Levels of Knowldege Changed but Society Is Still the Same.

TMA 04 QUESTION 1

‘Our levels of knowledge of it may have changed but society is still much the same as it was in the 1950s.’ Discuss this view in approximately 1500 words, drawing on material from at least two blocks of DD122

We live in a society that can be characterized by increasing production and use of knowledge. Knowledge forms the basis of our collective understandings of the world and shapes the society in which we live. In the last 50 years many believe we have seen dramatic changes in the UK society, from the liberation of woman’s rights and a move away from patriarchy, a claimed rise in crime and the nature of crimes, a ‘globalizing world’ and a diversity of knowledge and power. Some claim these changes are negative and a descent from the ‘golden age’ where life was more certain, family roles set; a job was for life and society was more secure, leading to the conclusion that these changes have caused uncertainty. Others would claim that these changes have been liberating and seen a spread of power, creating more opportunities and allowing the people to use more agency against social and institutional structures; leading to the conclusion that there is more diversity.

On the other hand there are those who would argue that, although “our levels of knowledge my have changed, society is still much the same as it was in the 1950s.” To evaluate this statement I intend to focus on globalization and in particular technological changes, and will consider if we have seen a change from the ‘golden age’. I will be drawing primarily from Block 1 & 2 from “A globalizing world? Culture, economics, politics” book 4 By David Held. Also I will examine evidence from ‘Knowledge and the social sciences’ Block 1 of ‘Knowledge in medicine’ by Kath Woodward and Stuart Watt

To appraise which theorist you agree with, you need to consider the empirical adequacy: in quantitative terms; does it add up? The coherence of the argument: whether it makes sense, is it logical and plausible. Finally, the comprehensiveness of the theory should be considered, taking into account a wide range of factors and cases. Firstly we will look at globalization to explore some of these changes and their significance.

Positive globalists would argue people around the world are more connected to each other than ever before. Information and money flow quicker than ever. Products made in one part of a county are available to the rest of the world. It is much easier for people to travel, communicate and do business internationally. This whole phenomenon has been called globalization. Globalization has many different dimensions, which include economic, cultural, environmental and political. For the positive globalist this is seen established on a worldwide scale, transcending national boundaries to create what Ohmae called “a borderless world” (Kelly, 2004, p17). This occurs through the migration of people and the transfer of ideas, information and commodities. Globalisation is a much used, some might say overused term which depending on your sociological outlook can be a good thing, an awful inevitability, something to be treated circumspectly or nothing new and therefore relatively unimportant in terms of national values.

Globalisation (although a contested concept) many believe has created social change on a wider diversity. The advent of the ‘knowledge society’ and technological change has simultaneously resulted in a new source of knowledge, communication and interaction across the globe. This wider availability of diverse sources of knowledge, often by competing perspectives, break away from solely ‘expert’ and traditional knowledge that has been challenged today could be seen as creating more opportunity and allowing people to exercise more agency with the click of a button.

Communication like the internet is one medium through which many theorists see stretched social relations and opportunities for sharing of cultures and understanding between different nations making us all ‘world citizens’. However it would be naive to assume that every person world wide has access to all or any of the new technologies for example how many telephone masts are found in the wilds of Africa or the ‘bush ‘ of Australia, and how many African villagers have internet access?

In contrast, an Inter-nationalist would argue that the term ‘globalization’ itself is merely a buzzword to describe a process that has occurred throughout history. Inter-nationalists see the importance of globalization as greatly exaggerated. Theirs is a sceptical view, essentially agency based using history to support their argument that globalization represents nothing new. They argue rather than the internet revolutionising global communications, they point out that the invention