Understanding the Role of Social Actors in Social Economy: Reflexive Modernisation, Summaries of Business

Download Understanding the Role of Social Actors in Social Economy: Reflexive Modernisation and more Summaries Business in PDF only on Docsity! 3 Reflexive Modernisation and the Social Economy Mike Aiken In this article I want to explore the theoretical idea of ‘reflexive modernisation’ as elaborated by Ulrich Beck to see how it may illuminate our understanding of certain activities in the social economy. Reflexive modernisation as discussed by Beck and others is a theoretical attempt to make sense of some of the broad currents of social change affecting Western societies. The ‘social economy’ is a broad and not uncontested concept which seeks to capture the essence of a sector that is engaged in economic activity outside the straightforward governmental or commercial sectors. It refers, in some usages, to organisations which seek to improve the lives of people by creating accountable, self sufficient, independent organisations which do not distribute profits,1 organisations intent, in short, on ‘trading for a social purpose’.2 These organisations provide, I believe, a fertile site for exploring the idea of reflexive modernisation. For theoreticians it may be of interest to see how far a particular social development can be amplified or clarified by the idea of reflexive modernisation. For practitioners the discussion may be useful in attempting to place their work in a broader theoretical context of societal change. Beck, for those unfamiliar with his work, is a German sociologist influenced by the Green movement and by thinkers such as Habermas and Giddens. He is a populariser and writes regularly in the German press in addition to his academic work.3 He is perhaps best known for Risk Society (1986), however, in this piece I will draw more from his later work, The Reinvention of Politics 1 M. Ward and SpaleWatson, Here to Stay, p. 2. 2 J. Pearce, At the Heart of the Community Economy, p. 23. 3 See S. Lash and B. Wynne in their Introduction to U. Beck’s, Risk Society, p. 1. 4 MIKE AIKEN (1997) and Reflexive Modernisation (1994), the last a collaborative work with Scott Lash and Anthony Giddens. Beck, while not the originator of the term ‘reflexive modernisation’, has used it extensively in his writings and been one of the leading exponents of its use. This article is structured in the following way. The first part describes the idea of reflexive modernisation as espoused by Beck and suggests some broad areas where the theory may illuminate activities in the social economy. The second part describes the idea of the social economy and examines some specific examples. The third section looks at some ways they can be viewed through the theoretical lens of reflexive modernisation and offers some critical thoughts. I The idea of reflexive modernisation describes, at its simplest, the notion that we are moving into a third stage of social development within modernity. Beck has subtitled his influential Risk Society ‘towards a new modernity’. Lash and Wynne, in their introduction to Risk Society suggest there was ‘first pre-modernity, then simple modernity and finally reflexive modernity’.4 In other words, traditional society was first supplanted by the industrial society which might be called simple modernity. This period saw the emergence of classes, wealth accumulation, rapid scientific advance and the arrival of industrial and capitalist society. We are now, it is suggested, in the grip of the consequences of a shift from that second phase of simple modernity to a third phase, which for Beck, is the period of reflexive modernity. A characteristic of this period is the apparent continuity of industrial society through the change. The underlying nature of this new industrial society is, however, very different from the old. It is now faced not with the problem of harnessing or controlling nature for the benefit of humankind but ‘essentially with problems resulting from techno- economic development itself’. 5 It is in this sense that Beck says 4 Ibid. p. 3. 5 Ibid. p. 19. 7 REFLEXIVE MODERNISATION social economy organisations which can be seen as examples of such alternative sites. The notion of reflexive modernisation as exemplified by Beck can certainly be seen as expressing a more optimistic alternative to the postmodern theses, with the importance of human agency figuring strongly. This is a second area of importance for those active in social economy activities. It is highlighted by McMylor who comments that throughout Beck’s work there is an increasing tendency for the ‘freeing of agency from structure’ and a multiplying process of ‘individuation’ which offers hope for a changed future ‘of alternative modernities’. He goes on to describe Beck’s work as representing, in sociological terms, ‘the return of repressed agency after decades of domination by structural determinism in both functionalist and Marxist forms’.13 The mechanism for this influence is the operation of sub-politics, to be discussed below, and it is in this sense that there is a reinstatement of the importance of the activist in social change. Beck suggests that as a result of the increasing power of technological and economic forces, governance structures are changing rapidly which brings us to a third area of importance for examining social economy organisations. Towards the end of Risk Society Beck talks of an ‘unbinding of politics’ in the new modernity.14 He describes how the forces of industry, technology and business interpenetrate the mechanisms of parliament, parties and government in such a way as to leave the latter following belatedly behind changes that have already moved into place. In this scenario decisions are not taken by government ‘revolution under the cloak of normality occurs’ and is then justified post-hoc by regulatory frameworks. The apparent policy makers are bounced along in the wake of technological and industrial progress. It is in this way that politics and decision making shifts to new sites. One way to imagine this is to consider significant changes in society 13 P. McMylor, ‘Goods and Bads’, p. 53. 