individualisation thesis family sociology

• Books, Journals, Papers
• Guides & How To’s
• Life Around The World
• Research Methods
• Functionalism
• Postmodernism
• Social Constructionism
• Structuralism
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Sociology Theorists
• General Sociology
• Social Policy
• Social Work
• Sociology of Childhood
• Sociology of Crime & Deviance
• Sociology of Art
• Sociology of Dance
• Sociology of Food
• Sociology of Sport
• Sociology of Disability
• Sociology of Economics
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Emotion
• Sociology of Family & Relationships
• Sociology of Gender
• Sociology of Health
• Sociology of Identity
• Sociology of Ideology
• Sociology of Inequalities
• Sociology of Knowledge
• Sociology of Language
• Sociology of Law
• Sociology of Anime
• Sociology of Film
• Sociology of Gaming
• Sociology of Literature
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of TV
• Sociology of Migration
• Sociology of Nature & Environment
• Sociology of Politics
• Sociology of Power
• Sociology of Race & Ethnicity
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Sexuality
• Sociology of Social Movements
• Sociology of Technology
• Sociology of the Life Course
• Sociology of Travel & Tourism
• Sociology of Violence & Conflict
• Sociology of Work
• Urban Sociology
• Changing Relationships Within Families
• Conjugal Role Relationships
• Criticisms of Families
• Family Forms
• Functions of the Family
• Featured Articles
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Individualisation: Understanding its Significance and Implications

Table of Contents

Theoretical foundations of individualisation, dimensions of individualisation, implications of individualisation.

• Critiques and Counterarguments

Individualisation is a crucial concept in contemporary sociology that reflects the transformation of social structures and personal identities in late modernity. It signifies a shift from traditional, collective forms of social life to a society where individuals are increasingly responsible for their own life choices and identities. This concept has been extensively explored by sociologists like Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens , who argue that the processes of globalisation, technological advancement, and changing socio-economic conditions have led to new forms of individualism. This essay aims to outline and explain the concept of individualisation, its theoretical foundations, and its implications for understanding social life in modern societies.

Classical Theories of Individualism

Individualisation can be traced back to classical sociological theories, which often contrasted individual agency with social structure. Émile Durkheim, for instance, discussed the concept of ‘anomie,’ a state of normlessness resulting from the breakdown of social norms and values , which leads to increased individualism. Max Weber’s work on the ‘Protestant Ethic’ and the ‘spirit of capitalism’ also highlighted how individualistic values were integral to the development of modern capitalist societies. These early theories laid the groundwork for understanding how individuals navigate and negotiate their positions within changing social structures.

The Reflexive Modernisation Thesis

Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens have been central to the contemporary understanding of individualisation through their reflexive modernisation thesis. Beck’s concept of the ‘risk society’ suggests that in late modernity , individuals must constantly negotiate and manage risks in a rapidly changing world. This creates a necessity for self-reflection and personal decision-making, leading to greater individualisation. Giddens similarly argues that in a ‘runaway world,’ traditional frameworks of identity and community are destabilised, necessitating a continual process of self-identity construction through reflexivity.

The Role of Globalisation

Globalisation has significantly influenced individualisation by transforming economic, cultural, and social landscapes. The global flow of information, capital, and people has eroded traditional boundaries and created a more interconnected world. This interconnectedness fosters a sense of individual agency as people are exposed to diverse lifestyles and ideologies , compelling them to make conscious choices about their own identities and social roles. The global context thus provides a backdrop for the processes of individualisation, where traditional social anchors are weakened, and individuals must navigate a complex web of possibilities and risks.

Economic Individualisation

Economic changes have played a crucial role in fostering individualisation. The shift from industrial to post-industrial economies has resulted in more flexible, knowledge-based labour markets. In these new economies, individuals are often required to take responsibility for their own career paths, leading to the concept of the ‘portfolio worker,’ who must continuously update their skills and adapt to changing job markets. This economic individualisation is characterised by a decline in stable, lifelong employment and an increase in short-term contracts, freelancing, and gig work, which require a high degree of personal initiative and self-management.

Social and Cultural Individualisation

Social and cultural individualisation refers to the transformation of traditional social ties and cultural norms . In contemporary societies, traditional institutions like the family, religion , and community have lost their centrality, leading to more fluid and diverse forms of social relationships and cultural expressions. Individuals are now more likely to construct their own social networks and cultural identities rather than inheriting them from previous generations. This process is facilitated by technological advancements, particularly the internet and social media , which provide platforms for self-expression and the formation of virtual communities based on shared interests and values.

