This is a collection of outstanding articles on Anthony Giddens. Like other collections of this kind, large proportion of the articles is reprinting of already published ones on a variety of journals. But some are taken from several books and some unpublished materials are included. All amount to hefty number of 93.
With those materials, you could grasp how Giddens is evaluated and assessed in circle of his colleague. If you want to be oriented to Giddens¡¯ framework, this is not the right one. But if you want to build your own opinion about Giddens, this is definitely ready to lend a hand. Various writers attempt to dissect Giddens¡¯ grand fabric to hit upon the weakness and develop alternatives.
This book is divided into eight sections:
1.Career and work
2.Influence of other writers like French structuralists and German hermeneutic school
3.Giddens¡¯ epistemology in the view of philosophy of science.
4.Structuration theory
5.Time-space in structuration theory
6.Theory on nation-state
7.theory on modernity
8.extensions and application of structuration theory

This is a collection of outstanding articles on Anthony Giddens. Like other collections of this kind, large proportion of the articles is reprinting of already published ones on a variety of journals. But some are taken from several books and some unpublished materials are included. All amount to a hefty number of 93.
With those materials, you could grasp how Giddens is evaluated and assessed in circle of his colleague. If you want to be oriented to Giddens¡¯ framework, this is not the right one. But if you want to build your own opinion about Giddens, this is definitely ready to lend a hand. Various writers attempt to dissect Giddens¡¯ grand fabric to hit upon the weakness and develop alternatives.
This set as a whole is divided into eight sections:
1.Career and work
2.Influence of other writers like French structuralists and German hermeneutic school
3.Giddens¡¯ epistemology in the view of philosophy of science.
4.Structuration theory
5.Time-space in structuration theory
6.Theory on nation-state
7.theory on modernity
8.extensions and application of structuration theory

This is a collection of outstanding articles on Anthony Giddens. Like other collections of this kind, large proportion of the articles is reprinting of already published ones on a variety of journals. But some are taken from several books and some unpublished materials are included. All amount to a hefty number of 93.
With those materials, you could grasp how Giddens is evaluated and assessed in circle of his colleague. If you want to be oriented to Giddens¡¯ framework, this is not the right one. But if you want to build your own opinion about Giddens, this is definitely ready to lend a hand. Various writers attempt to dissect Giddens¡¯ grand fabric to hit upon the weakness and develop alternatives.
This book is divided into eight sections:
1.Career and work
2.Influence of other writers like French structuralists and German hermeneutic school
3.Giddens¡¯ epistemology in the view of philosophy of science.
4.Structuration theory
5.Time-space in structuration theory
6.Theory on nation-state
7.theory on modernity
8.extensions and application of structuration theory

I think Giddens' structuration theory is the most promising theory since collapse of Parsons' framework.I read this book at undergraduate for the first time. while I studied Husserl and Heidegger at the same time. this help me understand Giddens with ease. I recommend to read Heidegger's Sein und Zeit to see the motive under Giddens' theory. this is not hidden fact. Giddens himself noted it several times. without philosopical background knowledge, it's impossible to access him properly. u will see my point if u read the first page of his 'Central Problem of Social Theory'. I agree to Turner's point that Giddens' theoretical framework is vague at best sencitising for actual research. concepts are clearly defined but how those concepts are related to each other is not that clear. reader himself should fill the gaps. one should make up for this difficulty with grasping Giddens' deep motive under framework. to do so, u should know well the tradition of Sociology and modern philosophy.

In this book Giddens gives us The answers, not only to why societys are like they are - the structural parts as well as the cultural - but allso the reason why we, the actors, let them be like they are. By doing this Giddens puts a final end to the micro-macro disussion of whether society constitutes actors or actors constitutes society, where he through his concept of "duality of structure" implodes the debate by not only defining the action of social reproduction as the constitution of society, but allso explaining the psychological reasons, the need for "ontological security", behind. While avoiding the temptation to reduce either actors to be a function of society or to reduce society to be an aggregate of individuals, makes it possible to discuss the links between as well as within the two analytical parts. Unfortunately his theory still lacks one essential aspect - the social dynamic. As a consequence the reader interested in social change will be mighty dissapointed. In the prospect of explainging social order Giddens develops a theory that lacks any other explanation to social change than the orthodox dogmas of unexpected consequences. My suggestion is that Giddens would do well to adapt the time perspective used by Piotr Sztompka, Margaret Archer and other critical realists. In doing so he would undisputably undermine any concurrence to the title as the one who closed the mest vigouros debate of social sciences in the 20th century.

