Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 2

activity is the development of personal capital and employability skills. Constant activity thus turns into a necessity in order to maintain relevance at work, the social media and personal life alike. People are no longer judged by what they do and achieve but primarily based on activity, and therefore their flexibility and willingness to transform themselves and adapt to new technologies, fashions and social practices. Projectification is thus associated with the search for personal style among the rapid flux of diversifying fashions and consumer lifestyles, and with the emphasis on immediate satisfaction and disposal typical of second modernity (Lash & Urry, 1994). Whoever fails to readapt to the steadily shifting conditions of action loses the connections that enable future options. As the options rapidly go in and out of style, no choice is ever final and made from a position of control and consideration of available alternatives and their significance (Rosa, 2013). Careful management becomes more vital and indispensable in such stressful circumstances of constant activity and stress. Managerial practices help to recognise faults, seize opportunities, perform as efficiently as possible, maximise chances of success. As a result, they permeate every aspect of life, which becomes a matter of performance skills, while management is its primary means of success. Consequently, social existence, no less than work, becomes something to be carefully monitored and controlled, using managerial expertise and practices. Personal success depends on the ability to utilise techniques of self management, which acquire the ethical aura of being the democratic promise to enable everyone to become what they aspire to be. Agility, flexibility, adaptability and constant metamorphosis become the most esteemed virtues (Rose, 1999). At the same time, it places everyone under permanent self examination. Beyond reflexivity, the culture of projectification is a culture of constant self reinvention. Yet, contrary to the managerial promise of universal satisfaction and fulfilment, this projectification in fact encourages perpetual discontent. As a motivation for further activity, improvements and projects, people are never what they need to be, never have what they need to have. Performance, success, quality of life can always be enhanced, and thus any contentment and tranquillity are paradoxically denied in the name of satisfaction and fulfilment. As management is the remedy for this sense of underachievement, a cycle typical of addiction is formed, in which relying on management increases discontent, and discontent leads to further dependence on management. This social logic extends from the corporate ethos of perpetual self transformation and reinvention to the wider conception of self identity. Personal and professional reinvention stands behind coaching, speed dating, reality TV, obsessive consumption, cosmetic surgery, dieting etc.: ‘In a world of short-term contracts, endless corporate downsizings, just-in-time deliveries, multiple careers and short- term contract employment, the cultural logic of endless self- fashioning and self- remaking has become crucial to the operations of the global electronic economy at large (Elliot, 2016, p. 4). By way of projectification, management shapes second modernity as a condition of perpetual change in which managerial practices are necessary for survival, and as the key to remain relevant and become fulfilled and successful. IV. F lattened H ierarchies The final definitive attribute of second modernity to be considered here is the flattering of social hierarchies and rigid bureaucratic structures. Second modernity is unique among human societies throughout history in its avowed disbelief in social and cultural hierarchies. The contention that current society is actually unstratified along racial, ethnic, gender or socioeconomic lines, or becoming increasingly so, may be reserved for the most optimistic exponents of postmodernist thought. However, the rigid stratification of society along such lines has largely been discredited, and is openly upheld only in explicitly reactionary political circles. Even if socioeconomic differences remain a prevalent feature of second modernity, they are increasingly perceived as illegitimate when based on circumstances of birth or personal identity. In fact, the only perfectly legitimate way of rising up the ranks is through the appreciation and consent of the many, whether by way of popularity, votes or consumer preference. First modernity was marked by the formalisation of social roles and positions that had traditionally been held and administered depending on the persons occupying them. Premodern institutions were based on rigid social categories of kinship, birthright, gender, age etc. Modernisation reconstituted major social institutions according to the values of rationality, efficiency, impartiality, transparency and accountability. The creation of bureaucratic, formal and rule based hierarchies was an integral part of this process (Kallinikos, 2011). The bureaucratic adherence to strict rules, rigid hierarchies and systematic procedures facilitated the creation of the difference between the private and public realms so crucial to a liberal and industrial society (du Gay, 2011). However, the countermove towards dissolution of such hierarchies and rigid structures is considered a prominent feature of second modernity. Those who believe in its postmodern character analyse the flattening of social and cultural stratification in second modernity as part of its © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 80 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Epochal Change and Second Modernity as a Sociocultural Manifestation of Managerialism