Political Individualisation

Political individualisation involves the changing nature of political engagement and citizenship. In modern societies, traditional forms of political participation, such as voting and party membership, have declined, while new forms of activism and engagement have emerged. Individuals are more likely to engage in issue-based politics, social movements, and digital activism, reflecting a shift towards more personalised and flexible forms of political involvement. This trend highlights the increasing importance of individual agency in shaping political agendas and influencing social change.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Mr Edwards has a PhD in sociology and 10 years of experience in sociological knowledge

Related Articles

Understanding and Challenging Social Inequality: An Introduction to Critical Theory

Learn about the origins and key concepts of critical theory, including Max Horkheimer and the Frankfurt School. Explore how critical...

Understanding Organic Solidarity in Sociology

Learn about the concept of organic solidarity in sociology, its definition, origins, and characteristics. Discover the significance of organic solidarity...

Social Globalisation: Impact on Society

Understanding C. Wright Mills' "The Sociological Imagination"

The Role of Risk in Second Modernity: A Sociological Perspective

Get the latest sociology.

Would you be interested in enrolling in courses from Easy Sociology?

Recommended

Messianic Movements

Economism: A Sociological Perspective

24 hour trending, understanding research ethics in sociology, pierre bourdieu’s symbolic violence: an outline and explanation, the work and contributions of emile durkheim in sociology, robert merton’s strain theory: understanding societal pressure and deviance, the connection between education and social stratification.

Easy Sociology makes sociology as easy as possible. Our aim is to make sociology accessible for everybody. © 2023 Easy Sociology

© 2023 Easy Sociology

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Individualisation Thesis

The individualisation thesis was created by Chambers who argues that traditional relationships, roles and beliefs have lost their influence over individuals. As a result of increased individualisation, individuals have become increasingly inwardly focused and concerned about how society and networks can be used to provide instant gratification for them.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Individualism and Families

DOI link for Individualism and Families

Get Citation

Almost all women and men claim that gender equality within their relationships is the ideal. In practice, however, equality is not predominant within many couples and families. This book develops current debates about individualisation within families – particularly how partners understand and resolve tensions between the need for togetherness and personal autonomy, and how partners view and work with increasing gender equality.

Individualism and Families is based on a large Swedish study from two of the foremost European experts on the sociology of the family. The study looks particularly at partnering, parenting, intimacy, commitments, attitudes to finances and gender divisions of labour.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 | 6  pages, introduction, chapter 2 | 10  pages, gender equality in families, chapter 3 | 11  pages, autonomy and togetherness, chapter 4 | 12  pages, negotiations, conditions and strategies, chapter 5 | 25  pages, division of labour in the household, chapter 6 | 18  pages, how is equality in division of labour created, chapter 7 | 22  pages, sharing and allocating money, chapter chaper 8 | 42  pages, posing boundaries and managing conflicts, chapter 9 | 15  pages, the multifaceted gender equality, chapter | 5  pages.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Impact of Individualization on Families and Personal Relationships

Related Papers

Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas)

Carolina Campos Borges

The present paper discusses the results of a research that had as its main purpose to analyze the life projects of individuals belonging to different generations within the last decades, with special emphasis on the role played by establishing a family in such projects. Speeches of 20 individuals (10 men and 10 women) from two generations were analyzed. The study pointed out that the profound contemporary sociocultural changes have led to increasing individualism in the relationships, and consequently have altered the way people engage in building their life courses. Two things have been occurring simultaneously. On the one hand, life courses are being individualized and previous standards are being broken, a phenomenon linked to the reduction of gender asymmetries and to the questioning of the institutions. On the other hand, the family model based on marital stability is being repelled. Due to the instability of love relationships, children are gaining importance in the structurin...

Australian Left Review

Anna Yeatman

Research Journal, department of Islamic history and culture, university of Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Dr. sumaiya ahmed

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

hafsah ayaz

Peter Abrahamson

The British Journal of Sociology

Beccy Shipman

Clara Shosho Wakutaipa

Current Sociology

Sasha Roseneil , Shelley Budgeon

The Linacre Quarterly

Allan Carlson

Emmanuel Caliwan, J.D.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

HİLAL PALABIYIK GÜRECİ

mahshid shahidi

Rahimah Embong

Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Pristini

Jasmina Petrovic

Sílvia Costa

Boban Stanojević , Jasmina Petrovic

Global Experience Industries

Gordon Babst

International Journal of Criminology and Sociology

Lifescience Global Canada

Razia Sultana

Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology

Brandon Koble

Jeremy G . A . Ive

Journal of Applied Philosophy

Laurie Shrage

Greta Kaceviciute

Rad muzeja Vojvodine

Aleksandra Smirnov-Brkić

Susanne Dahlgren

Independent Journal of Management & Production

Israel Studies Review

Reina Reiner

ISSRA Papers

sarfraz ansari

hadi amroni

Sanjai Bhatt

Mihaela Gotea

kameel Ahmady

Soziale Welt

Sang-Jin Han

Frank Hinkelmann

SCIREA Journal of Sociology

Phd(c) Suada Hawa

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

The Postmodern Perspective on the Family

Table of Contents

Last Updated on July 4, 2024 by Karl Thompson

Postmodernists argue that recent social changes such as increasing social fragmentation, greater diversity and technological changes have made family more a matter of personal choice and as a result families have become more unstable and more diverse.