This book was intended to be an assessing vulgar Marxism officially. but we should read this book as the attempt to examplify his structuration theory. if u read his major theoretical works like 'central problems in social theory', 'the constitution of society', u must feel get lost for lack of concrete example and abstractness. his writing style on theorizing is not that applausable. sure it's not confined only to him. most theorists in sociology are not better him. even worse, their conceptualizing lack succintness and articulateness. at least Giddens has them. this book must be read as giving example to his structuration theory. sure his critic of vulgar Marxism is also interesting and has good points. but his points in this book like power, time-space distanciation, tradition, nation-state, the discontinuity of capitialism, ~~~ are not intrinsic to Marxism per se. sure his critic is valid but it rather effective to provide good examples to his own theory.

I'm quite surprised this hasn't been reviewed yet; it's a wonderful book. Likely not for undergrads, Giddens is able to tie together in novel ways some of the key concepts that connect the writings of Marx, Weber and Durkheim. A good deal of the book summarizes the key writings of each author-- which is useful in itself-- and supports much of the summary material with compelling quotes and citations of both the author in question, as well as others who have done secondary analyses. Giddens also devotes a few chapters to analyzing the three authors in comparison, and spends a good deal of time teasing out differences between the three that were not, for me at least, apparent right away. In other words, a solid and original analysis. Not five stars because there was less on similarities of thought between the authors than I would have liked to have seen (and no explicit comparative analysis of Weber and Durkheim, only Marx vis-a-vis the other two), but this is probably due to the fact that Marx, Weber and Durkheim diverge in so many fundamental ways. Nevertheless, truly a must read for those who want to begin to get a grip on classical western social theory in a more sophisticated fashion than what most textbooks (which this is not) might have to offer. Get it, because if it's this old and still in print in the academic world, there's a reason for it...

Giddens is the most well-known British social scientist after Keynes and one of three masters in sociology with Bourdieu and Habermas. This book has been widely used as textbook in classes on the history of sociology, while his more recent book, ¡®Introduction to Sociology¡¯ ahs occupied most introductory classes of sociology.
1. Giddens might be the best and deepest understander of three father of sociology. The prestige and appeal of his structuration theory might be rooted in that mastery. Before proposed the outline of structuration theory in ¡®New Rules of Sociological Method¡¯, he spent about ten years in digging into three founders: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. This book is the fruit of that effort.
Unlike usual textbook, this book us not simple introduction to classical theorists. The need to read classics lies in the problem sociology poses to itself: ¡®what is the modernity?¡¯ Whereas other sister disciplines pose somewhat narrower problems-capitalism for economics, democracy for political sciences- sociology questions the modernity itself. That¡¯s the very problem three fathers posed over a century ago. But still we question the same problem in the way they set. So we should always return to classics when meeting the fundamental problem.
2. The style of this book is clear, easy-to-follow, and jargon-free enough to be used in undergraduate introductory class. But it doesn¡¯t mean that there is no depth in this book. Giddens argues that thoughts of Weber and Durkheim should be understood as the reaction to Marx. His emphasis is convincing and offers a good standpoint to look up three fathers as a whole. Such a point is invaluable to beginners. Moreover, his interpretations are opposite to conventional wisdom, with solid grounds. He contends that there is no discontinuity between young Marx and late Marx, against humanist views like Frankfurt school¡¯s and structuralist exposition like Althusser¡¯s; there is no inconsistency I Weber. He was always a radical neo-Kantian; the relationship of Weber and Marx should be seen as creative tension rather than antagonism; Durkheim¡¯s point lies in not primarily in ¡®the problem of order¡¯ but in the changing nature of order in the context of social development.

Well, to sort of disagree with the previous review, I feel that this book is great for Undergrads! I, myself had the opportunity to read this book in a social theory class and have since relied upon Giddens excellent analysis of these theorists! It really helped me grasp the detailed (and often times confusing) ideas and theories of the classical theorists. After reading the book, I was able to more fully understand the actual works of these individuals. I use this book as reference guide to refer back to what Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber said.