14 Risk Society:Towards a New Modernity p. 185. 8 MIKE AIKEN occurring which are not led by government legislation or reform but by action in a wide range of different locations. This might be in individual choices at the supermarket checkout; in decisions between patient and doctor around fertility issues, or in the boardroom, laboratory, or home; at the motorway construction protest; or, I would argue, in the creation of new forms of social wealth characteristic of social economy endeavour. In summary, as Beck points out in Reflexive Modernisation ‘we look for politics on the wrong pages of our newspapers’.15 Beck is not arguing against the importance of government in the manner of, say, the New Right, but pointing to how this role is changing in an era where the pace of development is rapid. What is being asserted is that ‘High speed industrial dynamism is sliding into a new society without the primeval explosion of a revolution, bypassing political debates and decisions of parliaments and governments’.16 He goes on to point to the puzzle this creates for our democracies as well as how it undermines traditional ideas like class conflict born in an earlier modernity. The idea that the transition from one social epoch to another could take place unintended and unpolitically, bypassing all the forums for political decisions, the lines of conflict and the partisan controversies, contradicts the democratic self-understanding of this society.17 This brings us to a fourth area of importance for the social economy. Beck sees sub-politics is one of the new sites for effecting social transformation which has, he suggests, in many cases, taken over the role of what was previously undertaken by central agencies including the state. Sub-politics, the ‘shaping of society from below’ covers activities which take place outside the apparent political 15 ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization’, p. 18. 16 Ibid. pp. 2-3. 17 The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order, p. 17. 9 REFLEXIVE MODERNISATION structure.18 In this connection he cites the example of an escalating conflict between demonstrators and the nuclear industry at the intended reprocessing plant at Wackersdorf which ended when the company simply decided to move the plant on financial grounds to France thus ending the protest.19 The point here is that the crisis barely touched the official political process. In this new era sub-politics begins to exert its influence on the change process. Beck elaborates this concept as when ‘agents outside the political or corporatist system are allowed to appear on the stage of social design’.20 Such groups include a wide range of professional and organised groupings inside research institutes, organisations and industrial plants as well as citizen action groups, individuals and collectives. Beck goes on to point how the dominant themes of the current political agenda have arisen from sub-politics. The themes of the future … have not originated from the farsightedness of the rulers or from the struggle in parliament — and certainly not from the cathedrals of power in business, science and the state. They have been put on the social agenda … by entangled, moralising groups and splinter groups … Sub-politics has won a quite improbable thematic victory. 21 Sub-politics does not represent simply the ‘good’ — it is also open to forces of extreme nationalism and racism. What Beck is reinforcing here is that the sites of power and action have changed in this new modernity opening up new channels for confrontation for both ‘progressive’ and ‘repressive’ forces. ‘Sub-politics is, or 18 ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization’, p. 23. 19 The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order p. 105. 20 ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization’, p. 22. 21 Ibid. p. 19. 12 MIKE AIKEN to mean ‘organisations that trade for a social purpose’28 so as to include a continuum of organisations with social concerns. While the EU definition can act as a broad guide, the term is not uncontested. Authors such as Perri 6 see it in analytical terms as a very temporary conceptual frame.29 Others argue for the term to denote a smaller realm, a new wave radical movement for gaining economic control from below by bringing neglected people ‘out of the shadows’.30 This narrower definition seeks to locate initiatives that are smaller, more radical, and newer in conception. Birkhölzer, for example, suggests the old social economy movement of co- operatives and mutuals from the nineteenth century has failed. This earlier tradition has since ‘lost more and more of its social orientation and turned into ordinary private companies, or the private objects dominated the social objects’. He goes on to say that ‘the failure of the old social economy movement led to the formation of a “new social economy movement” based on the same principles’.31 This newer movement involves the principles of self help, mutual aid and community orientation. For the purposes of this paper I am examining the activities of entities in this narrower range. Drawn in this way the activities of social economy organisations can, I suggest, be viewed as a variety of ‘sub politics’ as described by Beck. One of the most conspicuous examples of social economy enterprises in the sense just described is that of the Coin Street Community Builders. Located on the South Bank in London, less than a mile from Parliament, this initiative grew from a community campaign in the 1980s to combat a vast redevelopment. In this case the threat to the locality was a building project that would have created a vast swathe of offices along the four mile water front. The initial plans were fought by a combination of tenants’ groups, 28 J.Pearce, At the Heart of the Community Economy, p. 32. 