In postmodern society there is no longer one typical type of family such as the nuclear family, rather there is huge diversity of family types and it is no longer possible to make general theories about the role of the family in society like Functionalists and Marxists have done in the past.

Postmodernity, Social Change and the Family

During the later part of modernity (around 1850-1950) society was clearly structured along social class lines with clear gender norms and the nuclear family formed part of (what at least appeared to be) a stable social structure.

Since the 1950s we have seen a shift to a postmodern society which is more global, fragmented (fractured), culturally diverse, consumerist, media saturated, uncertain and in which individuals have more freedom of choice.

The changes associated with postmodernity since the 1950s have changed the nature of the family: now that people have more choices, families are less stable and more diverse.

How has postmodernity changed the family?

Furthermore there is no longer one dominant family type (such as the nuclear family). This means it is no longer possible to make generalisations about the role of the (nuclear) family society in the same way that modernist theories such as Functionalism did.

The rest of this post now considers two specific post-modern thinkers about the family – Judith Stacey and Tamara Hareven.

Stacey (1998) “The Divorce-Extended Family”

Judith Stacey argues that women have more freedom than ever before to shape their family arrangement to meet their needs and free themselves from patriarchal oppression. Through case studies conducted in Silicon Valley, California she found that women rather than men are the driving force behind changes in the family.

Hareven (1978) “Life Course Analysis”

This approach recognises that there is flexibility and variation in people’s lives, for example the choices and decisions they make and when they make them. For example, when they decide to raise children, choosing sexuality or moving into sheltered accommodation in old age.

Supporting evidence for the postmodern perspective on the family

Increasing family diversity.

Marginalised Families is a website where people in diverse family structures can share their stories. It is designed to give more voice to non-nuclear families and provides some interesting case studies in family diversity.

More people are choosing to stay single than ever (5), but they are not isolated or lonely. In fact single people are more social than people in nuclear families and tend to have a broader conception of the family: in which they include friends, neighbours and ex-partners, thus challenging traditional definitions of the family.

Low levels of belief in marriage

Only 22% of the UK population thinks it matters that people are married before they have children: YouGov survey (2023) does marriage and children matter ?

Criticisms of Postmodern Views on the Family

Contemporary Feminists disagree with Postmodernism, pointing out that in most cases traditional gender roles which disadvantage women remain the norm.

Signposting and Related Posts 

The Personal Life Perspective on the Family .

If you like this sort of thing, you might also like these revision videos on YouTube .

Share this:

2 thoughts on “the postmodern perspective on the family”, leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Individualisation: Beyond Class and Social Communities?

• First Online: 11 December 2021

Cite this chapter

• Klaus Rasborg 2  

1207 Accesses

1 Citations

Environmental issues may have been the starting point for Beck’s general diagnosis of the risk society, as noted in Chap. 3 , but the concept is not only tied in with damage inflicted on the planet but also in a broader sense with the de-traditionalisation and individualisation of modern society. On the one hand, this process frees us from traditional ways of life and communities (the church, the local area, classes, political parties, the family, etc.); on the other hand, it exacerbates existential uncertainty, as we lose what were previously the fixed anchors in life (Beck, 1992 [1986]: part 2). This process brings us to the second key component in Beck’s diagnosis of the risk society: his ‘individualisation thesis’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The German sociologist Markus Schroer, to whom Beck refers with regard to individualisation (Beck & Willms, 2004 : 62), distinguishes between three different lines of tradition in classical and modern sociology, each representing a particular view of individualisation: (1) ‘positive individualisation’ characterised by a ‘dangerous individual’ (Durkheim, Parsons and Luhmann); (2) ‘negative individualisation’ characterised by an ‘endangered individual’ (Weber , Horkheimer, Adorno and Foucault) and (3) ‘ambivalent individualisation’ characterised by a ‘risk individual’ (Simmel , Elias and Beck) (Schroer, 2000 ).

In the context of Beck’s ‘cosmopolitan turn’, which we will look at more closely in Chap. 7 , it is intriguing that Simmel identifies a link between individualisation and cosmopolitanism/cosmopolitanisation in modern society as early as 1888.

Beck’s concept of ‘individualisation’ (liberation) and Giddens’ concept of ‘disembedding’ can to a large degree be seen as congruent concepts, even though the latter cannot be reduced simply to the former.

The concept of ‘institutionalised individualism’ originates from Parsons, who refers to the fact that (utilitarian) self-interest and solidarity (altruism) are not necessarily opposites but can in fact go hand in hand in modern society (Parsons, 1978 : 321 f.). Beck, however, prefers to speak of ‘institutional individuali sation ’ because he wants to avoid the confusion of individualisation’s ‘objective’ dimension (individualisation) with its ‘subjective’ dimension (individualism) (Beck, 2007 : 682, 702, note 6).