The question of self identity is a classical philosophical question and also a fundamental issue for any social/ sociological theory which deals with the subject, the active agent. The approach to this issue can be either set out in a philosophical manner or that of a social science. By "social science" I refer to the narrow sense of a somewhat empirical and experimental tradition.

Giddens adopts the latter. He argues from results of psychological experiments that human beings are subject to a sense of security since a newborn. By the sense can one assure the continuity of the self-identity. The continuity furtherly guarantees that the person not get into psychological disorder.

The self-identity in "high-modernity" has to cope with new problems. Giddens avoids using the term "postmodern", but he does points out the failure of the Enlightenment project which other postmodernists recognize. Giddens admits that human knowledge cannot reach so far as to set out a orderly plan of the society. The uncertainty signified by the sphere of the unknown/ unrealizable forms a great challenge to the self identity he mentioned above. Giddens tries to describe the society in high-modernity as a "risk community" and politics of life. The former concept may be inspired by Ulrich Beck. And the latter means an incorporation of global or domestic issues into everyday decisions, such as whether or not to buy environment-friendly products.

The style of this book can be seemed as a detail part of his structuration theory, which attempts to combined the conflicting individualist and structuralist perspectives. Those who are familiar with the agent/ structure controversies may find this book helpful.

On the contrary, those who have a better taste for philosophy or postmodern discourse would find the arguments of Giddens implausible. He seeks justifications from the validity and reliability of psychological experiments. Unfortunately, psychology itself is suspicious, since the explanation and attribution of experiment results are also subject to our cognitive framework. This critique may leads to phenomenological or postmodern reflexions, the former of which remains in line with subject philosophy while the latter of which de-construct the subject and put their eyes on language, discourse and desire.

"What to do? How to act? Who to be? These are focal questions for everyone lining in circumstances of late modernity - an ones which, on some level or another, all of us answer, either discursively or through day-to-day social behavior. They are existential questions, although, as we shall see later, their relation to the existential issues discussed in the preceding chapter is problematic." Giddens (1991:70)

Perhaps one of the most difficult books I have had to write a review on despite, ironically, sounding more like a self-help book rather than one of deep existential examination. However, that might just mean that the book is based on self-help books of which Giddens is an avid reader. The importance of such books is that in modern societies - self identity is a central issue. With the advent to new technology and increased education, the modality of formulation of Self-Identity has changed. A dark cloud of self-reflexivity both on institutional level and the personal level looms over those who see change as a risk and fear it while those who see promise, there is a silver lining. The rules of the game has changed - forever. Sink or swim. For Giddens the change is profound:
"For it is arguable that the period of high modernity is one of fundamental transition - not just a continuation of modernity's endless dynamism, but the presaging of structural transformations of a more profound type. The expansion of internally referential system reaches its outer limits; on a collective level and in a day-to-day life moral/existential questions thrust themselves back to center-stage. Focused around processes of self-actualization, such issues call for a restructuring of social institutions, and raise issues not just of a sociological but of a political nature." Giddens (1991:208)

The importance of the questions of identity posed above is both cause and result of changes at the institutional level and interplay, if you will between the global and the regional. Within this framework, both the institution and the individual can change and adopt. One responsible for the other. All are interconnected. Giddens sees links between links between the individuals sense of identity and the global players - a shift from traditional sociology - which sees these players in isolation. If we take as an example, the changes that have taken place in the recent past, the high level of the rate of divorce (which it is argued can serve as a metaphor for modernity) sets people on a crisis mode - a mode that holds as much risk as it does promise. It becomes a significant time - for Giddens it is a "fateful moment":
"Most of these dilemmas become particularly acute, or are experienced with special force, during the fateful moment of an individual's life. Since fateful moments, by definition, are highly consequential, the individual feels at a crossroad in terms of overall life-planning. Fateful moments are phases when people might choose to have recourse to more traditional authorities. In this sense, they may seek refuge in pre-established beliefs and in familiar modes of activity. On the other hand, fateful moments also often mark periods of reskilling and empowerment. They are points at which, no matter how reflexive an individual may be in shaping of her Self-Identity, she has to sit up and take notice of new demand as well as new possibilities. At such moments, when life has to be seen anew, it is not surprising that endeavors at reskilling are likely to be particularly important and intensely pursued. Where consequential decisions are concerned, individuals are often stimulated to devote the time and energy necessary to generate increased mastery of the circumstances they confront. Fateful moments are transition points which have major implications not just for the circumstances of an individual's future conduct, but for self identity. For consequential decisions, once taken, will reshape the reflexive project of identity through the lifestyle consequences which ensue." Giddens (1991:142-143)

