Late modernity and the changing nature of politics: two cheers for Henrik Bang

Abstract

It is common in sociology to argue that we have moved into a period of late modernity. This debate has permeated political science, particularly in the literature on governance. In addressing this issue I focus on Henrik Bang's work which raises questions about contemporary participation, political parties, modes of governance and forms of democracy. My treatment of his work is sympathetic, but critical. In essence, I argue, focusing particularly on the UK case, that the trends which he identifies are occurring, but not at the rate, nor to the extent, which he claims.

Keywords:

• Henrik Bang
• late modernity
• network governance

Notes

1. There is perhaps less emphasis in Castells' work on this point than Bang suggests.

2. http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/employment-matters/research/trade-union-stats [Accessed 12 February 2011].

3. Of course, there has been a significant increase in dissent over the last two decades or more (see http://www.revolts.co.uk). So, as just one example, there were rebellions in 28% of the divisions in the 2005/6 Parliamentary Session (four of which were big enough to result in Government defeats) and in 20% in the 2006/7 Session. Nevertheless, while dissent has significantly increased (largely as a result of the fact that MPs in the UK feel they have no say in policy, see Garner and Letki 2005), most government legislation passes – so the system is still one of executive dominance.