The later—cosmopolitan—Beck (cf. Chap. 7 ) also critiques his own theory of individualisation for having been too closely tied to a nation-state perspective (Beck, 2007 : 680, 687).

Although Beck refers to Simmel when addressing the relationship between individualisation and standardisation (Beck, 1992 [1986]: 130–31), when it comes to the relationship between individualisation and cosmopolitanisation in modern society, he does not seem to be aware of the connection to Simmel and refers to Durkheim instead (Beck, 2010 : 96).

Here, Ziehe seems to follow Habermas’ ( 1997 ) distinction between, on the one hand, morals (norms), which relate to ‘the right’ (Kant ) and can therefore be generalised and, on the other hand, ethics (values), which are about ‘the good’ (Aristotle’s ‘the good life’), which will always be bound to particular life forms and therefore cannot be generalised (Ziehe, 1997 : 131).

While Beck does not make any explicit references to Ziehe, Ziehe occasionally refers explicitly to Beck (e.g. Ziehe, 2004 : 173 and 215). For example, Ziehe states that with regard to the diagnosis of the times: ‘I am close to the concept of ‘second modernity’ in Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens’ (Ziehe, 2004 : 8). One possible explanation for this silence may be that Ziehe is often perceived as an exponent of a socio-psychological approach to individualisation, an approach from which Beck explicitly distances himself in an overview of research contributions to the German individualisation debate, only including sociological ones (Beck, 1995b : 186–87).

Atkinson, W. (2007). Beck, Individualization and the Death of Class: A Critique. The British Journal of Sociology, 58 (3), 349–366.

Article   Google Scholar  

Atkinson, W. (2010). Class, Individualization and Late Modernity: In Search of the Reflexive Worker . Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bauman, Z. (2000a). Liquid Modernity . Polity Press.

Google Scholar  

Bauman, Z. (2000b). Ethics of Individuals. In T. Krohn (Ed.), Individualisierung und soziologische Theorie . Leske + Budrich.

Bauman, Z. (2001). Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World . Polity Press.

Bauman, Z. (2002). Individually, Together. In U. Beck & E. Beck-Gernsheim (Eds.), Individualization. Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences . Sage.

Beck, U. (1983). Jenseits von Klasse und Stand? Soziale Ungleichheit, gesellschaftliche Individualisierungsprozesse und die Entstehung neuer sozialer Formationen und Identitäten. In Soziale Welt (pp. 35–74 . Sonderband 2). Soziale Ungleichheiten.

Beck, U. (1992 [1986]). The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity . Sage.

Beck, U. (1994). The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernization . Polity Press.

Beck, U. (1995a). Eigenes Leben. Skizzen zu einer biographischen Gesellschaftsanalyse. In U. Beck, W. Vossenkuhl, & U. E. Ziegler (Eds.), Eigenes Leben. Ausflüge in die unbekannte Gesellschaft, in der wir leben . C. H. Beck.

Beck, U. (1995b). Die “Individualisierungsdebatte”. In B. Schäfers (Ed.), Soziologie in Deutschland. Entwicklung, Institutionalisierung und Berufsfelder Theoretische Kontroversen . Leske + Budrich.

Beck, U. (1997a). The Reinvention of Politics. Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order . Polity Press.

Beck, U. (1997b). Die uneindeutige Sozialstruktur. Was heisst Armut, was Reichtum in der Selbst-Kultur? In U. Beck & P. Sopp (Eds.), Individualisierung und Integration. Neue Konfliktlinien und neuer Integrationsmodus? Leske + Budrich.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Beck, U. (2002a). Overgangen fra det første til det andet moderne – fem udfordringer. Slagmark, 34 , 79–93.

Beck, U. (2002b). Freedom’s Children. In U. Beck & E. Beck-Gernsheim (Eds.), Individualization . Sage.

Beck, U. (2007). Beyond class and nation: Reframing social inequalities in a globalizing world. The British Journal of Sociology, 58 (4), 679–705.

Beck, U. (2008). Die Neuvermessung der Ungleichheit unter den Menschen. SoziologischeAufklärung im 21. Jahrhundert. Eröffnungsvortrag zum Soziologentag ’Unsichere Zeiten’ am 6. Oktober 2008 in Jena . Suhrkamp.

Beck, U. (2010). A God of One’s Own. Religions Capacity for Peace and Potential for Violence . Polity Press.

Beck, U. (2013a) German Europe . Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. 2012b ‘Redefining the Sociological Project: The Cosmopolitan Challenge’. Sociology 46 (1): 7–12.

Beck, U. (2013b). Why ‘class’ is too soft a category to capture the explosiveness of social inequality at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The British Journal of Sociology 64 (1), 63–74.

Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Authors Preface: Instutionalized Individualism. In U. Beck & E. Beck-Gernsheim (Eds.), Individualization . Sage.

Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The Theory of Reflexive Modernization. Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme. Theory, Culture and Society, 20 (2), 1–33.

Beck, U., & Lau, C. (2005). Second Modernity as a Research Agenda: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations in the ‘meta-change’ of Modern Society. The British Journal of Sociology, 56 (4), 525–557.

Beck, U., & Sopp, P. (1997). Individualisierung und Integration – eine Problemskizze. In U. Beck & P. Sopp (Eds.), Individualisierung und Integration. Neue Konfliktlinien und neuer Integrationsmodus? Leske + Budrich.

Beck, U., & Willms, J. (2004). Conversations with Ulrich Beck . Polity Press.

Beck, U. (1998). The Democratization of the Family, or the Unknown Art of Free Association. In U. Beck (Ed.), Democracy without Enemies . Polity Press.

Becker, R., & Hadjar, A. (2015). “Individualisation” and class structure: How individual lives are still affected by social inequalities’. International Social Science Journal, 64 (213–214), 211–223.

Birkelund, G. E. (2000). Modernitetens flertydighed – økende individualisme eller stabil strukturel ulikhet? Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, 2 , 215–234.

Bourdieu, P. (1987). What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32 , 1–17.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action . Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology . Polity Press.

Brannen, J., & Nilsen, A. (2005). Individualisation, Choice and Structure: A Discussion of Current Trends in Sociological Analysis. The Sociological Review, 53 (3), 412–428.

Curran, D. (2013a). Risk Society and the Distribution of Bads: Theorizing Class in the Risk Society. The British Journal of Sociology, 64 (1), 44–62.

Curran, D. (2013b). What Is a Critical Theory of the Risk Society? A Reply to Beck. The British Journal of Sociology, 64 (1), 75–80.

Curran, D. (2018). Beck’s Creative Challenge to Class Analysis: From the Rejection of Class to the Discovery of Risk-Class. Journal of Risk Research, 21 (1), 29–40.

Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society . Sage.

Dean, M. (2003). Culture Governance and Individualisation. In H. P. Bang (Ed.), Governance as Social and Political Communication . Manchester University Press.

Durkheim, É. (1984 [1893]). The Division of Labour in Society. Macmillan Education.

Durkheim, É. (1989 [1897]). Suicide. A study in sociology . Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1979 [1976]). The History of Sexuality (Vol. 1) Allen Lane.

Foucault, M. (1991 [1975]). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin Books.

Friedrichs, J. (1998). Die Individualisierungs-These. Eine Explikation im Rahmen der Rational-Choice-Theorie. In J. Friedrichs (Ed.), Die Individualisierungs-These . Leske + Budrich.

Furlong, A., & Cartmel, F. (2007). Young People and Social Change. New Perspectives (2nd ed.). Open University Press.

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity . Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age . Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond Left and Right. The Future of Radical Politics . Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy . Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1984/87). The Theory of Communicative Action (Vol. 1 and 2). Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1992). Individuation Through Socialization. On G. H. Mead’s Theory of Subjectivity. In J. Habermas (Ed.), Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays . Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1997). Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy . Polity Press.

Honneth, A. (2004). Organized Self-Realization. Some Paradoxes of Individualization. European Journal of Social Theory, 7 (4), 463–478.

Howard, C. (2007a). Introducing Individualization. In C. Howard (Ed.), Contested Individualization. Debates About Contemporary Personhood . London/New York.

Howard, C. (2007b). Three Models of Individualized Biography. In C. Howard (Ed.), Contested Individualization. Debates About Contemporary Personhood . London/New York.

Junge, M. (2002). Individualisierung . Campus Verlag.

Kippele, F. (1998). Was heisst Individualisierung? Die Antworten soziologischer Klassiker . Westdeutscher Verlag.

Lash, S. (1994). Reflexivity and Its Doubles: Structure, Aesthetics, Community. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernization . Polity Press.

Levinsen, K. (2006). Individualisering og ungdom – en diskussion af Ulrich Becks individualiseringsbegreb. Tidsskrift for Ungdomsforskning, 6 (2), 41–58.

Marx, K. (1976 [1867]). Capital : A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1). Penguin Books.

Mills, M. (2007). Individualization and the Life Course: Toward a Theoretical Model and Empirical Evidence. In C. Howard (Ed.), Contested Individualization. Debates About Contemporary Personhood . Palgrave Macmillan.

Nollmann, G., & Strasser, H. (2007). Individualization as an Interpretive Scheme of Inequality: Why Class and Inequality Persist. In C. Howard (Ed.), Contested Individualization. Debates About Contemporary Personhood . Palgrave Macmillan.

Parsons, T. (1978). Religion in Postindustrial America: The Problem of Secularization. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Action Theory and the Human Condition . The Free Press.