Based on the three dynamics of modernity: the separation of time and space, the disembedding mechanism and institutional reflexivity plus added to that the notion of an acute sense of crisis the self is beset with this fateful moments. To this, Giddens replies with Life Politics.
"Life-political issues place a question mark against the internally referential systems of modernity. Produced by the emancipatory impact of modern institutions, the life-political agenda exposes the limits of decision-making governed purely by internal criteria. For life politics brings back to prominence precisely those moral and existential questions repressed by the core institutions of modernity. Here we see the limitations of accounts of 'postmodernity' developed under the aegis of poststructuralism. According to such views, moral questions become completely denuded of meaning or relevance in current social circumstances. But while this perspective accurately reflects aspects of the internally referential systems of modernity, it cannot explain why moral issues return to the center of the agenda of life politics. Life-political issues cannot be debated outside the scope of abstract systems: information drawn from various kinds of expertise is central to their definition. Yet because they center on questions of how we should live our lives in emancipated social circumstances they cannot but bring to the fore problems and questions of a moral and existential type. Life-political issues supply the central agenda for the return of the institutionally repressed. They call for a remoralising of social life and they demand a renewed sensitivity to questions that the institutions of modernity systematically dissolve." Giddens (1991: 223-224)

Changes therefore cannot be seen in isolated areas or pockets of consideration. We cannot focus on the individual only. The changes must bee seen within the context of the macro and micro revel. Within the realm of reflexivity, we do not only look at changes within ourselves as individuals and institutions but how we institute change. Using divorce as a metaphor for modernity, we can see all the hurts and pains and promise, much like Nietzsche said....live dangerously.

This book is indeed a work of social science, and not a work of formal logic, dialectic, or philosophy. And as such, it seeks to avoid the subject-object aporias and non-explanatory vocabulary of "postmodernism" so fashionable in some academic circles in favor of an integrated model of the self and society that not only makes sense, but resonates with the modern reader and social scientist in a way not easily dismissable by concerns of validity claims. Phenomenology, it must be noted, is less than a water-tight system of defendable truth-claims; postmodernism in its extreme denies the notion of objective knowledge altogether. This book has different aims.


The strength of Giddens' work has always been his identification of reflexivity as the central mechanism behind social and psychological transformations - the nested critique of society that sets up progressively complex turnovers in psyche and structure, one on the heels of the other, institutionalizing doubt as a central feature of existential and social life. Giddens makes clear that "postmodernity" is a meaningless term for his purposes; instead he takes the more sensible route (alongside contemporaries such as the brilliant Scott Lash) and employs the term "high modernity" to describe the present times as of the same conceputal order (albeit much more "intense" in critical ways) than preceding centuries. He compares and contrasts the self and the other, the mechanics of disembedding and reimbedding, the dynamics of intensionality and extensionality, and the twin states of trust and risk in a way that convincingly demonstrates that modernity is a game whose time is not yet up - and whose textures social science is capable of elegantly describing, and possibly even explaining. Giddens' theory of the "pure relationship" and his related analyses of self-society relationships are extremely important theoretically to many areas of the social sciences, including nation-state theory, globalization, development ethnography, refugee studies, and cultural studies. His work is even beginning to exert an influence on parallel disciplines as well, for example discourse analysis.


So, while the philosopher might dismiss this work as dependent on the truth-claims of modern psychology, the sociologist (at whatever level of expertise) will find this to be an engaging, challenging, and clearly written work with far-ranging application to empirical social-scientific material.

Rather than a general theory or explanation of either economics or religion, Weber attempts to draw a specific link between what he sees as the conjunction of the work ethic of Protestant (mainly Calvinist) spiritual teachings, and the success of Western European Capitalism.

Weber is an astute analyst, in many ways. He rightly notes that often the 'sine qua non' of Capitalism is thought of as "greed". Arguing against this notion, Weber points out that all societies have had greedy people within their particular economic system-greed is thus a factor irrespective of economic systems. Replacing this, Weber proposes that the "spirit" of Capitalism be thought of as a particular moral attitude towards work and idleness-an attitude that holds that constant and diligent work for its own sake is a moral imperative. In the face of what Weber calls "the radical elimination of magic from the world" this work ethic was the existential option left for people in terms of atonement and personal compensation for inadequacies. I believe that these two insights are right on target.

