COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE STATE AND MIGRANTS IN THE RISK SOCIETY: IDENTITIES, MEDIA AND DIASPORAS

Abstract

The tendency of modern political regimes to transform the society into becoming “uniform” causes various social problems. Modern nation states try to shape all citizens in a manner that
they act in coordination with each other in all the stages of the democratic processes. However, the modern world system which makes the labor migration unavoidable in turn causes the
emergence of multi-cultural metropolises. This leads to a “risk society” with a high potential of conflict; because as the modern state tries to ensure that the society acts in harmony, social
groups such as minorities and diasporas that represent different identities show resistance. During this process, the media is utilized as the ideological apparatus of the state in order to
attain social integrity and harmony. In this study, the social and political issues that arise due to the impact of mass migration in societies which are aimed to be made “uniform” by the modern
centralized powers are to be investigated.

Full text

Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
DOI: 10.15604/ejss.2016.04.04.004
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
www.eurasianpublications.com
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE STATE AND MIGRANTS IN THE RISK
SOCIETY: IDENTITIES, MEDIA AND DIASPORAS
Devrim Ozkan
The University of Buckingham, UK
E-mail:devrim.ozkan@buckingham.ac.uk, ozkandev@hotmail.com
Abstract
The tendency of modern political regimes to transform the society into becoming “uniform”
causes various social problems. Modern nation states try to shape all citizens in a manner that
they act in coordination with each other in all the stages of the democratic processes. However,
the modern world system which makes the labor migration unavoidable in turn causes the
emergence of multi-cultural metropolises. This leads to a “risk society” with a high potential of
conflict; because as the modern state tries to ensure that the society acts in harmony, social
groups such as minorities and diasporas that represent different identities show resistance.
During this process, the media is utilized as the ideological apparatus of the state in order to
attain social integrity and harmony. In this study, the social and political issues that arise due to
the impact of mass migration in societies which are aimed to be made “uniform” by the modern
centralized powers are to be investigated.
Keywords: Centralized Power, Risk Society, Identity, Media, Diaspora
1. Introduction
After the modern political ideas and regimes made the participation of the people to the politics
their top priority, all the economic and social constructs have been restructured. The modern
political practices which lead people to integrate with the state cause the emergence of a
“uniform” social structure. In modern “nation states” the individuals who participate in the
operation of the state institutions through democracy are shaped by the actions of the
“centralized power”. However, the practices of the “modern world system” which inevitably
cause labor migration leads to emergence of “cosmopolitan” metropolises. This in turn leads to
a tension between the uniform and single identity structures of the nation states and
metropolises with multi-cultural structure. Hence, the “risk society” which has emerged as a
novel concept causes problems that have not been experienced before.
The main distinction between the modern political systems and the tyranny of the
ancient times is that the former can absolutely control all the economic, cultural and social
structures under their rule. The modern centralized power which is mechanically organized,
 This paper was written at The University of Buckingham in June 2016. I thank TUBITAK (The Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey) for their support and The University of Buckingham. In writing this article I
have benefited greatly from conversations with friends and I wish especially to thank Professor Martin Ricketts for his
help. This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (2219-International
Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Programme 2015/1).

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
49
organizes each individual, group, class, community and ethnicity that constitute the society in
such a fashion that they can act in coordination with each other. Modern centralized powers in
which the supervision, regulation and control mechanisms are operated at their best, have the
privilege of dominating all the economic and social structures. On the other hand, despite
having dominion over a large area, ancient tyrannies lack the bureaucratic mechanisms that
allow them to control and dominate all the economic and social structures within their
sovereignty. In contrast, the modern political system seizes the privilege of creating a uniform
society due to its advanced bureaucratic structures that the ancient tyrannies do not possess.
While integrating all the factors that comprise the society and the economy, in order to
subject them to the practices of a centralized power, the modern political system shows
despotic characteristics. Modern political system shapes the individual in order to make it
depend on the operation of the centralized political power. Modern political system organizes
the educational system in such a way that it enables the individual to act in coordination under
the domination of the centralized power. Ensuring cooperation and harmony among the
individuals who share the same cultural, religious or ethnical origin has been extremely easy for
the modern centralized power. Due to the wealth attained through industrialization, the aspects
of the centralized powers that destroy the liberties are partially ignored. However along with the
economy and politics gaining more international characteristics, the modern powers face the
difficult issue of ensuring cooperation between individuals, groups and communities with
extremely different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds.
The process of modernization advances with the cooperation of nation states within the
framework of modern world system. Thus globalization leads to all “nation states and nations” to
constitute a structure in which they are integrated with each other economically, politically and
culturally. Globalization also leads to emergence of various risk factors. In central cities which
become more cosmopolitan, new conflicts arise in terms of culture, ethnicity and religion. In light
of this situation, the concept of “risk society” was proposed by Ulrich Beck for the purpose of
seeking answers to these emerging risks (Beck, 1992, 1998, 1999, 2005a, 2005b). According to
Beck (2005b), with the globalization conditions at hand, the state should continuously
reconstruct the power structure, taking the local administrative requirements into account.
Otherwise, due to inability to adapt to the fast paced changes in the cosmopolitan societies in
which numerous factors and actors are interacting, the states cannot establish a sufficient
administrative and social structure.
Despite their ability to overcome the class struggles, the “modern centralized powers”,
which strive to make all its subjects uniform and assimilate in order to operate the power
structure most efficiently, have difficulty in abolishing the risks caused by social conflicts that
originate from identities, religious beliefs and cultures. The modern nation states which strive to
resolve the conflicts between the diasporas which struggle to maintain their identities and the
“nation” which constitutes the majority, are faced with various obstacles such as legal, economic
and cultural problems. The “victimhood” caused by such conflicts are among the major
problems of the modern societies. In this study, the “identity problems” due to mass migration
encountered in societies which are tried to be made “uniform” by modern political regimes within
the context of intercommunication between the state and the migrants. Moreover, identity
problems that arise in the “risk society” which is shaped with the impact of victimhood originating
from the structural characteristics of modern politics are to be analyzed. Thus, the criticisms of
the philosophers that address the modern advances in the nineteenth century most qualitatively
are elaborated first. On the other hand, the fact that modern state using the media effectively in
order to mobilize the society and make it “uniform” renders the identity problems irresolvable.
Hence in this study, the role of media on the irresolvable state of the problems in the risk society
is also analyzed.
2. Centralization as the Basic Characteristic of Modern State and Society
Modern state and establishment of government continued to thrive by gathering the society
around a centralized power. In time, the structure of the traditional political regimes which
prioritizes locality gave way to the domination of centralized power. In Europe, as the gap