Rasborg, K. (2003). Sociologien som samtidsdiagnose. In M. Hviid Jacobsen (Ed.), Sociologiske visioner – sytten bidrag fra en sociologisk brydningstid . Systime.

Rasborg, K. (2017). From Class Society to the Individualized Society? A Critical Reassessment of Individualization and Class. Irish Journal of Sociology, 25 (3), 229–249.

Sartre, J. -P. (2007 [1946]). Existentialism Is a Humanism. Yale University Press.

Savage, M. (2000). Class Analysis and Social Transformation . Open University Press.

Savage, M., et al. (2013). A New Model of Social Class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey Experiment. Sociology, 47 (2), 219–250.

Schroer, M. (2000). Negative, positive und ambivalente Individualisierung – erwartbare und überraschende Allianzen. In T. Krohn (Ed.), Individualisierung und soziologische Theorie . Leske + Budrich.

Sennett, R. (1998). Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism . W.W. Norton and Co.

Simmel, G. (1971 [1903]). The Metropolis and Mental Life. In D. N. Levine (Ed.), Georg Simmel. On Individuality and Social Forms. Selected Writings. The University of Chicago Press.

Simmel, G. (1983 [1888]). Die Ausdehnung der Gruppe und die Ausbildung der Individualität. In H. -J. Dahme & O. Rammstedt (Eds.), Georg Simmel. Schriften zur Soziologie. Suhrkamp.

Simmel, G. (2007 [1917]). Individualism. Theory, Culture & Society, 24 (7–8): 66–71.

Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, Self, Culture . Routledge.

Standing, G. (2014). The Precariat. The New Dangerous Class . Bloomsbury.

Tönnies, F. (2001 [1887/1935]). The Theory of Gesellschaft. In J. Harris (Ed.), Tönnies: Community and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press.

Twenge, J. M. (2014). Generation Me. Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled – And More Miserable Than Ever Before. Revised and Updated. ATRIA Paperback.

Weber, M. (1962 [1921/22]). Basic Concepts in Sociology. Greenwood Press.

Weber, M. (1992 [1904/05]). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Routledge.

Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (1997). Individualisierung: Differenzierungsprozess und Zurechnungsmodus. In U. Beck & P. Sopp (Eds.), Individualisierung und Integration. Neue Konfliktlinien und neuer Integrationsmodus . Leske + Budrich.

Ziehe, T. (1975). Pubertät und Narzissmus. Sind Jugendliche entpolitisiert? Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Ziehe, T. (1989). Ambivalens og mangfoldighed. Tekster om ungdom, skole, æstetik og kultur . Forlaget Politisk Revy.

Ziehe, T. (1997). Individualisering som det kulturelt forandrede selvforhold. Social Kritik, 9 (52–53), 129–135.

Ziehe, T. (2004). Øer af intensitet i et hav af rutine. Nye tekster om ungdom, skole og kultur . Forlaget Politisk Revy.

Ziehe, T., & Stubenrauch, H. (1982). Plädoyer für ungewönliches Lernen. Ideen zur Jugendsituation . Rowohlt.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Roskilde, Denmark

Klaus Rasborg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus Rasborg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Rasborg, K. (2021). Individualisation: Beyond Class and Social Communities?. In: Ulrich Beck. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89201-2_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89201-2_4

Published : 11 December 2021

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-89200-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-89201-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Sociology of Personal Life

The sociology of personal life takes a more interactionist approach to families and households, rather than a structural approach as seen in functionalism, Marxism and feminism.

Interactionist approaches

• Instead of looking at social structures (such as the family) interactionist approaches focus on the meaning people give to the intimate experiences and relationships which form their personal lives, such as sex, emotional intimacy, memories, friendships and disputes.

Accounting for diversity

• People are seen as having much more choice in how they decide to live their lives.
• Modern families and households are now very diverse and differ greatly from the traditional nuclear family, as described by functionalists and Marxists.

The individualisation thesis

• The individualisation thesis, attributed to late modern and postmodern theorists such as Giddens and Beck , suggests that traditional rules that govern personal relationships have weakened and become more fluid, unclear and uncertain, therefore, losing the influences over the lives of individuals.

Consequences of individualisation

• Growing individualisation means that relationships become more influenced by self-interest, love and friendship, rather than practical necessity.
• Individualisation also means that long-term relationships are no longer enforced by external standards and values or pressure of parents and wider kin.

Modern relationships

• People no longer stay together regardless of how well the relationship is going and has been replaced by confluent love based on intimate, pure relationship underpinned by personal trust, friendships, emotional intimacy and understanding.

Individualisation, Confluent Love & the Pure Relationship

Have relationships really been replaced by confluent love based on intimate, pure relationships underpinned by personal trust, friendships, emotional intimacy and understanding?

• Smart argues that the individualisation thesis exaggerates the extent of family decline.
• People don’t have as much choice in their personal lives as the individualisation thesis suggests and are still influenced by factors such as social class, gender, ethnicity and by cultural values.

