The objective of the
research is to develop the concept of life politics in modern
society, its areas of application and problem
points. The objective is to make a
general presentation of life politics as well
as discussions of specific concrete
problems, for instance life control or depression
in connection with general cultural
aspects. The empirical data is mainly a broad
collection of life stories and a recent
survey on generations, in addition to the
theoretical literature on life politics. The
goal is to develop a theory of the life situation
of modern man, with its central
building blocks life control, life changes,
life strategies and second chances.
Life politics has become an interesting topic in recent years, related
to
discussions about individualisation, reflexivity,
choice, ethics, mind and conscious
ness, mind-altering drugs, politics of recognition
and identity etc. (Anthony
Giddens, Ulrich Beck, Nikolas Rose, Charles
Taylor).
On the other hand,
it can be said to be closely related or alternative to such
concepts as sub-politics (Beck), anthroponomics
(Bertaux), life control, life
experience (vécù, Ricoeur),
Erlebnisgesellschaft (Schulze), new moral order
(Bauman), habitus (Bourdieu). Of course this
is by no means "new": similar
discussions exist since Aristotle or perhaps
Augustine, but there are some aspects
which can be considered very recent and which
alter the situation.
Some of them are related
to the increased abilities of all of us to make educated
choices about our own lives, to reflect upon
our situation and to understand more
of the long-term consequences (environmental,
health etc) of our actions. Some of
them are related to the increasingly intrusive
and pervasive medical and genetic
technologies which affect many of us directly
(choices connected with pregnancy,
genetically treated foods, increasingly effective
medicine related to personality traits
etc.). Together they greate a new field of
life politics which is concerned precisely
how people make decisions that affect their
own lives and also decisions that
fundamentally affect these decisions (ethical
principles etc.). But it is also a question
of power struggle: many of these decisions
are presently taken or based on
considerations that are in open conflict with
the possibility of life politics in the
above sense. In addition to this, the world
of consumption is changing in ways
which makes it impossible to speak about individual
choices or decisions to buy:
more and more of consumtion is grounded on
habits, habituses, constructed entities.
But there is also the pressure
from the side of welfare state: increasingly there is
emphasis on individual responsibility, on
reciprocity, on turning back areas of
public responsibility to private individuals.
The taking care of old and sick people
is the most significant of these developments
but in all personal services it is obvious
that there is strong pressure for pulling
them back from the salary sphere to the
"third sector".
The development of
life politics is thus the product of very conflicting develop
ments which in the final analysis have all
served to weaken the role of intermediate
social forces, networks, communities and thrust
the individuals into direct contact
with "the society": anonymous market forces,
public bureaucracies, the system in
Habermasian sense.But simultaneously they
create a possibility of new "sociability",
new intermediate institutions; and it is this
sociability that life politics will be a
cover term for. In fact, the traditional bonds
- family, relatives, local communities -
are reemerging in new forms, proving that
the saying "what you leave behind you,
you will find in waiting for you behind the
corner" is universally true. Giddensian
"post-traditional" society is permeated with
tradition, but in new, partly
unrecognizable forms. One example: Giddnes
has spoken about the disappearance
of generational continuity (Beyond left and
right). Yet, new research shows that on
the contrary, intergenerational transfers
have become more important and may
change the whole picture of the so called
pension explosion (see Attias-Donfut,
Kohli).
The term life politics
is problematic in the sense that it is actually policy that is
envisaged: policies about life, self, identity,
reflexivity, life style. But "life policy"
refers interestingly only to protection against
risks. On the other hand, politics
means perhaps more a mixture of very different
things so in this sense both politics
and policy should be included. To make some
problematic boundary rulings: life
politics should not be used to refer to individual
life control or day to day-decisions
about consumption for instance. On the other
"politics" at it most general level,
making collective decisions and negotiations
about public affairs is not life politics.
But all kinds of more general polciy decisions
about one's life and in connection with
different social entities would be life politics.
Life politics would thus be individual
and social decisions and negotiations about
life course, life chances, relationships,
self-realization, happiness and misery, well-being.
Life is not life politics but
changing one's life is.
The Giddensian concept of
second chances combines in an elegant way the worlds
of life control and risks. As a policy principle,
the idea of "second chances", leaving
a person's options always open, has much to
recommend to itself. Typically in a
welfare state the regulations that cover all
kinds of "second chance" situations
(unemployment, retirement, change of profession)
are much too restrictive. But
there are some problems which do no appear
from Giddens extremely individual-
centred perspective. A second chance does
not exist in vacuum. If an individual
decides to change his or her life completely,
several other people are often involved,
who may not have anything to say. So second
chances may involve loss of chances
for somebody else; which brings about an interesting
problem related to life politics.
Increasingly as life decisions are understood
as life political they bring about new
kinds of responsibilities and involvements.
Life politics creates new interdependence
in connection with new sociability. But even
individually the downside of "second
chances" is obvious: taking of a second chance
means loss of other possiblities (and
the "first chance"). This is also a problem
of life politics which should be consid
ered.
Another problem is the question of increasing/unchanging
dissatisfaction with
increasing welfare. It seems clear that being
really poor and excluded makes people
unhappy, but after a certain level there is
very little connection. Why do not
increased possibilities for life politics
increase one's senbse of satisfaction and well-
being? It is also an open question, whether
it increases reflexivity or self-realization.
Instead we hear increasingly about feelings
of emptiness, hidden depression, all
kinds of addictions. On the other hand, this
is precisely the field of active life politics
in practice!
The above considerations
are meant to demarcate an area of study where my goal
is to explore different aspects and
using mainly life stories but also surveys related
to the Finnish baby boomers, write chapters
about the effects of life politics in our
lives.
I will use as material the
collections of life stories, mainly from Finland, Estonia
and Russia (St Petersburg) but also in France
and in Italy (Pieve di Santo Stefano!)
as well as two large surveys conducted recently:
one on men and consumption and
the second on the so-called baby-boomers in
Finland. I have already published one
book in Finnish and a second book (Life in
the third millennium) is under way; the
objective now is to publish articles in English
with a view of publishing a book on
the topic.
October 1998