29 P. 6, ‘Conclusion: will anyone talk about the Third Sector in 10 Years Time?’, p. 404. 30 K. Birkhölzer, ‘Social Economy, Community Economy’, p. 42. 31 Ibid. p. 42. 13 REFLEXIVE MODERNISATION squatters and trade unionists through two public enquiries. A revised plan of futuristic luxury flats and offices was described by local people as ‘“a new Berlin Wall cutting us off from the bright lights of the West End”’.32 Through a mixture of tenacity on the part of the campaign, a supportive Conservative minister, and the actions of the Labour GLC (the then local authority for London), the Coin Street Community Builders acquired the land for mixed use development for community benefit. They took out a £1 million loan and began to develop the site. Today the area contains low-cost housing for local people, a pub, a temporary area of cafés and small shops, gardens and a riverside walk. In addition the OXO Tower Wharf has now been refurbished and plays host to ‘78 co-operative low-cost flats, 33 designer workshops and galleries, 12 shops and a 400-seat popular food hall’.33 While the form and style of community involvement will never be unproblematic34 there is ample evidence of valuing the role of local people in driving forward this initiative. The spirit and scope of the activity is well captured by Pearce: As you enter their street, called the Upper Ground, a huge banner dominates the sky proclaiming: “There is another way. That way is for the local people to have control, to lead development, to own the development.”35 Coin Street is one of the biggest of over 140 such organisations known as ‘development trusts’ which describe themselves as ‘an important part of the jigsaw which comprises the social economy’.36 A second example from the same movement is North Kensington Amenity Trust (NKAT) in west London which grew from a campaign against the dereliction a new motorway was set to cause. 32 N. Jeffrey,‘Coin Street Yields a High Return’, p. 33. 33 M. Ward and S.Watson, Here to Stay, p. 16. 34 N. Jeffrey, ‘Coin Street Yields a High Return’, p. 33. 35 J. Pearce, ‘Community Enterprises in Scotland’, p. 154. 36 Development Trusts Association, ‘Introductory Leaflet 1998’, p. 1. 14 MIKE AIKEN It can now claim over 700 jobs existing on the site it has developed under the Westway motorway. It has assets of over £8 million and is financially self sufficient for core income. In addition to running sports and community activities in purpose designed buildings, it undertakes community development work, encourages small firms and charities and has distributed over £90,000 in grants to local organisations.37 A local activist reflected on the thinking that led to the current organisational shape in this way: There were no models. People basically knew they wanted the land developed but they were not sure how it would work out …. The best outcome is a strong independent Amenity Trust not beholden to the local authority with an income and a future of its own.38 Both examples give an indication, I suggest, of the importance of social actors within such organisations for creating alternative sites for taking economic action in disadvantaged areas. It should be stressed that in any singular initiative a deeper analysis of the interplay between the state, the market and the organisation could be undertaken to see whether the espoused rhetoric is congruent with the activity. Indeed other authors have looked at cases where, for example, much independence has been lost to the state.39 Such analysis is, of course, of vital importance but that is not my main aim here. For my purpose in this paper I need to assert that at least some initiatives do behave in ways like those claimed by Pearce and Birkhölzer. My intention in the next section, then, is to examine whether such successful projects can be better situated, and hence understood, by employing Beck’s idea of reflexive modernisation. III The first and most obvious feature to highlight from these brief sketches is the importance of social actors. The struggle to find ‘a model’ at NKAT demonstrates the active development process at 37 North Kensington Amenity Trust, Annual Report 1998, p. 6. 38 A. Duncan, Taking on the Motorway, p. 73. 39 C. Collins, ‘The Dialogics of “Community”’, p. 91-93. 