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
50
between the local governments which were shaped by the church communities and lords, and
“monarchs” drew closer each day due to modernization processes, the influence of centralized
powers has grown stronger. During this time, especially after Louis XIV (1638-1715) in France,
all local power structures have become more dependent to centralized power (De Tocqueville,
2011). In the seventeenth century, the increase in the tendencies of the monarchs in Europe to
become more in control of everything caused the government power to be centralized. As the
monarchs realized that they can obtain more power when they can integrate all local authority to
the center, the states’ desire to be centralized has increased. As it was realized that the primary
requirement for having a larger army and collecting more taxes is increasing centralization and
with the impact of the competition between states, the “modern political system” has become
rapidly more essential.
As for England, the first period of modernity during 16th, 17th and 18th centuries
correspond to an era where identities, economies and authorities are becoming increasingly
subject to the authority of the center. On the other hand in Germany, the period of
establishment of the centralized power starts in the 18th century with Frederick the Great.
Frederick the Great reorganizes primarily the culture, economy and government practices so
that they can be controlled from the center. In England, especially with the development of
“British canal system”, all of Britain becomes increasingly more efficiently controllable from
London. These centralization processes are effective in all areas from social structure to
economy. As the states improve their ability to organize and control the areas under their
authority, the government has started to operate mechanically (Burckhardt, 1999).
Centralized government is fully established when the administrative authority of the
nation is concentrated in one location (Drescher, 1964). The modernization processes, in which
all local cultures and diversities are destroyed by the actions of centralized powers, also destroy
the opportunities of freedom. Especially after the French Revolution, opportunities that enable
the organization of daily lives to be independent from centralized power have rapidly
diminished. With the rise of bureaucratization, centralization and democratization, all
individualities have become subject to the authority of the mass culture. The 19th century
witnesses a process in which all local institutions have been rapidly abolished and institutions
that are subject to centralized power have been established. The opportunity of existence for
any local institution that can pose as a counterweight against the centralized power has
increasingly diminished. Local identities, economies and authorities try to continue their
existence by being in coordination with the center. As the center obtains the privilege of
determining and mobilizing all manners of existence with the advantage of bureaucratic
mechanism, the opportunities for independent and free existence perish.
Until bureaucracy fulfills its duty to regulate and control in a perfect manner, neither
modernization nor centralization can be achieved. With modernization, bureaucracy, which
seized the opportunity to develop in ways that were not possible during the time of ancient
tyrannies, carries out perfectly the regulation and control functions which are essential needs of
centralized power. The tendencies of the modern politics for gathering everyone in the “common
denominator” are fulfilled through bureaucracy. Modern bureaucracy is structured in such a way
that it can bring all subjects that constitute the society in a common denominator. While
regulating education and economy, bureaucracy also organizes the culture so that its subjects
can become “uniform”. Thus, by eliminating all kinds of diversity, the “mass society” which has
been structured in order to contribute to the operation mechanism of the centralized power
becomes the essential element of the social structure. Since the individuals become dependent
to the general tendencies of the masses due to the centralist structure of the power, they cannot
maintain their diversity.
Centralization, which prevents the individual from existing in the “life world” (lebenswelt)
as a transforming and influential subject, creates victimhood by restricting the means of
freedom. Modern nationalism which is used by the centralized powers in order to structure the
society enables the establishment of cultural integrity (Gellner, 1994). Centralized powers which
shape the society under their influence in accordance with their desires and with the aid of
nationalist ideologies and democratization destroy genuine individuities and tradition. This
destruction is achieved by using the means of communication effectively as ideological state

