Analyse the significance of Lipovetskys use of the terms postmodern and hypermodern.

An interesting aspect of postmodern society that Lipovetsky goes on to discuss is the emergence of ‘le modèle self-service’.  By this he does not just mean actual self-service, for example self-service restaurants.  He wants to demonstrate that, in addition to people being able to pick and choose in terms of their material consumption, they also have a choice in the way they live and construct their lives as individuals.  This is illustrated when he says “D’ores et déjà le self-service, l’éxistence à la carte, désignent le modèle générale de la vie dans les sociétés contemporaines qui voient proliférer de façon vertigineuse les sources d’information, l’éventail des produits exposés ... Telles est la société post-moderne, caracterisée par une tendance globale à réduire les rapports autoritaires et dirigistes et simultanément à accroître les choix privés … ”.

Throughout L'ère du vide Lipovetsky points to a variety of other ways in which this loosening of constraints and personalisation can be seen to be taking place.  He discusses the way in which society has moved away from the concept of a tailored worker who continually carries out the same gesture in a disciplined fashion time after time, towards a post-modern scenario in which job enrichment is present.  This can be illustrated using the example of the Toyota model in which power was pushed down the organisational hierarchy and management control was replaced by employee responsibility through empowered teams (“on sollicite de toutes parts la concentration et la participation”)  This clearly represents a shift away from the old rigid parameters and systems towards new, more flexible ones.

On page 31, Lipovetsky suggests that the world of medicine has undergone a similar evolution of personalisation.  If the individual becomes ill he must not just suffer passively, as he is now in charge of his own health due to his newly gained psychological autonomy - “il est responsible de sa santé ... graace aux potentialités de l’autonomie psychique”.  Lipovetsky then moves on to discuss sports in a similar way, insinuating that one can view team sports as being an expression of the old disciplinary society.  He goes on to suggest that in new society, however, sports have become more much more individualistic, not in a narcissistic way but in the sense that they are an intense involvement in the world from a very personal point of view.  It is now more about establishing one’s own rhythm and feeling good in one’s own body; sport is practiced as much for the psychological benefits as it is for the physical benefits - “le sport s’est recyclé en pschologisant le corps, en pregnant en compte la conscience totale de soi, en donnant libre cours à la passion des rythmes individuals”.  This is a perfect encapsulation of the postmodern personalised way of being.

This increased model of informality also manifests in the political sphere.  Lipovetsky argues that there is a clear decentralisation and dissemination of power as “le separation dirigeant-éxecutant” is broken down.  In this postmodern age politicians feel the need to be ostentatious about their simplicity and show themselves as real, ordinary people with human weaknesses rather than all powerful leaders: “l’homme politique apparait en jean ou en pull-over, reconnait humblement ses limites et faiblesses, met en scene sa famille, ses bulletins de santé, sa jeunesse”.  This personalised version of politics corresponds to the new values of this era such as authenticity, friendliness, and transparency, and allows the individual to better identify with and relate to politicians, which subsequently leads to him giving them his support.

Later on in the book, Lipovetsky considers how humour has also developed as society has moved into postmodernity.  He draws explicitly on Foucault in suggesting that the ambient humour which is present in the postmodern context is post-disciplinary: “il faut comprendre le développement de ces formes modernes du rire que sont l’humour contrôle ténu et infinitésimal exercé sur les manifestations du corps, analogue en cela au dressage disciplinaire qu’a analysé Foucault”.  He puts forwards a rather nice periodization of different forms of humour by suggesting that the carnival-esque humour of the renaissance period progressed into a more cerebral based humour (for example, wit and satire) during the classical and modern ages, echoing the shift in culture.  Furthermore, as society has moved into the ‘loosened’ post-modern society, humour has become more diffused and ambient.

So we have looked at how Lipovetsky argues, contrary to Foucault’s critique of modernity and enlightenment which shows that the autonomy that modernity promises leads to a bureaucratic disciplinary control and enslavement, that society (particularly post-1968) has delivered on this promise of autonomy.  L’ère du vide demonstrates that it is no longer appropriate to see society as a disciplinary machine (“il devenait inapproprié de déchiffrer notre société notre société comme une machine de discipline, de quadrillage et de conditionnement generalise”), but instead it should be regarded as a more free and open entity that is more orientated towards the individual.  In contrast to other critical thinkers he wanted to emphasise the importance of the different ways in which individuals were being able to free themselves from “des impositions collectives”, expressed through ideas such as sexual liberation and challenging the moral order. He observes the difference ways in which society and the individual have developed as a result of this, using examples such as fashion - which he argues should not just be regarded as a frivolous, ephemeral tool used to drive consumer society - to demonstrate the different ways in which the desire for autonomy can be seen to be expressed by the individual in society.  However, in ‘Les Temps Hypermodernes’, Lipovetsky examines the way in which that this moment of liberating individualisation - the continuation of modernity that he defines as post-modernity - has become slightly more conservative and as society moves into hypermodernity.

