Money, Media and Conformity in Today's World

Our world in the 2000s has benefited from gains made in the previous century, though along with these gains come the continuance of dangerous trends. While much of the progress has increased overall economic gains, certain problems will get worse as a result: people will become more individualistic, personal monetary gains will be prioritized over societal progress, and people will continue to be manipulated for the sake of benefiting capitalism. The lack of government accountability will also continue, furthering societies susceptibility to manipulation. The modern traditions in social theory provide aid by stimulating alternate viewpoints not found prevalently in society, thus creating the possibility for gains to be found in the negatives.

Today's extensive, inescapable social networks are conducive to making a specific way of thought appear as the social norm. Marx viewed modern revolutions as being like a camera obscura, where "the true reality is the opposite of appearances" . He saw the ruling class as having all intellectual and material control, though now, the root of the control lays in certain institutions that transcend economic classes - most specifically, the news media facilitates this control. Mannheim states that when "any human activity continues over a long period without being subjected to intellectual control or criticism it tends to get out of hand".

The news media's monopoly upon information has become out of hand, and other aspects of society compound the effects. It sets the standards for what should be deemed newsworthy and oftentimes offers specific viewpoints upon any given subject. Although this is beneficial to the busy individual who does not necessarily have a chance to see all viewpoints, the media inevitably contradicts itself through its bias and disregard for realistic discussion of politicians' motives. This results in a great number of people freely saying what they believe to be right for the country, though with little capacity to explain the reasoning behind their positions. The media's control, along with the potentially unlimited power that the government can have, shows the possibility of those that are seemingly trying to help society having the true reality of attempting to limit the control that people have. One recognizing this possibility starts a rebuttal by causing initial perceptions of reality to be questioned, thus leading to a greater level of intellectual control and criticism.

Weber's double bind similarly encourages examining oneself, though is also conducive to viewing one's ideas through the scope of society. Reisman sees society as encouraging conformity to ensure stability; rebellion is limited because individuals conform to a certain kind of rebellion, and the conformity inhibits the capacity for upheaval. Merton specified money to be "peculiarly well adapted to become a symbol of prestige," showing the additional aspect of conformity to be a common goal among all citizens.

These theories are evident in the present day and are important to observe while considering one's actions. Today's common forms of rebellion are canonized, making it easy for a normalizing societal reaction to provide a neutralizing response. Personal decisions like using hallucinogenic drugs and subscribing to government conspiracies do hold the potential to facilitate a discussion on the legitimacy of accepting societal norms, though prevalent stereotypes ensure that the connotations surrounding such actions will separate those individuals in their own group that is adjunct to society's progress. It is also inevitable that those individuals will need to in some way embrace the norms if the
y wish to achieve success, since any legal method of making money means following through upon the norms. Any form of rebellion that authentically threatens society is treated through the law, and has dire consequences for the nonconformist.

It is therefore necessary to recognize the existing double bind to realistically judge ones own actions. Conformity is unavoidable, and being a nonconformist has potentially fatal consequences, so Riesman's belief that viewing personal ways in which one conforms and how it connects them to others in society gives the most beneficial mindset for analyzing conformity. In the personal sphere, this means being true to oneself, yet openly considering the reasoning behind actions, and how it relates to conformity - this causes a double bind in the inability to avoid conforming, though being aware of it still allows for progress.

Considering the double bind from a much larger societal scope necessitates a different approach. Being conscious of the double bind that the government presents will help going into the future by allowing a more realistic view to be communicated, and will prevent unnecessary actions. The 20^th century ignited skepticism of the government's ability to progress, though as the double bind shows, there is little that any individual or group can do to (outside of voting) to promote progress. With this knowledge, hopefully the 21^st century will contain more reasonable approaches to government interactions. The other changes that will occur during this century will create a far greater number of choices and opportunities. Approaching these changes with a preset opinion could prevent the potential benefits that they can provide, and those that are most open-minded could gain the most.

Bauman's term "Liquid Modernity" gives a painfully realistic view on the collective consciousness, yet there still remains room for optimism in the theory. The theory states that the traditional bonds between people in society have "liquefied," and have solidified to promote a more modern economic way of interacting. This does not need to be permanent though. Bauman states that "all this was to be done not in order to do away with the solids once and for all. . . but to clear the site for new and improved solids," showing the possibility for another future dissolution. However, at the present time, the theory states that morality and accountability between people is trumped by money's driving force.

Although this is not the preferred situation for the collective consciousness, hopefully it will create a stronger bond. A present-day realistic outlook is to use the theory to see why society has become this way, and consider what will happen that can possibly liquefy the bonds. If an individual dislikes the current status, it can help to see the legitimate reasons from which the present situation arose and to evaluate how they fit into the collective consciousness. At the present time, our society depends upon the nucleus of money to function, and the newer form of bond only reflects this and encourages what is necessary to make financial gains. However, as the moral bonds liquefied to promote our economic culture, so can the economic bonds that have been created liquefy once a higher priority is recognized in the collective consciousness.

The emphasis in these theories upon the greatly differing societal perceptions that people have serve as reminders that there is no clear path for progress. Although there are terrible consequences for the sake of gains, there are reasons for why society has evolved in such a way. Studying these theories may help to enlighten, though, as the theories show, it will take sweeping societal changes in subconscious perceptions to better any situation.