'Culture and Blogging Essay\r'

'In this advance(a) age, community has undergone evolution, making man’s emotional state story far more interlacing and diverse comp ard those of his predecessors. erst the dominant figure in the society, an idiosyncratic’s influence over his self- identity operator has greatly been reduced and he has been a subject of variety and develop workforcet establish on companionable forces. One of the theories that explore this late-fashioned increase is Anthony Giddens’ speculation of structuration, wherein he explores and attempts to determine whether it is concourse who shape their social reality or late social forces.\r\nGiddens (1992) cited that it is the respective(prenominal) who serves as the catalyst for social reality through the process of structuration, wherein social structures be seen as influential agents of change. He further punctuate that social structure contain system that thespians ( souls) bring out to use after experiencing it and moves towards its application program in an actor’s agriculture. Changes with oneself and identity transpire with in createation, something that coincides with Giddens’ view of a reflexive identity.\r\nReflexive identity is often determine as an endeavor, in which individuals seek to observe and echo on their identity and work on it. He also emphasizes the process of repetitive social interaction to formally develop one’s self-identity, in which reactions of opposites ar deemed important in order to reach growth and development. He addresses this as the narrative identity in which an individual continues to welcome events and integrate these into his life for developmental purposes.\r\nGiddens’ Theory of Intimacy and Self-Identity in moderne Society In his work, Giddens (1992) has broken down the practicable changes that deem taken place in the commonwealth of intimate births, causing developments that shake teleological understanding. u tilize the American society as its model, Giddens (1992) cited that the supposed wiz among conjugal union, rideuality and reproduction has been broken down by these changes and that it represented a new image of what is the new intimate sexual congressship, something that is at equivalence with modernism.\r\nUnder these developments, couples could have through a compassionate marriage, and that it is also manageable to nurture each other without the need to imply the opposite sex or a barbarian as a medium of love. According to Jamieson (1999), what Giddens has cited in his works are probably what people knell or view as â€Å"pure relationship” where intimacy matters less and that relationship itself matters more. This is seen among couples who do non conceive children all throughout their relationship.\r\nHowever, Giddens (1992) cited that the focus of the social order still lies on the heterosexual marriage and that there have been numerous advantages in go in to such relationship. This led into what Giddens (1992) calls â€Å" credit card sex activity” where the news was centered on having attained or surpassed the inevitably of phallus in a relationship. Here, Giddens’ (1992) views intimacy as equal to sexuality. Giri (1994) cited that Giddens’ (1992) use the term phallus to limn the male experience or the intimate moments dual-lane with the human male species.\r\nGiddens (1992) cited that â€Å"plastic sexuality” broads individuals from the necessitate of reproduction which characterizes heterosexual marriage. Much of the analysis of Giddens’ theory of identity will confirm that â€Å"plastic sexuality” commonly refers to the ternionly sex, more commonly know as gays and lesbians. The relationship between individuals of the same sex has been one of the favorite topics of debate as other(a) as the 1990s. It was criticized for beness indecent mainly collect to the concept of having physiologic and emotional relationship with the same sex.\r\nGiri (1994) cited that same sex relationships became a taboo, and were regarded as quasi(prenominal) to incest relationships. Yet in the work of Giddens (1992), he cited that â€Å"plastic sexuality” was a decentralized form of sexuality which is non bound by traditional or conventional relationships. This is the reason why m either have viewed Giddens’ (1992) work as something out of the ordinary, and at par with the changes occurring in society (Giri, 1994). As mentioned earlier, he brought a new definition to intimacy and expanded its application to a certain degree.\r\nUsing the American and European society as its model, Giddens (1991) showed the slip of intimacy to a new degree. Giddens (1991) cited that the third sex †lesbians and gays †aside from being involved in â€Å"plastic sexuality” are also tied with what he calls reflexive sexuality. This is where an individual’s se xuality serves as a seat of oneself, while having its own qualities. However, the evolution of intimacy has produced transmutations of biological categories, between male and female, such as the adulteration of the male’s sexual organ.\r\nThe core mood in Giddens’ (1991) view of intimacy is close to the degradation of the male’s phallus or the juncture of the male’s sexual organ, and the fortification of the third sex. By emphasizing a relationship that is free from reproduction and moving off from the confines of the heterosexual marriage, Giddens (1991) in immediately pointed his views of intimacy as being directly justifying lesbians and gays relationships. In his work, he cited that women could now see men on the cognitive level at the real least. Schiffrin (1996) cited that it emphasized gender empowerment in hurt of being involved in a relationship.\r\nHe also supported one of Giddens’ (1991) view closely self-identity in which frag mentation versus unification influences the formation or development of self-identity. In here, Giddens’ (1991) view of intimacy moves away from the widely perceived; although it still pays importance to physical contact, its significance lies in its support and empowerment of the third sex. As cited, Giddens (1991) also has views about the formation and development of self-identity. Unification versus fragmentation was cited earlier and there are still three other dichotomies of self-identity.\r\nUnification and fragmentation in simpler terms mainly focus on what cultural patterns offer against an individual whose self evaporated into a variegated setting of action. Giddens (1991) cited that an individual constructs himself within the boundaries of his environment, culture or even his own parents. Unification is all based on the emulation of something or someone that is recognized by the public (Giddens, 1991). On the other hand, fragmentation represents individuals who a djust themselves in relation to what is essential or demanded in a particular scenario or environment.\r\nSchiffrin (1996) cited this as â€Å"authoritarian conformity,” wherein an individual adapts to its surroundings until he is barely recognizable. The dilemma between the two is that the unbent self would feel empty and inauthentic (Giddens, 1991), and anything else could not fill it easily. The end result is likely an individual who acts and behaves reasonably or appropriately in bm of the public, bringing in a sense of psychologically security; and yet the same individual may be feeling empty in relation to his true self. The second dimension is that of impotence versus appropriation.\r\nGiddens (1991) cited that powerlessness focuses on the alienation suffered by individuals in the context of modern society. Under the influence of capitalistic production, the individual loses its dominance over machines and markets. Giddens (1991) cited that in the process, what us ed to be human now seems alien and that in the questionable â€Å"mass society”, as such society becomes more extensive, individuals are more sheared with autonomy. On the other hand, Giddens (1991) describes appropriation as a complex picture between extensional and intentional change in a world under speedy globalization.\r\nIt is a form of expropriation, wherein an individual undergoes a transformation that is characterized as disembedding, and moving away from the interest of any actors. Giddens (1991) also cited that it could also be a form of mastery of life only available in modern situations. Moreover, according to Giddens (1991), an individual would feel engulfed, being dominated by force that he could not transcend or resist. Unlike the first dilemma, in here, the dominating forces are compelling. The individual ends up having a feeling of helplessness due to loss of his autonomy.\r\n'