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
51
apparatuses. The authority of the centralized power that gains the opportunity to manipulate
increasingly larger masses expands such that it can affect the private spaces of the individuals.
Hence the “individuals” are compelled to organize their lives in accordance with the demands
and needs of the centralized power. In a society comprising of individuals who determine the
needs and goals in their private spaces by taking the central trends in the society, despotism
becomes absolutely dominant.
In order for despotism and centralization to extend their impacts, an ideology that will
enable the citizens to become “uniform” is needed. “Racism” provides an infrastructure that
enables modern despotism and centralization establish absolute authority over the people. The
racist ideologies grant each individual the opportunity to feel apart of a whole on a grander
scale. Collectivist, uniformist and totalitarian tendencies of racism enable the society to be
organized to form an enormous “Leviathan” as a whole. As the individuals start to acquire race
based identities that are constructed by the cultural and educational institutes of the centralized
power rather than developing their own unique identities, the capability of the state to rule is
greatly increased. As an ideology that enables the state to rule a society in a most effective
way, racism obtains the privilege of determining the attitudes, behaviors and habits of the
people. Hence the modern states are armed with the opportunities to organize and mobilize
their societies in such a great extent that no other state could achieve in the previous times.
One of the main reasons for the modern centralized powers to insist on implementing
the same model of educational system in all the areas they have authority over is the fact that
they want to structure the society to an average standard. As a natural implication of the
practices of central educational system, children belong more to the state rather than their
families. The decisions made by the families about the education of their children are carried out
within the boundaries set by the state. Thus a system is established in which no individual can
actually take actions outside the control of the state. In the modernization processes which owe
their progress to the racist ideologies and the modern educational system, the society is
regulated through standardization. During this regulation process, the efforts of staying outside
of the cultural, political and economic regulations set by the centralized power are confronted
with aggression. Due to modernization, it becomes gradually harder to sustain existence for the
individuals, minorities, diasporas and groups which do not act in coordination with the
regulations of the centralized power.
3. Criticism against the Modern Political System
As the bureaucratic mechanisms developed by the modern state enable the structuring of all the
individuals, communities and nation under its authority, the modern state was subject to the
criticism especially by the intellectuals of the nineteenth century. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-
1859), Benjamin de Constant (1767-1830), Juan Donoso Cortés (1809-1853) and Jacob
Burckhardt (1818-1897) harshly criticized outcomes caused by the modern state becoming
more prominent in determining all aspects of the society. “Victimhood” caused by the efforts of
the modern state in trying to shape the citizens under its sovereignty to share the same national
identity attracted criticism from the thinkers who believe that freedom should be the foremost
aim of humanity. Efforts of the state in constructing the identity of the individuals which
comprises of answers to what they are and what the main aspects of their existence are took
place among the major political discussions that arose in the nineteenth century.
Burckhardt (1999), who articulates some of the most striking criticism against the
developments caused by the modern political system, being an art historian as well,
emphasizes on individuality, individual identity and humanitarian values. According to Hinde’s
study on Burckhardt, he condemns the fast developing centralized powers for their coercive
characteristics (Hinde, 2000). Further, he believes that the free and creative aspects of human
nature are oppressed by the political developments of the nineteenth century. According to him,
the aspects of democracy which are against reason is the main threat that the modern politics
possesses. The fact that the tendencies of the masses that constitute the society are
unpredictable increases the threats caused by the centralized power which becomes a colossal
structure. While the origins of the modern state lie with the centralization of power, efforts in