Growing diversity

• The family is certainly more diverse, but is not declining; family now includes all kinds of personal relationships that are given family-like meanings by individuals.

• All personal relationships contribute to the formation of identity; people remain committed to long-term relationships based on emotional bonds, shared possessions, etc. that have meaning for them.

• The personal life approach suggests that relationships are based on the meaning people give to them; ‘family’ becomes what people choose to define it as, rather than being imposed by conventional definitions like those used by functionalists and Marxists.

• A problem with defining family in terms of the personal life approach, is that the lasting significance of kinship links based on blood and marriage are neglected.

1 Theory & Methods

1.1 Sociological Theories

1.1.1 Marxism

1.1.2 Feminism

1.1.3 Social Action Theories

1.2 Sociological Methods

1.2.1 Types of Data

1.2.2 Positivism & Interpretivism

1.2.3 Research Design

1.2.4 Research Considerations

1.2.5 Values in Research

1.2.6 Modernity & Post-Modernity

1.2.7 Sociology as a Science

1.2.8 Sociology & Social Policy

1.2.9 End of Topic Test - Sociology Methods & Theories

1.3 Sources of Data

1.3.1 Introduction

1.3.2 Experiments

1.3.3 Surveys

1.3.4 Longitudinal Studies

1.3.5 Questionnaires

1.3.6 Types of Questionnaires

1.3.7 Interviews

1.3.8 Observation

1.3.9 Case Studies

1.3.10 Documents

1.3.11 Official Statistics

1.3.12 End of Topic Test - Sources of Data

2 Education with Methods in Context

2.1 Role & Function of the Education System

2.1.1 Introduction

2.1.2 Functionalist Theories

2.1.3 Marxist & Feminist Theories

2.1.4 The New Right

2.2 Educational Achievement

2.2.1 Social Class: Internal Factors

2.2.2 Social Class: External Factors

2.2.3 Social Class: Attitudes to Education

2.2.4 Social Class: Difference in Achievement

2.2.5 Gender

2.2.6 Ethnicity

2.3 Relationships & Processes Within Schools

2.3.1 Processes

2.3.2 Labelling

2.3.3 Categorisations

2.3.4 Student Experience

2.3.5 End of Topic Test -Education with Methods

2.4 Educational Policies

2.4.1 Equality

2.4.2 Privatisation

2.4.3 Marketisation

2.4.4 Government Policies by Party

2.4.5 Globalisation

2.4.6 End of Topic Test- Educational Policies

2.4.7 Practice Exam Question - Social Policies

3 Option 1: Culture & Identity

3.1 Conceptions of Culture

3.1.1 Culture

3.1.2 Mass Culture

3.1.3 Popular Culture

3.1.4 Global Culture

3.1.5 End of Topic Test - Culture and Identity

3.2 Identity & Socialisation

3.2.1 Identities

3.2.2 Socialisation

3.2.3 Secondary Socialisation

3.2.4 Theories of Socialisation

3.2.5 End of Topic Test - Identity

3.2.6 Practice Exam Question - Socialisation & Equality

3.3 Social Identity

3.3.1 Social Class

3.3.2 Upper & Middle Class

3.3.3 Working & Underclass

3.3.4 Social Class Evaluation

3.3.5 Gender

3.3.6 Changing Gender Identities

3.3.7 Ethnicity

3.3.9 Disability

3.3.10 Nationality

3.3.11 End of Topic Test - Social Identity

3.4 Production, Consumption & Globalisation

3.4.1 Production & Consumption

3.4.2 Globalisation

3.4.3 Evaluation

3.4.4 End of Topic Test - Production

4 Option 1: Families & Households

4.1 Families & Households

4.1.1 Definitions

4.1.2 Functionalist & New Right Perspectives

4.1.3 Marxist & Feminist Perspectives

4.1.4 Postmodernist Perspective

4.1.5 End of Topic Test - Families & Households

4.1.6 Practice Exam Question - Function of Family

4.2 Changing Patterns

4.2.1 Marriage

4.2.2 Divorce

4.2.3 LAT Relationships

4.2.4 Child-Bearing

4.2.5 Lone Parenthood

4.2.6 Diversity

4.2.7 The Sociology of Personal Life

4.2.8 Government Policies Post-WW2

4.2.9 End of Topic Test - Changing Patterns

4.3 The Symmetrical Family

4.3.1 The Symmetrical Family

4.3.2 Evaluation

4.4 Children & Childhood

4.4.1 Childhood

4.4.2 Childhood in the UK

4.4.3 Childhood as a Social Construct

4.4.4 The Disappearance of Childhood

4.4.5 Child Abuse

4.4.6 Domestic Violence

4.4.7 End of Topic Test - Family & Childhood

