Tech and politics, politics and tech - if a few years ago no one really understood the connection, nowadays, with cyber warfare and the politicization of social media, we’re starting to fear the two may be interwoven. The previous post I wrote about social revolutions and technology demonstrated how, way before Facebook and Twitter, technology was an active player in social revolutions. Manuel Castells, saw social revolutions as man’s struggle against the wheels of bureaucracy. And, Anthony Giddens is to Manuel Castells like peanut butter is to jelly.

The sociology of PB&J

In the sandwich of globalization research Castells is the peanut butter and Giddens is the jelly you spread on top. Combine the two, and you have a pretty good understanding of how we got to where we are. Just like Castells, Giddens is also very political. He didn’t just stop once he got his PhD in Sociology. He also has a column in The Guardian, was a consultant to Tony Blair in his days as prime minister, a member of the house of lords, and holds a nobility title of Baron. So when your mom asks what are you going to do with a degree in sociology?! You can say: I’m going to be English royalty and dictate government policy for one of the most influential countries in the world (drop the mic). ![Picture10.png](https://steemitimages.com/DQmbRUf6Xt1WVxrKhRuoLycq59CdM8SeKEUPLYq14xBRcgo/Picture10.png) Giddens is considered to be one of the most influential sociologists of our time. He’s written over 40 books, translated to over 40 languages, which means he publishes about a book a year. Not bad considering it takes me about 2 weeks to write 500 words. Now that I thoroughly powdered Giddens’ ass and established him as the authority figure he truly is let’s get down to it.

The Techno-social revolution will be televised

Back in the 90s, while you were playing snake on your phone and waiting for your modem to dial up, Giddens was examining processes of modernization. Like Castells, Giddens also claimed that techno - social processes come in waves and that society doesn’t move forward linearly. But, he also claimed that 20th century globalization was a stronger revolution that previous revolutions, and, because of the power of the global media the wheels of change could not be reversed. Bad news for global warming, I guess. The world, as we know it, is divided up into two eras: The pre-modern era and the modern one. The main difference between the two periods is in people’s ability to disconnect themselves from time and space. Stay with me now, for pre-modern man, his space was the physical space in which he moved, and the experience of moving through that physical space was measured in time. The modern man doesn’t have those physical restrictions. The modern man is exposed to spaces outside his physical space. Like watching TV, the modern man experiences a space outside his physical space in a mediated way. ![Picture11.png](https://steemitimages.com/DQmbKTsmiweKEWnSTnmjAkrNoPfJLy3TxczhEiwv1fgdtA8/Picture11.png)

First rule of philosophy: everything is relative

Just like TV, the internet provides us a with a different space, a virtual one. But, it’s a more visceral and interactive experience. Physical space is not important and it’s replaced with a new kind of space that is not dependant on physicality, aka virtual reality. Nothing too earth shattering here but in the days of early internet sociology this was the equivalent of discovering dark matter. The transformation from pre-modern society to modern or global society was completed through global media channels, whose channels of distribution are TV and internet. Most sociologists can agree about this process, almost as readily as they agree on the social and cultural ramifications of dick jokes. However, unlike most sociologists, Giddens is actually an optimist. He believes that corporations are incapable of managing civil society. The state could regain control if it goes a new path and adopts “new politics”...So I guess he’d have voted for Donald Trump then?! ![Picture12.png](https://steemitimages.com/DQmcTyYUXvTshr7yrPCD1y8uEdXXnpQeYkXZpjWdFLZeESS/Picture12.png)

Like a ship hurling aimlessly through space

Back in 1991, Giddens wrote an influential, yet not that well known, book called “The Consequences of Modernity”. Although the book might as well have been a crystal ball than a hardbound academic read. He warns us that the technology we use is unpredictable and, therefore, is inherently dangerous. Especially, since we live in very fluid and uncertain times or, as he puts it, modernity is like a ship flying aimlessly through space. However, as we fly aimlessly through space on this ship called Earth, internally, shit’s going down. In modern countries, the scientific and national institutions that symbolize the state are under attack, and their power is deteriorating rapidly largely thanks to technological advances enjoyed by the people of these countries. When the symbols that make up our governing bodies are under attack what person in their right mind would want to be president? Could this be the reason why there is no captain at the helm? http://33.media.tumblr.com/51f3109ca41f1b46248aa3009cb9357c/tumblr_njzlph8OFd1rrcri6o1_1280.gif Again, Giddens wrote this back in 1991. The year the first website was introduced, early laptops were just coming out, and Linux kernel was the newest thing, and Blossom debuted on NBC. But before 1991, like a generation or two back, politicians or statesmen were admired and their credibility and leadership was not put in doubt. Being a politician was something to aspire to. But, now, politicians like Donald Trump are elevated by the media (remember when the media loved The Donald in the Republican primaries?) only to be crushed soon after.

Video killed the science star

When it comes to scientific inquiry, If a few decades ago scientific research was given dogmatic status, today, for every scientific claim made there’s another one that claims the exact opposite. As result, as scientific inquiry moves ahead uncertainty is increased. So, in an ironic twist of events, the more we research something the less we know about it. If there’s something that people don’t like it’s uncertainty. When science serves to increase uncertainty rather than answer questions and simplify the world we live in most people will shy away from science at best or, even, completely lose faith in science. Into that void come in new religions like scientology with an offer of order to the universe. Wait, didn’t I say that Giddens was an optimist?! Apparently, it’s not too late to save this ship from crashing but someone has to make a harrowing lunge towards the helms before it’s too late. However, that captain can’t come from the classical political parties, be it right wing or left wing. Instead, he or she would need to come from a “third party”, a new party, that would serve a more egalitarian and democratic cause. Maybe that can still happen?!

Terrorists with style

If Giddens seems all over the place, that’s mostly due to me having a hard time summing up his prolific life work into a blog post that won’t put you to sleep, hopefully. There was, however, one thing which most of Giddens’ work had in common - foreshadowing. He had a pretty good grasp on future events. For example, years before anyone heard of ISIS or Jihadi John, Giddens was hard at work looking into the motivations of terrorists post 9/11. In an article he write for the Guardian, Giddens tried to wrap his head around why Al Qaeda was trying to go after planes and airports again and again. I mean, there are easier ways to cause more casualties, damage, and terror without attacking some of the most secure locations the modern world has to offer. ![Picture15.png](https://steemitimages.com/DQmcu3G2qWT2znC3S1K7kZrSdbh1pPywLshsjBGpJ6aed3g/Picture15.png) The IRA or Basque resistance, for one, never really tried to drop planes out of the sky or create mass terrorist attacks. They are, what Giddens calls, “traditional terrorists”. Jihadists are a different kind of terrorist, a symbolic terror that knows no boundaries or limitations. It’s a global terror that would always prefer to focus on the symbolic than the practical goals of terror. Therefore, organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS are a cynical satire of themselves. Their goal is to fight globalization (or colonialism), modernity, etc. BUT they are just as much a product of that society as are Justin Bieber and Kim Kardashian. A Jihadi terrorist is a self aware kind of terrorist, boundless, without one clear well defined cause to guide him, working on various fronts, and very much confused about what he wants to be when he grows up. For Giddens, Jihadis are basically millennials trying to figure out who they really are. Giddens is probably the first full stack sociologist. He covered everything from Jihadi terrorism to technology, politics, and consumerism. He didn’t stop there though and also became a politician himself, a journalist, and British nobility. And that was 1,450 words on Anthony Giddens. What did you think?