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
52
addressing the “public benefit” becomes the major indicator for determining the policies
(Burckhardt, 1999). Burckhardt’s (1999) belief in the fact that it is inevitable for a government
that aims to address all kinds of demands from the people in order to become more effective
and powerful to develop practices that would cause harm to the personal liberties is a central
idea in his conception of modern politics. In a political system where a colossal mass is an
important figure, individuality, identity and freedom of the people are bound to fall under threat.
According to Wilson (2007), Donoso Cortés, another critic of the modern politics,
represents the school of thought which suggests that the Reformation paved way for the
“absolute monarchs” and “administrative centralization” by restricting the power of the Catholic
Church (Wilson, 2007). Modern state consolidates its power by interconnecting all the subjects
and localities it has sovereignty on. For Donoso, the “telegram” became the ultimate
communication instrument due to its function of both interconnecting and controlling all groups,
communities and individuals together as a whole under its sovereignty as suggested by
Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1952). Modern politics disabling localities and organizing everything in a wat
that benefits to the centralized power destroys liberties. The belief that as the “modern political
system” in which the masses comprised of uniform individuals serve the centralized power
becomes dominant, all the local powers that restrict the state with their individualities would be
rapidly obsolete is an essential aspect in Donoso’s conceptualization of politics. According to
Spektorowski (2002), for Donoso centralization of power abolishes the intermediate bodies that
protect the society against oppressing power of the state (Spektorowski, 2002). Hence modern
politics paves way for colossal despotisms.
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) has been an important figure in the political and
intellectual arena during the nineteenth century due to “Code civil des Français”. While
Bonapartism became increasingly popular among the “enlightenment intellectuals” in the
continent and aristocratic liberals who approached cautiously to the social impact of the
extensive transformations. As the belief that everything can be changed in a short time with the
help of military and bureaucratic power gained more widespread acceptance, revolutionary
breakthroughs are encountered more frequently in the political arena as well as the world of
intellect. Constant (2003) is one of the thinkers who oppose Bonapartism in both the intellectual
and political arena. Moreover, Constant is a representative of the “aristocratic liberal” tradition
which criticizes the democratic mechanisms developed after the French Revolution about
forcing the individuals to become a trivial part of the nation and making them “uniform”.
Constant (2003) states that Rousseau’s conception of “social contract” makes the life of the
individual a trivial part of an abstract whole. Thus, aware of the fact that as the citizens are
made to become “uniform”, it is inevitable for the despotism to achieve domination by itself.
Constant is worried that in the modern political system, it is impossible for the individual to have
an existence independent of the society which has become a single whole entity. The main
aspiration of Constant (2003) is providing the necessary opportunities to enable the
development of human potential (Rosenblatt, 2008). In cases where the “counterpowers” which
can act as a counterweight for the centralized power have been destroyed, modern despotisms
would continue their development unhindered. The fact that despotic governments gaining
wider presence in the first half of the twentieth century actually proved Constant to be right.
De Tocqueville is also among the intellectuals who worry about the outcomes of the
social and political developments that took place in the wake of French Revolution. He proposes
that the developments caused by democracy increase the potential of the state to become more
despotic. Centralization of power becomes inevitable in a society which is totally integrated to
the state and which obtains all its opportunities through the state. Under the conditions that a
single center of power is dominant, the centralized power acquires the opportunities to control
everything. As a perpetuator of the Montesquieuian tradition which believes that humans would
lose all their values in conditions where they lack freedom, De Tocqueville (2011) states that in
modern societies designed to constitute a single whole entity, it is extremely challenging to
ensure freedom. De Tocqueville is from a generation that witnessed the destruction of liberties
by the practices which disabled all local aspects of locality enforced by Napoleon in order to
strengthen the state by way of bringing all the citizens under a single identity. During this period,
as with the increase of the power of the state and centralization of the government, people

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
53
gradually lose the control over their own lives. As De Tocqueville (2011) clearly points out, the
“societary pressure” rapidly increases in line with the developments in the modern society.
While the decisions taken during the operation process of the centralized power directly affect
the lives of individuals, everyone start to shape their lives, desires and goals according to the
centralist practices. While in free societies “secondary powers” and “counterweights” act as a
balancing force against the centralized power, modern political power diminish their roles (De
Tocqueville, 2011). In time, how the people’s lives should be and what their desires should be
become subject to the decisions of the centralized power. It is impossible to be free in such
societies.1
It is apparent that throughout the nineteenth century, the modern political mechanisms
employed by the nation states to consolidate the societies under their sovereignty are strongly
criticized by intellectuals and politicians. Nation states utilized the construction of “national
identity” as the main tool for consolidating the society. Local cultures, identities and powers
being diminished and subject to the centralized power and its institutions removed the
necessary conditions that can enable to establish freedom in time. These developments act as
the source for the identity problems as well as the cultural, religious and ethnic conflict which
have increased rapidly after the second half of the twentieth century. While designing everything
detached from its location and replaceable in another location, “modern world system” has also
caused the emergence of diasporas and new minorities on one hand, and arising of new
conflicts between the minority groups and the majorities on the other. While the political
structure of the nation state based on single identity continues its existence, as cities emerge in
which people from various different cultural, religious and racial backgrounds live together, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to provide solutions for new problems and conflicts that arise with
it. These developments confirm the criticisms by the intellectuals targeted at the developments
that took place throughout the nineteenth century.
4. From Modern Society to Risk Society
Construction of the modern society advances in coordination with collectivist ideas gaining a
wider acceptance. In order to organize the society to form a single “totality”, culture, identity,
goals and life styles need to be communized. Modern politics is designed to enable the
establishment of such communization. People are encouraged to adopt the collectivist
ideologies through cultural and educational institutions that enable the development of “common
values”. Thus, each day, individuals find themselves in a situation where they cannot make the
decisions about their lives independent from the centralized power. “National identity” becomes
the sole determining factor in the creation of all values, habits and attitudes that constitute life.
Materialist ideas which have developed in coordination with the advance of
modernization contribute to the establishing of the social structure where despotism can be in
power. Hence all modernist ideologies are based on materialist ideas, since materialism has
deterministic characteristics (Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1952). The belief of everything being subject to
the determination by universal laws gaining wide audience is due to the impact of both
materialism and determinism. Accordingly, all subjects constituting the society structure their
lives, ideas and actions according to the functions imposed on them by the universal laws. In a
society constituting of individuals who think that under the influence of materialism, they are
hopeless against the inevitability of universal laws domination of despotism becomes gradually
unavoidable.
1 The criticism of the 19th century liberal intellectuals against the central state has been directed towards
the economically central planning states in the 20th century with the rise of socialism. Hayek, who sees
himself as a follower of Tocqueville, proposes that the belief of modern states in their ability to construct
the society from scratch transforms into totalitarianism which would destroy personal liberties. For a
detailed study on this subject see Bugra Kalkan (2013), “Klasik Liberalizm Geleneğinde Kendiliğinden
Doğan Düzen Kavramının Gelişimi” (The Development of the Concept of Spontaneous Order in the
Classical Liberal Tradition), Unprinted Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi University Institute of Social Sciences,
2013 Ankara.

