He brings these types of ideas together by stating moins votre futur reste pri? visible, plus il faut i? tre mobile, versatile, ri? actif, pri? big t i? enfermer en permanence15. One way of understanding this idea of the hypermodern is by referring to other bloggers, most notably the polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, who talks about the modern existence of society as being a liquid modern quality. This concept can be echoed by simply Marx and Engels who use the poetic phrase everything that is solid melts into air16, which may be used to claim that society is now at a stage of modernity in which everything is in flux each of the barriers to it will be permeable.
Lipovetsky reaffirms this when he mentions une raison moderne dalam? ri? guli? e ainsi que desinstituionalisi? e17, which signifies the idea that the defined boundaries of organizations have been split up, which allows the individual to circulate through these institutions in a a lot more fluid way. Lipovetsky contributes to this concept of fluidity by simply suggests there is also a hyperbolic active to the hypermodern society. He points to this kind of when he says Dans ce context, les sphi? res les in addition diverses seront le parage dune monti? e aux extri? mes, livri? ha sido i? votre dynamique illimiti? e, i? une spirale hyperbolique18.
This is also relevant to the individual as it can cause them burning out, for instance , as a result of the duty to frequently be on the move and adaptable. It could be argued that Lipovetsky can be suggesting that demonstrates the fact that the grand narrative of progress has disappeared, it is like the individual is running to stand still. He suggests that this constant demand to be efficient is usually not motivated by a ordinaire aim to approach towards a Utopian objective, but rather with a need to survive19.
As mentioned previous, the notion of insecurity that hypermodernity has brought about can be described as dominant idea in L’ensemble des Temps Hypermodernes. Lipovetsky, upon numerous situations, refers to the way the sentiment of rest and independence that characterized postmodern has been replaced with a more powerful and fast-paced dynamic by which individuals regularly feel the need to shield themselves against present and future hazards:
Votre climat du premier pri? sentisme libi? rationniste ainsi que optimiste, empreint de li? gi? reti?, sest efface, au bi? ni? fice dune requiert generalise sobre protection20. This is attributed to the very fact that people, particularly in the work place, are no longer able to bring up collective support networks of old which may help them handle the challenges around them. It may therefore be argued that this intensification of individualisation linked to hypermodernity offers removed the outdoors parameters, or external reference point points, with which individuals can define him themselves.
Despite this intensified individualism that is present in the hypermodern society, Lipovetsky maintains a confident outlook by simply claiming that there are still group identifications that individuals can make. He suggests that, even though individuals will no longer subscribe to large moral frameworks, they are continue to motivated by ethical and humanitarian problems. This demonstrates that people still have the capacity to come together, but since individuals rather than collective.
In conclusion, it is apparent that Lipovetskys puts frontward a thorough analysis of both postmodern and hypermodern eras, demonstrating clearly how culture has transferred away from the control of the disciplinary era, to a more liquid and individualised culture, preserving a positive outlook on the way in which the globe is growing. His usage of the terms postmodern and hypermodern may be argued to significant in the sense that they give a valuable construction of reference in examining the different ways the human state and the dynamics of society have altered throughout these types of periods.
References Foucault, Michel, Surveiller ain punir, Gallimard, 1975. Lipovetsky, Gilles, La socii? ti? de di? ception, Textuel, 2006. Lipovetsky, Gilles, Li? re man vide, Gallimard, 1983. Lipovetsky, Gilles, Des temps hypermodernes, Grasset, 2005. Marx, K. & Engels, F., The Communist Manifesto, 1848. you Lipovetsky, Innocents, Li? lso are du vide, Gallimard 1983, Page 25-26. 2 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Des temps hypermodernes, Grasset 2004, Page 7. 3 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Li? re du vide, Gallimard 1983, Webpage 27-28. four Lipovetsky, Gilles, Li? re du vide, Gallimard 1983, Page up to 29.
5 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Li? re i vide, Gallimard 1983, Page 31. 6th Lipovetsky, Gilles, Li? lso are du vide, Gallimard 1983, Page 31. 7 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Li? re ni vide, Gallimard 1983, Page 39. 8 Lipovetsky, Innocents, Li? re du vide, Gallimard 1983, Page 37. 9 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Li? re ni vide, Gallimard 1983, Web page 199. 10 Foucault, Michel, Surveiller et punir, Gallimard 1975. 10 Lipovetsky, Gilles, La socii? ti? de di? ception, Textuel 2006, Page 18. 12 Lipovetsky, Gilles, La socii? usted? de di? ception, Textuel 2006, Site 16.
13 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Li? lso are du vide, Gallimard 1983, Page 43-48. 14 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Les temps hypermodernes, Grasset 2005, Page 53. 15 Lipovetsky, Gilles, L’ensemble des temps hypermodernes, Grasset 2005, Page fifty five. 16 Marx, K. & Engels, Farreneheit., The Communist Manifesto, 1848. 17 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Les temps hypermodernes, Grasset 2004, Page 52. 18 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Les temps hypermodernes, Grasset 2004, Page 52. 19 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Des temps hypermodernes, Grasset 2004, Page fifty five. 20 Lipovetsky, Gilles, Des temps hypermodernes, Grasset 2005, Page fifty-five.