17 REFLEXIVE MODERNISATION crucial support at different times from either local or national government — clearly no initiative is hermetically sealed — but nevertheless these projects were developed outside the conventional policy making framework. It has only been in more recent years that official policy has looked with renewed interest at such projects. Thake, an informed commentator on urban development in the UK, reflected on exactly this point in his analysis of the work of community based regeneration initiatives in tackling poverty. ‘What is surprising, perhaps, is that so many organisations have survived or emerged when the policy frameworks have not been supportive.’43 More recently we can spot signs of state recognition emerging. In 1998 the DETR acknowledged over eight varieties of community- based regeneration which correspond with Birkhölzer and Pearce’s conception of the new social economy movement, including credit unions, micro-credit initiatives, community loan funds, Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS), community enterprises, development trusts, managed workspaces and community shops and pubs; in short, initiatives that have been: brought about by a community in order to meet social, environmental, or economic needs it has identified. The community might set up and run this initiative, persuade other bodies to undertake the work for them, or get involved in local partnerships which attract support from government mainstream regeneration programmes.44 What I believe we are seeing here is the state beginning to examine and make sense of activities in the social economy. These kinds of projects — not unique to the UK — have in small ways, I suggest, begun to contribute to setting the ‘themes for the future’. Even the World Bank is now looking at ideas of micro- 43 Thake, Staying the Course, p. 66. 44 DETR, Community Based Regeneration Initiatives: a Working Paper, p. 3. 18 MIKE AIKEN credit pioneered by many social economy activists as a way of increasing economic prosperity in developing countries.45 The idea that such small scale groups have confronted the human constructed problems of unemployment and disadvantage and created in small ways some viable alternatives lends additional credence to Beck’s suggestion of how sub-politics outstrips the pace of intentional government policy. Taking these points together I would argue that certain social economy activities can be seen as a variety of sub-politics in action. I would contend that through the lens of reflexive modernisation we may be seeing examples of small scale initiatives which find their ways round the increasingly complex fractures in modern society and arrive with both novel structures and solutions — ahead of policy makers. We are seeing local actors creating alternative structures to meet their needs within the framework of the existing society. The market economy is not overthrown but made use of, recreated and in some ways subverted. Some social economy organisations, for example, describing themselves as ‘small and medium sized enterprises’46 are entering the business world, but with a very different ethos and aim. Social economy activities contain a strong ethical component with a sometimes latent, sometimes explicit, political manifestation. This may be realised in economic, environmental or social terms but means that values are inserted into the heart of social and economic activity. This may also in time represent a ‘thematic victory’ for a future political agenda. It would be unsurprising if these initiatives could not be critiqued through the eyepiece of what Beck might call simple modernity. Such an argument might suggest that such organisations operate on the fringe of the market and the state and endanger neither. As long as this state of affairs remains true they will be tolerated and 45 See the World Bank initiative ‘Sustainable Banking with the Poor’ which has published numerous case studies on micro-finance initiatives: ccuevas@worldbank.org 46 BASSAC, Case Studies in the Social Economy, p. 27. 19 REFLEXIVE MODERNISATION when it does not they will be subsumed or co-opted into either the state or the market. They may have engaged, it might be argued, in some useful experiments in the design of organisations and funding to combat some social disadvantage, and have developed some forms of local accountability, and even a measure of financial independence. Additionally, entrepreneurial activity within the realms of the not-for-profit sector could be seen as the final victory of a free market hegemony penetrating the realm of social action and further weakening the idea of a universalist welfare state. Overall, this argument would run, social economy organisations play no role in a broader picture of social transformation. It would be right to retain a critical stance towards social economy initiatives for those intent on a progressive political agenda. They may become appropriated by the state (and there is evidence of this happening in some places).47 In choosing to place themselves in the market they escape some of the strictures of local or national funding regimes but become subject to the demands of the commercial world. There is always a danger that they may become like the ‘old social economy’ movement, merely resembling other operators in the market economy and not operating in the way they claim. Examining such initiatives through the lens of reflexive modernisation does give us another way to assess such questions. Reflexive modernisation would expect us to witness the arrival of initiatives which aim to gain economic/political control but in non- traditional ways, and in new and unusual sites. We can view such activities as a variety of sub-politics which offers new arenas of economic and political power. In that sense, such initiatives may form part of a new, more pluralistic, institutional framework for governance. Few of these organisations would ever claim, in the bold terms of simple modernity, to be ‘revolutionary’. They can, however, play a part alongside many other actors in the social economy in the transformation of their neighbourhoods and communities in ways that sometimes confound both state and 47 C. Collins, ‘The Dialogics of “Community”’, p. 91-93.