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
54
Individuals losing the belief that they can change their lives with their “free will” under
the influence of determinism and under modernism conditions where increases the influence of
the centralized power and the central will. Thus in time, the ideas and actions that can oppose
the power to be centralized become less and less prominent. “Modern centralized power”
structures the society in a way that no one can oppose the “general will”. In modern politics
where the decision taken by the majority is the main leading force, it is extremely easy for the
“general will” to acquire the privilege of mobilizing the will of the individuals. Under conditions
where the majority is the main actor in creating legislations, the parliamentary system becomes
a mere mechanism through which the minorities are manipulated. Therefore, a “uniform” society
comprising of parts that resemble each other over time can be constructed.
Another factor in creating a “uniform” society is the circulation of constructed
conceptualizations that individuals employ to identify and express themselves through the use
of mass media. As people are constantly informed by the modern mass media on how things
should be, the information that is deemed to be true by everyone is accepted as the sole truth.
The sovereign majority which shapes the information through mass media can establish
despotic authority over others. Under conditions where the information is designed centrally, the
opportunities of freedom where alternative life styles can be possible rapidly diminish.
During the early period where the modern state and the society are established in
coordination, integrating communities who speak nearly the same language with each other has
been achieved much easier than the integration of communities from various different religious,
cultural and national backgrounds during the “late modern period”. Rapid advances in the
transportation and communication network which increase the influence of communication and
interaction between the center power and the periphery, speeds up the process of economic,
cultural and political centralization. Hence people start sharing more common values, common
concerns and common goals with the people that do not live in the same location. Construction
of national identity is actualized with the increase in number of people sharing a common
culture despite living in different locations. With the centralization of economy, politics and
culture individuals become directly affected by the actions of the national state. Therefore,
“positive liberty” which enables the individuals to take part in decision making processes,
develops gradually. On the other hand, “negative liberty” which means being closed to the
influence of others quickly diminishes. In line with the development of positive liberty, individuals
obtain the opportunity to participate in common decision making processes with the means
provided by the representative democracy. However, with the diminishing of negative liberty,
individuals become more vulnerable to the influence and manipulation from others.
Rapid increase in migration movement since the second half of the twentieth century
leaves the nation states facing new problems. Integrating migrants coming from various
different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds is more difficult than the integration of the
communities which speak the same language. Especially racist and nationalist ideologies which
have essential roles in construction of the national identity pose as a serious obstacle against
the integration of minorities. In addition, minority groups can also show serious resistance to the
integration policies. Under these circumstances, various conflicts emerge in the “multicultural”
metropolises caused by the political and cultural structure of the modern state which is based
on uniformity and a single nation. While nation states require the labor force of the migrants, the
structure of the modern society and politics which are designed to depend on a single culture
and identity increases the risk of social conflicts. The fact that the construction of modern state
and society requiring the existence of a “uniform nation” leads to the problems arising in the
“risk society” comprising of various communities which become more diverse each day to be
irresolvable.
New social conflict risks which have been the point of interest for social scientists since
1980s have quickly become an important factor during 1990s. Beck (1992) is among the
pioneers of the intellectuals who emphasize the concept of “risk society”. Indicating the
problems and conflict risks caused by the diversity within risk societies, Beck (1992) states that
the achievements of the technological civilization lead to new problems. Modernity reduces the
possibility of predictable futures, and causes “ambivalence”. Existing and being governed under
the conditions of modernity generates new risk factors. Keeping under control and managing