If there is a weakness involved in his characterization of this Protestant "Ethic," it lies in the fact that Weber attempts to draw a strict dichotomy in the origins of this ethic. He states forcefully that this ethic does not come out of any Enlightenment thought. The problem with trying to separate this ethic from the Enlightenment, is that this ethic which posits diligent work for its own sake is clearly found in the ethics of Immanuel Kant, who classified this kind of work and labor as a "duty" (ethical rule) that the self has to itself. In other words, how much of this is the legacy of the Reformation and how much of this is the legacy of the Enlightenment?

The necessity for this kind of work also appears in the ethics of Hegelian philosophy. Hegel characterizes work as a means of the realization of Spirit within the human self, since the performance of duties which one would not normally choose to do can be thought of as a deliberate placing of oneself in the context of alienation. The individual then, through diligent "work," attempts to convert that which is foreign (antithetical) to the self into that which is of the self. Work is thus a means of overcoming a system of deliberate self-alienation, and is vitally necessary. Kant and Hegel, clearly two giants of Enlightenment thought, both maintain that the essence of diligent work is to become, not acquire-acquisition is a by-product and consequence of work. This is very similar to Weber's characterization of this ethos.

Another problem arises when we attempt to draw a strict separation between the worldly attitudes of Catholic monasticism and this "Protestant Ethic." While it is certainly true that Catholic monasticism placed a high degree of value on contemplatio, Catholic dogma, from Augustine through Gregory the Great and onwards, held explicitly that one must always return to work in the world-contemplatio was always insufficient in itself as a mode of being. Biblically, this was often seen in light of the Hebrew story of Rachel and Leah, as well as the Greek story of Mary and Martha. The contemplative life is certainly of "higher" value in Catholic thought, yet it must be seen as returning the soul to the life of activity, lest the soul run the risk of the heresy of "Quietism." Some forms of Catholic mysticism ran into heretical issues precisely because they held that the life of activity should be abandoned. So, while there may be a difference in degree, we should be careful not to draw a stronger split than is there. Weber writes as if only Luther or Calvin has the concept of a life's "calling," when this was always already part of Catholicism too.

This entire issue actually has its roots in Greek political philosophy, where we see a clear tension between the "practical life", and the "contemplative life." The issue persists into Roman life. We can even see some evidence of this type of Protestant ethos in Stoicism, which held that the active pursuit of virtue and public activity was the highest good. Contrast to Epicureanism, which held that the private, quiet study of philosophy and other pleasures, away from worldly life, was the highest good. The issue, of course, reemerges in Christian thought. But for all of its force in Protestantism, we must not take a myopic view that this was somehow unique to Protestantism in Western intellectual thought. Other factors than religion must have also played a role in the development of capitalism.

The role of Judiasm is Weber's biggest problem. According to his own endnotes, Jews enjoy more economic success and motivation---so why would Protestantism give birth to Capitalism?

We should nonetheless congratulate Weber for attempting to take a close look at the interactions between religious and economic thought. Like Marx, his work serves a good framework to examine the way religious thought influences and inteacts with factors like world economics.

Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is CLASSIC - and should be a mandatory read for every student of sociology. Unfortunately, the classic literature of sociology isn't emphasized enough in today's educational institutions. Students are entering the real world without the foundation of social prophets and coming up with their own ideas of "what the world is coming to," and taking credit for ideology that has long been debated and written down by masterminds such as Weber. Pay attention! What is this book really about? This is a revolutionary work discussing critically the causes and effects of sociological chance, and how the sociology of religion has changed meaning because of the philosophy we now base our ideas on. Anyone interested in postmodern theory, the iron cage of bureaucracy, rationalization, and even symbolic interactionism should read this before continuing to literature of modern sociological thought.

THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM by Max Weber is the kind of book which I imagined was important in my youth. I find it difficult, now, but not because anything which is says is any less true than it ever was. As history goes, it is some of the most thoughtful. The problem is that we are no longer living in history. Comparing ourselves to the contents of this book confirms that society is now at the level of farce, and likely to remain so. This conclusion might not strike anyone starting the book for the first time, but it ought to grab anyone who is capable of comprehending Chapter 3, "Luther's Conception of the Calling."

