Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter I seek to accomplish two main objectives. The first is to review and reiterate the theory of a “new individualism” that I have detailed in recent writings in social theory (Elliott, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013; Elliott & Lemert, 2009a, b; Elliott & Urry, 2010). My argument is that we witness today the conditions and consequences of a new individualism sweeping the globe, especially evident in the new economy of high finance, media and technology industries. I then want to ask how the theory of new individualism differs from other influential standpoints in recent social theory. For my purposes in this chapter, the conceptual points of comparison with the theory of new individualism will be (1) the theory of ‘technologies of the self’ as elaborated by Michel Foucault and various neo-Foucaultians; and (2) the notion of ‘reflexive individualization’ outlined by Anthony Giddens. Second, I discuss the wider sociological ramifications of the new individualist thesis. New individualism, I shall argue, is not merely about individuals or their psychological dispositions; rather it penetrates to the very core of cultures and institutional life. New individualism is thus a kind of shorthand for the variety of modalities shaping, and shaped by, global social transformations. The key institutional drivers of new individualism that I shall elaborate are (1) continual reinvention, (2) instant change, (3) speed, and (4) short-termism or episodicity. I conclude the chapter with a consideration of the likely future sociological consequences of life lived in the new individualist fast lane. The New Individualist Thesis: The Sociological Backcloth The theory of the new individualism, as originally formulated, comprises four core dimensions: a relentless emphasis on self-reinvention; an endless hunger for instant change; a fascination with social acceleration, speed and dynamism; and a preoccupation with short-termism and episodicity (Elliott, 2013; Elliott & Lemert, 2009b; Elliott & Urry 2010;). The argument, broadly speaking, is that a new individualism can be deciphered from the culture in which people live their lives today – especially (but not only) those living in the polished, expensive cities of the West. Corporate networking, short-term project work, organizational downsizing, self-help manuals, compulsive consumerism, cybersex, instant identity makeovers and therapy culture: these are just some of the core features of global individualist culture, and in this previous research the argument was developed that immersion in such an individualist world carries profound emotional consequences for the private and public lives of people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".