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
55
violence, ambivalence and crises to a certain extent is the main success of modernity.
Modernism maintained its development by way of creating solutions to the emerging economic
and political problems. However, the risks which cause a continuous anticipation of possible
“catastrophes” originate from the structural aspects of modernism itself. The main reason for
security concerns to remain constantly on the daily agenda is the fact that modernism makes
“change” an essential part of life. Under the circumstances where everything changes anytime,
the future remains always uncertain. This in turn causes the risks and anticipation for
catastrophes constantly to be on the agenda. As the new risks that quickly arise due to the
society consisting of numerous minorities and diasporas gradually make the society more
difficult to organize, and the capability of modernism to create solutions for these problems
diminishes.
In the late period of modernism, predicting the outcomes of interactions and conflicts
between the classes, groups and minorities constituting the society becomes ever harder.
Moreover, with the increase in the economic, political and cultural interaction in the international
area, all the locations in the world gain the potential to affect one another. Risks and
uncertainties in a “location” which becomes vulnerable to the economic, political and cultural
developments from all other locations increase. Hence, the complex results of internal and
external factors constantly keep the expectation of “catastrophe” on the agenda and together
with the increase of risks, reduce the possibilities of maintaining the economy and politics under
control. Therefore, in the eventually inevitable “risk society”, racism and xenophobia quickly
spreads. The discourse of migrants causing social problems by threatening the socio-economic
security is the main foundation of racist and xenophobic conceptions (O'Brien, 1996). On one
hand, the economic conditions which require people with different ethnical, cultural and religious
origins to act in cooperation rapidly thrive, while on the other hand popularization of racist and
xenophobic approaches caused by uncertainties increase the risks of conflicts. Under these
circumstances, it is inevitable for the economic and political structure of the modernism which is
based on the “uniform” society to continuously face new crises.
5. Identities, Diasporas and Migration in Risk Society
The tension between the national characteristics of the modern political system and the
international characteristic of the economy is one of the essential factors that shape the late
modernism period. As obtaining the raw materials needed for production processes becomes
more difficult from just one location, national economies become more and more
interdependent. Additionally, development of design and engineering knowledge required for
production also needs more international cooperation. Establishment of international political
bodies (such as European Union) have been opted as a solution in order to address the
requirement for the economy shifting to be more international in nature. However, these
solutions which aim to reduce the risks of probable conflicts that may arise in the international
area, poses new risks.
The risks overflowing the national borders and become global increase the potential of
conflicts not only between states, but also between ethnic, cultural and religious groups. As the
globalized economy increases the competition and cooperation between countries, population
movements which become inevitable rapidly change the demographical structures of national
states. Since the second half of the nineteenth century, increase in migration to the countries
with developed production infrastructure leads to the emergence of new global risks. It is
possible to temporarily prevent the potential conflict risks with “welfare state” policies. However
the inconsistencies between the complications arising from the globalized economy and the
structural characteristics of the nation states increase the risks. Nations states which could
manage and mobilize the society under their sovereignty with utmost perfection during the
second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century gradually have
difficulties in dealing with the crises and conflicts arising from their societies which keep getting
more fractured in nature. Moreover, the potential for economic and political problems in different
locations in the world creating crises that affect other parts of the world increases rapidly. These

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
56
circumstances decrease the possibility of a predictable future and render the planning,
regulation and control which are the essential functions of the modern states impossible.
Ensuring coordination between groups with different identities becomes harder in a
political system where the majority is dominant in decision making processes. This situation
puts the minorities under the idea of constant victimhood and reduces their desire to participate
in the political decision making processes. The increase of the number of individuals who think
they cannot have an impact in the political decision making processes pose as the indicators of
a new society that is comprised of closed groups which are not in communication and
interaction with each other. While the risk society weakens the boundaries of the nation states,
military alliances and economic blocks (Beck, 1992), developing economic and political
mechanisms to resolve the ghettoization in the newly emerging social structures becomes more
cumbersome.
As the national identities designed by the modern nation states start to become
inadequate in addressing the needs of the political system, individuals tend to embrace their
group identities in order to express themselves. Moreover, concerns for being subject to the
assimilation by the majority leads to radicalization of diasporic group identities. Diasporic
identities showing more and more radical tendencies in order to protect themselves are a factor
that increases the risks. This makes harder for the state to ensure harmony and cooperation
among all identities and diasporas. While continuous migration causes the policies that are
implemented in order to obtain solutions in a short period of time, it becomes impossible to
produce effective solutions for new problems.
As living in a society where ambivalence and risks are dominant becomes ever
inevitable, the control mechanisms of modern states attain a more complex structure. Although
deterioration of the harmony between the structural characteristics of nation state and the
society under its sovereignty brings about the structural transformations, practices that are
aimed at maintaining the order become more indicative. While democratic mechanisms urge the
states to address the demands of the people, the scope of the problems widen as the conflicts
between the groups that constitute the society becoming ethnical, religious and cultural in
nature. While on one hand trying to act in compliance with the international developments in
order to expand the economic opportunities, the states on the other hand face problems caused
by political and economic crises triggered by external factors on the other hand.
Since the international developments carry the potential of causing conflicts between
the groups that constitute the society, it becomes necessary to take into account all kinds of
crises and risks that take place around the world. This leads to states and societies becoming
more “anxious”, and increase the potential for crises and risks. The fact that life cannot be spent
in a location that is fully controlled and regulated increases the economic and political
destruction caused by the risk potential. The fact that possible developments such as energy
crises or financial crises that can arise any time (even though these crises take place in another
country) can have impact on the lives of individuals increases the level of anxiety. This in turn
spreads the racist discourses which hold minority groups and diasporas that are thought to
prevent order and control responsible for potential risks.
6. Mass Media and Risk Society in the Identity Construction Process
One of the most important methods to the identity problems that arise under the risk society
conditions of modern nation states is participating in the construction of identities as an active
subject. The process of institutionalization and bureaucratization that takes place during the
construction of the modern state has transformed the culture and identities. Thus, modern
states are extremely experienced in shaping the identity and culture of the citizens living within
the boundaries of its dominion. As the modern state has developed its power and economy and
obtained the chance to provide new opportunities for its citizens it experience, it has
experienced that it has become bureaucratically more efficient. Integrating the centralized
power and society leads to the emergence of states that are more “powerful” beyond
comparison than the pre-modern states. Since bureaucratic centralization aims for
administrative harmony and unity, it weakens other powers that can pose as alternatives

