueness and the accumulation of singularity capital, turns daily life, work, leisure, and family life into an ambitious challenge. The new middle class rises to this challenge. The reverse side of this process is the subtle cultural devaluation or massive social downgrading that the traditional middle class and the precarious class have been experiencing. In addition, however, there is also a great deal of frustration among members of the new middle class who have failed to live up to their own ambitious standards: the singularistic lifestyle is systematically prone to cause disappointment.
The digital world, too, is based on a fundamental asymmetry: between those individuals (and also goods, places, institutions) that attract attention and appreciation (occasionally in excess), and those that largely remain invisible, are poorly networked and isolated, and either lack recognition or become the focus of negative attention (they are hated or disdained, for instance).
On the level of spatial structures, the current popularity of metropolitan areas is characteristic of late modernity. Appealing cities attract new businesses, workers, and visitors, and a trans-regional competition is now taking place between cities vying to offer the best quality of life. The reverse side is that this has given rise to “left-behind” areas, which are now in a downward spiral of depopulation and waning attractiveness.
In the end, it is only logical that the singularism of late-modern society has also led to polarization in the sphere of politics. Since the 1980s, the dominant form of politics has been a new type of liberalism that is radically based on competition and difference, dynamism, and the removal of social, economic, and cultural boundaries on a global scale. What has recently emerged as a reaction to this liberalism is an aggressive form of populism that propagates the social isolation of nation states. It is supported above all by those segments of the population that were either ignored or threatened by the liberal program of modernization. Populism is thus an articulation of the disgruntled reverse side of the society of singularities.
* * *
In the first chapter – “Cultural Conflicts as a Struggle over Culture: Hyperculture and Cultural Essentialism” – I discuss the ways in which late-modern societies are defined by conflicts over culture and identity. Contrary to Samuel Huntington’s prominent thesis that we are dealing with a struggle between cultural spheres, I show that, across the globe, there are now two fundamentally oppositional ways of dealing with culture. One approach – that of hyperculture – allows for individual self-development and provides space for diversity on global markets, while the other approach – that of cultural essentialism – understands culture as a fixed entity or as the medium of a given community’s collective identity. Here I examine the relationship between these two forms of “culturalization” and ask whether there might be an alternative to both of them.
The second chapter – “From the Leveled Middle-Class Society to the Three-Class Society: The New Middle Class, the Old Middle Class, and the Precarious Class” – investigates the new differentiation that presently characterizes the social structure in Western nations. Over the course of post-industrialization and the expansion of education, the formerly all-encompassing middle class of industrial modernity gave way to a new, tripartite class structure. On one end, a highly educated and urban new middle class has risen to the fore – the new leading milieu of late modernity – while on the other end, there is a new precarious class comprised primarily of working-class employees in the service industry. Between these two, there remains the traditional middle class, which is oriented toward order and sedentariness. It will be shown that the relationship among these classes cannot be reduced to material inequalities but is, rather, fundamentally defined by the cultural factor of symbolic valuation and devaluation.
“Beyond Industrial Society: Polarized Post-Industrialism and Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism,” the third chapter, is devoted to the structural transformation of Western capitalism. In the West, the industrial economy has lost its structural and formational significance. But what does it mean to say that we live in a post-industrial society? This chapter explains the transformation from the industrial to the post-industrial economy as a response to a dual crisis of saturation and productivity. Here I identify the features of cognitive capitalism, which is based