4.5 Demographic Trends UK

4.5.1 Introduction

4.5.2 Birth Rates

4.5.3 Death Rates

4.5.4 The Ageing Population

4.5.5 Studies on the Ageing Population

4.5.6 Migration

4.5.7 Globalisation

4.5.8 End of Topic Test - Demographics UK

5 Option 1: Health

5.1 Social Constructions

5.1.1 The Body

5.1.2 Health, Illness & Disease

5.1.3 Disability

5.1.4 Models of Health & Illness

5.1.5 End of Topic Test - Social Constructions

5.2 Social Distribution of Healthcare

5.2.1 Social Class

5.2.2 Gender

5.2.3 Ethnicity

5.2.4 Regional

5.3 Provision & Access to Healthcare

5.3.1 The NHS

5.3.2 Inequalities in Provision

5.3.3 Sociological Explanations

5.3.4 Inequalities in Access

5.3.5 Inequalities in Access 2

5.3.6 End of Topic Test - Distribution Health

5.4 Mental Health

5.4.1 The Biomedical Approach

5.4.2 Social Patterns

5.4.3 Social Constructionist Approach

5.5 The Globalised Health Industry

5.5.1 The Functionalist Approach

5.5.2 The Postmodernist Approach

5.5.3 The Globalised Health Industry

5.5.4 End of Topic Test - Mental Health & Globalisation

6 Option 1: Work, Poverty & Welfare

6.1 Poverty & Wealth

6.1.1 Types of Poverty

6.1.2 Types of Poverty 2

6.1.3 Distribution of Wealth UK

6.1.4 Sociological Theories

6.1.5 Sociological Theories 2

6.1.6 Distribution of Poverty UK

6.1.7 End of Topic Test - Poverty & Wealth

6.2 Welfare

6.2.1 The Welfare State

6.2.2 Theoretical Approaches to Welfare

6.3 Labour Process

6.3.1 Nature of Work

6.3.2 Technology & Control

6.3.3 Work & Life

6.3.4 The Effects of Globalisation

6.3.5 Globalisation & Worklessness

6.3.6 End of Topic Test - Welfare & Labour

7 Option 2: Beliefs in Society

7.1 Ideology, Science & Religion

7.1.1 Types of Religion

7.1.2 Ideology & Belief Systems

7.1.3 Social Stability & Religion

7.1.4 Social Change & Religion

7.1.5 End of Topic Test - Ideology, Science & Religion

7.2 Religious Movements

7.2.1 Religious Organisations

7.2.2 New Religious Movements

7.2.3 New Age Movements

7.2.4 Practice Exam Question - Growth of NRMs

7.3 Society & Religion

7.3.1 Social Groups & Religion

7.3.2 Gender & Religion

7.3.3 End of Topic Test- Religious Movements & Society

7.4 Contemporary Religion

7.4.1 Secularisation UK

7.4.2 Against Secularisation

7.4.3 Secularisation US

7.4.4 Fundamentalism

7.4.5 Economic Development & Religion

7.4.6 End of Topic - Contemporary Religion

8 Option 2: Global Development

8.1 Development, Underdevelopment & Global Inequality

8.1.1 Development

8.1.2 Underdevelopment & Global Inequality

8.2 Globalisation & Global Organisations

8.2.1 Globalisation

8.2.2 Transnational Corporations & International Agency

8.2.3 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)

8.3 Aid, Trade, Industrialisation, Urbanisation

8.3.1 Development: Aid & Trade

8.3.2 Development: Industrialisation & Urbanisation

8.3.3 Development: Environment & War

9 Option 2: The Media

9.1 Contemporary Media

9.1.1 New Media

9.1.2 Control of the Media

9.1.3 Sociological Approaches: New Media

9.1.4 Globalisation

9.1.5 News Selection

9.1.6 Moral Panics

9.1.7 End of Topic Test - Contemporary Media

9.2 Media Representations

9.2.2 Social Class & Ethnicity

9.2.3 Gender

9.2.4 Sexuality & Disability

9.2.5 Practice Exam Questions - Presentation of Women

9.3 Audiences

9.3.1 Media Theories

9.3.2 Media Theories 2

9.3.3 Media Representations & Audiences

10 Crime & Deviance

10.1 Crime & Society

10.1.1 Functionalism

10.1.2 Subcultural Theory

10.1.3 Marxism

10.1.4 Realism

10.1.5 Other Approaches

10.1.6 End of Topic Test - Crime & Society

10.1.7 Practice Exam Questions - Social Construction

10.2 Social Distribution of Crime

10.2.1 Ethnicity

10.2.2 Gender

10.2.3 Globalisation & Crime

10.2.4 Media & Crime

10.2.5 Types of Crimes

10.2.6 End of Topic Test - Social Distribution of Crime

10.3 Prevention & Punishment

10.3.1 Surveillance

10.3.2 Prevention

10.3.3 Punishment

10.3.4 Victimology

10.3.5 End of Topic Test - Prevention & Punishment

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Government Policies Post-WW2