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
57
(Maletz, 2002). Modern state is such a mechanism that it does not leave any alternative to
share the power with, and eliminates all legitimate power alternatives. The fact that the state,
rapidly increasing the opportunities to control and manipulate everything by this means, reduces
the opportunities for the individuals to be free and leads to new kinds of despotisms to emerge.
Communication has a highly essential role in the establishment of bureaucratic systems
of modern states. Due to rapidly advancing means of communication, all regulation and control
mechanisms enable the state to have the possibility to observe all kinds of economic, cultural
and political developments. Means of communication also have the function of enabling the
state and the society act in a more coordinative manner. Thus, all localities can follow the
practices and mobilization of the center of power. In turn, through the use of means of
communication, the power center ensures that all the parts within its dominion act in harmony
with each other.
The educational institutes of the modern state produce the necessary knowledge for the
construction of the national identity. Citizens who acquire this knowledge from the educational
institutes develop similar attitudes and behaviors to other citizens who do not share the same
location. Thus, emergence of a “uniform” society that is comprised of individuals with the same
knowledge, culture and identity enables the modern state to coordinate all civil society. The
modern state which seizes the opportunity to shape the sources of knowledge for the people
with the use of “mass media” also determines what to desire and aim for. Hence the common
identity, culture and knowledge which become dominant, ensure that the society demonstrates
similar attitudes and behaviors on its own. During this process, everyone participates in the
actions of the government which no longer require the on purpose actions of a specific subject
on the micro and macro levels.
Under the conditions of “risk society”, the role of the modern state in constructing the
identity of the society which it has maintained since the early stages gradually diminishes. As
the various different diasporas which have become part of the society by means of “migration”
show different levels of resistance to the assimilation policies of the modern state, different
identities become more independent of each other. In a society where gradually all identities
keep existing within their own “ghettos”, it becomes much harder to ensure the coordination
between different groups constituting the society. This in turn increases the potential risks and
leads to a situation in which the expectation of chaos is constantly present on the agenda. As
the means of communication become more widespread so that they cannot be managed from a
single center, each group begins to follow the means of communication that addresses their
own identity. Hence the media also becomes “ghettoized” and this causes the circulation of
different and at times, conflicting information to circulate. Increase in the numbers and activity of
the individuals and groups that construct their lives and identities by acquiring different
information weakens the structural characteristics of modernism.
Ghettoization of the media taking place in conjunction with the ghettoization within the
society ends the existence of the public space in which all parts of the society communicate.
The fall of public space also renders the public opinion to form impossible. For this reason,
under circumstances where the public opinion which is formed during discussion processes
shaped by the state by manipulating the citizens and civil society is not present; the state
imposes decisions, opinions and information by force or by means of justification through
bureaucratic necessities. In cases where interests, goals and identities are becoming more
differentiated over time, it becomes impossible for the state and the society to act in full
cooperation. It is extremely difficult for a society comprising of groups with increasing potential
for conflict among each other to be administered in accordance with the administrative
requirements of modernism. During this period, the modern state tries to construct new
identities that will allow social unity and “uniformity”. However, this effort by the modern states
becomes futile in circumstances where change is inevitable. Since the artificial identities which
take a long time to construct and to become widespread wear out quite fast, they become
obsolete in addressing the political needs.
Modern states that losing their ability to construct and mobilize the culture and identity
causes various kinds of victimhood. Due to its structural characteristics, the modern state
constantly forces all the subjects constituting the society to act in coordination. The concern for

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
58
the different and incompatible subjects weakening the social order and coordination spreads
rapidly in the “risk society” conditions. As the centralized power tries to establish a practice in
which differences are contained in private areas and rendered obsolete in the public spaces,
discriminative approaches against all minorities and diasporas gain a wider audience. Since the
majority which represents the centralized power constructs its identity through characteristics
which enable distinguishing itself from others, it becomes increasingly harder for the minorities
and diasporas to act in harmony with the state and the society. As the victimhood caused by the
oppressive policies enforced by the centralized power in order to maintain the order leads to the
popularization of the feeling of exclusion, the expectations for conflict and chaos increase. Thus,
the conditions in which the private and public life is directly determined by risks become
dominant.
7. Conclusion
The modern state proposes a mechanical structure in which all the parts constituting the power
act in perfect coordination with each other. In this respect, throughout the development period of
the “state” within human history, the modern state has the potential to establish the despotism
and totalitarianism perfectly. The modern state fulfills its function of structuring and shaping not
only itself, but also the society as well. In traditional states, the society and the state occupy the
same space as separate entities, whereas the modern state integrates the society to itself
through the means of democracy. Thus the state operates most efficiently and mechanically,
and is extremely successful in achieving its goals. The state operating in a manner that
establishes “uniformity” in the society against the locality, originality and individuality, is a
characteristic of the modern politics that weakens liberties. The modern economy and politics
which cause the people to be shaped under a single identity and be constantly manipulated,
constitutes a situation in which liberties are abolished and it becomes impossible to be a
“subject”. Thus, the “common interest” which is established as a result of making the people
dependent on the state economically and politically can be used in order to manipulate the
society most effectively. The central administration commands a substantial part of the total
resources and thus weakens the individual welfare of its citizens (Buchanan, 2000).
In the nineteenth century, thinkers such as Hegel (2001) praise the new power structure
established by the modern state by interconnecting the “universal” and “particularity”. In
opposition to these kinds of ideas which legitimize the absolute authoritative and leading role of
the state over the society, the modern state has encountered serious criticism. The modern
economic and political practices which diminish the subjectivity constructed by people
themselves by means of exclusively developing their individual potentials; have established an
infrastructure that renders despotism dominant. The conditions that cause subjectivity to be
eliminated originate from the conceptualization that reduces people to a trivial part of a
production mechanism. In cases where the centralized power structures all localities, the
individual loses the opportunity to make an impact on the place and time it exists in. Centralized
power becomes so essential in modernism conditions that after some time, the subject of power
begins to fade away. The power spreads so much from center to the periphery that everything
starts to act and operate in line with the will of the center on its own.
Gellner (1983) states that modern societies inevitably constitute centralized structure.
This structure is effective in modern societies in all areas from culture to politics. However, the
modern nation state, which has increased its speed of development after the second half of 19th
century, encountered a new problem and new oppositions since the second half of the twentieth
century. Substantially establishing their national integrity culturally and economically despite all
the class struggles, the national state systems have to overcome various obstacles in order to
control their area of sovereignty which has started to constitute a multicultural structure. Under
circumstances where “risks” have become a part of everyday life, the “future” which becomes
more uncertain with time is one of the leading threats as well as security problems. Under the
pressure of “risks” caused by the unpredictable future, the modern state has the tendency to
make the control mechanism more effective. Thus, the conditions in which the personal and
public life are determined by despotic practices become more dominant.