My point of view works best if it is accepted that, as America now stands, it can only be understood as a nation of shoppers. The large and still growing amount by which imports exceeds exports requires that the entire world maintains this view for monetary stability. The political parties might pretend to be theoretically split between those who use the government as a means of shopping for people's needs and those who would enhance the ability to make big bucks, but neither party can, in actuality, represent with their whole heart those who picture government as the ultimate shopper, which ought to be able to provide people with what they would not otherwise have, whether through liberal social programs or by imposing rigid security provisions and covert activities. Thinking about how well secret military tribunals or jailing users of illegal substances actually functions, as applied to "others," strike me as being an absurd application of Luther's "observation that the division of labour forces every individual to work for others." Both parties, to maintain their existence in such a tipsy world, must appeal to those who would maintain "the privileged position, legal or actual, of single great trading companies." Only the American ability to convince the world that everyone who takes our money for their products fully shares the ability of Americans to benefit from such great wealth can maintain such a situation as "a traditionalist interpretation based on the idea of Providence. The individual should remain once and for all in the station and calling in which God had placed him, and should restrain his worldly activity within the limits imposed by his established station in life. While his economic traditionalism was originally the result of Pauline indifference, it later became that of a more and more intense belief in divine providence, which identified absolute obedience to God's will, with absolute acceptance of things as they were." The uses of two "Absolute"s in that sentence is what frightens me. Any sign of inability to adapt to a future which includes vast changes is a bad characteristic for a modern society, and the modern economy seems to be headed in a direction that will no longer provide great wealth to all who expect it. In such a situation, anyone might consider the words of Milton in "Paradise Lost," as quoted by Max Weber, which points out that people are able:

To leave this Paradise, but shall possess
A Paradise within thee, happier far.

The next paragraph suggests, "The appeal to national character is generally a mere confession of ignorance, and in this case it is entirely untenable." The difference between what Max Weber is trying to describe and what I'm thinking is what makes this kind of book so difficult to read, and I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read it.

Giddens has a very big name. but name is name. this book has nothing new or insightful. all are there is reproduced from his previous books. and worse, the pricing is unduly high. if u read already his books, u'd better skip this title.

Sociologist Anthony Giddens has recently made some notable contributions to political discussion. This books is based on his radio lectures from 1999 which do not have much to do with Gidden's academic conributions. Instead, this is a practical book aimed at general public interested in the current world affairs. In just 100 pages, compact size and absent of academic buzzwords, the book makes an easy and fast read.

The book has five themes: globalization, risk, tradition, family and democracy. Giddens handles them in turn like he would be playing with his favourite football. Shifts feet, moves forward and kicks when the goal is sure. His playing is readable indeed.

One can rise a couple of leading themes from the book. One is the idea of cosmopolitan tolerance. The other one is the doublesided meaning of risk. On the one hand, risk is what globalization has brought to our daily lives and society at large. On the other hand, risk enables the speed of evolution we are now facing in this global village.

In some parts of the book, one can be very impressed how Giddens summarizes in about three paragraphs what others have written in a 300+ pages of treatise. This is the case of e.g. Soros on global capitalism, Bernstein on the meaning of risk and Castells on information society. Though there are no accurate references - there simply couldn't be - Giddens provides in the end a fifteen page list of selected readings with a short comment on each. I found it very helpful way to put my understanding in a more larger context.

Freedom is wonderful.

That's the basic message of this book. Americans take freedom for granted, but much if not all of the world had less freedom than the US until the recent past. The first half-century of American independence was marked by chaos, out of which a unique and growing American freedom developed which could not be shattered even by the War Between the States.

Now, and I say this as a Canadian nationalist and not an American chauvinist, the rest of the world is catching up with the US. The result is worldwide chaos. The foundation of Canada has always been peace, order and good government; in recent years, this complacent assumption has been challenged by Quebec separatists and the rise of a new political party in the western provinces. Even at that, Canada is a mild case of chaos compared to what is happening in many countries.

Giddens looks at this chaos in relation to a number of universal concerns -- risk, tradition, the family and democracy itself. In each case, as more people are given the right and ability to make their own decisions, a difficult transition to expanded freedom takes place. Giddens examination of family values is an example of the controversy and confusion that is being generated.