As mentioned earlier, hypermodernity typically reflects a deepening or intensification of modernity.  Lipovetsky maintains that hypermodern society is characterised by a sense of urgency and high pressure.  He discusses how everything in life has been accelerated and intensified, for example, sport: “Même les comportements individuels sont pris dans l’engrenage de l’extrême ... pratique de dopage, les sports extremes”.  Whereas the cool, relaxed postmodern individual was predominantly focused on pleasure and self-development, the hypermodern individual has become more aware of the responsibility for his or her own life, which brings a new sobriety to existence.  It is suggested that the notion of self-service, which in postmodern times represented liberating free choice, has now become a burden on individuals as they are forced to do everything for themselves.

Lipovetsky makes some interesting observations on the subject of time in Les Temps Hypermodernes.  One of the dynamics of time in hypermodern society discussed is the notion of being locked in a perpetual present.   In the workplace, for example, the demands of the present moment have become so intense and consuming that the individual can feel trapped in this continual present.  He argues, however, that this is not the only dimension of time.  He does not want to say that the individual no longer looks to the future, but rather that the future is now viewed with more of a sense of anxiety and ambivalence.  Lipovetsky also mentions that in the hypermodern society there is a new relation to the past in the sense that society now views it eclectically, which represents a culture of commemoration in which we plunder the past for meaning.  He brings these ideas together by saying “moins le futur est prévisible, plus il faut être mobile, flexible, réactif, prêt à changer en permanence”.

One way of understanding this notion of the hypermodern is by referring to other commentators, most notably the polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, who talks about the contemporary existence of society as being a liquid modernity.  This concept is echoed by Marx and Engels who use the poetic phrase “all that is solid melts into air”, which can be used to suggest that society is now at a stage of modernity in which everything is in flux - all the barriers to it are permeable.  Lipovetsky reaffirms this when he mentions “une logique moderne dérégulée et desinstituionalisée”, which represents the idea that the defined barriers of institutions have been broken down, which allows the individual to circulate through these institutions in a much more fluid manner.

Lipovetsky adds to this concept of fluidity by suggests there is a hyperbolic dynamic to the hypermodern society.  He points to this when he says “Dans ce context, les sphères les plus diverses sont le lieu d’une montée aux extrêmes, livrées à une dynamique illimitée, à une spirale hyperbolique”.  This is also relevant to the individual as it can lead to them ‘burning out’, for example, as a result of the obligation to constantly be on the move and adaptable.  It could be argued that Lipovetsky is suggesting that this demonstrates the fact that the grand narrative of progress no longer exists; it is as if the individual is running to stand still. He suggests that this constant demand to be efficient is not driven by a collective aim to move towards a Utopian goal, but rather by a need to survive.

As mentioned earlier, the notion of insecurity that hypermodernity has brought about is a dominant theme in Les Temps Hypermodernes.  Lipovetsky, on numerous occasions, refers to the way in which the sentiment of relaxation and freedom that characterised postmodern has been replaced by a more intense and fast-paced dynamic in which individuals constantly feel the need to protect themselves against present and future dangers: “Le climat du premier présentisme libérationniste et optimiste, empreint de légèreté, s’est efface, au bénéfice d’une demande generalise de protection”.  This can be attributed to the fact that people, particularly in the work place, are no longer able to draw upon collective support networks of old that might help them deal with the pressures around them.  It could therefore be argued that this intensification of individualisation associated with hypermodernity has removed the outside parameters, or external reference points, by which individuals can define him themselves.  

Despite this intensified individualism that is present in the hypermodern society, Lipovetsky maintains a positive outlook by claiming that there are still collective identifications that individuals can make.  He suggests that, although individuals no longer subscribe to large moral frameworks, they are still motivated by ethical and humanitarian issues.  This demonstrates that people still have the capacity to come together, but as individuals rather than a collective.

In conclusion, it is evident that Lipovetsky’s puts forward a thorough analysis of both the postmodern and hypermodern era’s,  demonstrating clearly how society has moved away from the control of the disciplinary era, towards a more fluid and individualised culture, maintaining a optimistic outlook on the way in which the world is developing.  His use of the terms postmodern and hypermodern can be argued to significant in the sense that they offer a valuable framework of reference in examining the different ways in which the human condition and the dynamics of society have changed throughout these periods.

References

Foucault, Michel, ‘Surveiller et punir’, Gallimard, 1975.

Lipovetsky, Gilles, ‘La société de déception’, Textuel, 2006.

Lipovetsky, Gilles, ‘L’ère du vide’, Gallimard, 1983.

Lipovetsky, Gilles, ‘Les temps hypermodernes’, Grasset, 2004.

Marx, K. & Engels, F., ‘The Communist Manifesto’, 1848.

---