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
59
“Communication networks” which have rapidly advanced during modernization period,
are the essential means of transforming the society to a “uniform” mass by the state.
Centralized power effectively utilizes the media in order to take the “mutual knowledge” under
its control and thus integrate the local powers to itself. The heavy usage of media by the state in
order to shape the information and news increases the pressure on the migrants and minorities.
While the national identity requires an “other” in order to identify itself; diasporas, migrants and
minorities show tendencies of radicalization and ghettoization in order to maintain their
individualities. This weakens the power of the modern state to govern the society. In a society
comprising of groups with different characteristics, it becomes even more difficult to establish
harmony, consistency and peace. This in turn creates a society where risks and expectations of
conflicts are dominant.
The despotic tendencies of the modern state reveal themselves in the manipulation of
information and news. The “modern state” obtains the privilege of classifying objects and
actions through media, education and cultural institutes. This ability to classify also enables the
state to determine what is good and what is bad. Hence the modern states also shape the
identities and have the power to determine what the individuals are, that they should desire and
how they should live. Being extremely successful in creating a “uniform” nation, the modern
state, due to its structural characteristic, wants to establish a social integrity that can act in
coordination. However, this structural characteristic of the modern state causes various
problems under conditions in which the globalization has made the locations interconnected
with each other.
Under circumstances where identity diversity has increased, the mechanisms of the
state that enforce the individuals to act in coordination begin to operate in a more despotic
manner. As the structure of the modern politics that enforces everyone’s goals to be in
coordination with the society’s goals becomes obsolete under the conditions of globalization
where different locations are intertwined with one another, the potential for conflicts and
expectations of chaos increase. Thus once the “risk society” has been established and it makes
it gradually impossible for the modern state to control, regulate and mobilize the society
absolutely. As a result, the tension between the state and the society rapidly increase leading
way to ethnic, religious and cultural conflicts.
References
Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Beck, U., 1998. World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., 1999. What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., 2005a. Power in the global age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., 2005b. The cosmopolitan state: Redefining power in the global age. International
Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 18(3/4), pp.143-159.
Buchanan, J. M., 2000. The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and leviathan. Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund.
Burckhardt, J., 1999. Judgments on history and historians. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Constant, B., 2003. Principles of politics: Applicable to all governments. Indianapolis: Liberty
Fund.
De Tocqueville, A., 2011. The ancient regime and the French revolution. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Drescher, S., 1964. Tocqueville's two democraties. Journal of the History of Ideas, 25(2),
pp.201-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2708012
Gellner, E., 1983. Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gellner, E., 1994. Encounters with nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hegel, G.W.F., 2001. Philosophy of right. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Hinde, J. R., 2000. Jacob Burckhardt and the crisis of modernity. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-
Queen's University Press.

Devrim Ozkan / Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 2016, 48-60
60
Kalkan, B., 2013. “Klasik liberalism geleneginde kendiliginden dogan dozen kavraminin gelisimi”
[The development of the concept of spontaneous order in the classical liberal tradition].
Ph.D. Ankara: Gazi University.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E., 1952. Liberty or equality: The challenge of our time. Caldwell, Idaho: The
Caxton Printers Ltd.
Maletz, D. J., 2002. Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority reconsidered. The Journal of Politics,
64(3), pp.741-763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00148
O'Brien, P., 1996. Migration and its risks. The International Migration Review, 30(4), pp.1067-
1077. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2547604
Rosenblatt, H., 2008. Liberal values: Benjamin Constant and the politics of religion. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490729
Spektorowski, A., 2002. Maistre, Donoso Cortés, and the legacy of catholic authoritarianism.
Journal of the History of Ideas, 63(2), pp.283-302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2002.0018
Wilson, F. G., 2007. Donoso Cortes: The continuing crisis. Journal of Inter-American Studies,
2(1), pp.45-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/164784