For almost all of history, families were economic units based on the ability of one person to provide an income and another to look after the household and raise children. Now, with both people in a marriage able to earn a self-sufficient income, the basic nature of marriage is changing. It is no longer a case of economics, marriage now involves a democracy of emotions.

On a personal basis, Giddens cites the example of a great aunt who ". . . had one of the longest marriages of anyone. having been with her husband for over 60 years. She once confided that she had been deeply unhappy with him the whole of that time. In her day there was no escape." My own mother could have said the same. Today, there is an escape. Divorce is becoming ever more respectable; once, it would have been unthinkable to elect a divorced president, yet no one questioned Ronald Reagan's divorce and the fact that his next wife was several months pregnant by the time they married.

Now, add this freedom to all other elements of society. Then, expand it worldwide. The result of this phenomena is globalisation. Conservatives in foreign lands denounce it as Americanisation, but it is purely an expansion of personal freedom. When you get change, you get chaos. Out of that, as shown by the chaos prior to the writing of the US Constitution, a newer and freer society sometimes emerges. It's happening in Canada, in China, Cuba and worldwide.

Giddens examines the basics of this growing freedom. Once these basics are understood, the current chaos of globilisation can be seen as a dawn of expanding freedom rather than an insidious American plot to take over the world. On that basis, every country will develop its own freedom even if it doesn't match the appearance of American institutions.

Unless, of course, conservative forces of tradition seize power to end the chaos and restore peace, order and good government. Freedom can be as diverse as every distinct society; repression always wears the same stern face of not allowing people to make decisions for themselves.

In "Beyond Left and Right," Anthony Giddens analyzes the changing welfare state and, in this context, charts a course for the future of radical politics. Other readers and reviewers may place this book in the context of 1990's debates on welfare reform, but this more a work of sociological and political theory than public policy. In fact, by welfare state, Giddens means the whole of the state as it is concerned with the welfare of its citizens.

Giddens' analysis of various conservative and radical political philosophies--this occupies the book's first three chapters--is trenchant. His new radical politics starts, philosophically, with the insight that a conservative movement become radical and a radical movement become conservative are both intellectually inert. A new radical politics could, however, apply philosophic conservatism in the service of its values.

Also among the book's strengths are the coherence of its of sociological analysis and breadth of academic research. Giddens describes various forces challenging the welfare state in terms of manufactured uncertainty, a concept which is original, convincing, and rich in its implications. He also uses a variety of fellow academics as conversation partners consistently, but unobtrusively, giving the text a value which is quite independent of his thinking.

The last half of Giddens's book, however, is dissapointing. Perhaps that is the inherent paradox of Giddens's writing, that, as a sociologist he can so ably encompass a variety of social changes with terms like manufactured uncertainty and active trust but leave us unimpressed with the generative politics he proposes. Giddens' language is often removed from the practical world of law and politics, so it is never clear whether the superficialitiy of his treatment of issues like third world development or gender relations is deliberate or not.

Nonetheless, I recommend "Beyond Left and Right" to other readers interested in taking a tour of political philosophy and sociological scholarship. Giddens is a scholar capable of ordering his thoughts and those of others in ways which are insightful and cogent, if not always practical. This is evident in the first half of the book, which is strong.

It seems unneccessarily complicated riddle to solve to us, sociologists. actually Giddens's writing style in this title is not that easy to grasp judging from sociological convention. and worse he cited too many names like Saussure, Hegel, Levi-Strauss, Heidegger, Husserl and even Derrida and Wittgenstein! those that makes readers wandering around jargons from philosophy. because this book stem from the controversial atmosphere of 70s when French Structuralism prevailed over intellectural map. Giddens wanted to conter their assertions. we can see he was right at 80s when structurism collapsed into trendy postmodernist jargons. Anyway I recommend to read this title if u read 'The Constitution of Society'. which title is not that hostile to reader like this title. but something lacks on it. You can find what miss in later masterpiece. This title is somewhat earlier endeavor to clarify his theory of structuration. so thorems were not that clearly founded. it makes it the way to hostility to readers but sometimes this kind of imperfection is more valuable to portray one's image of theory.

still in a runaway world. looking for "the what-next-way" ? capital is still the driver of jagarnata/juggernaut