Introduction

The first task of this chapter is to try and clarify the key features of apost-modern perspective. Distinguishing this from accounts that observepost-modernity without necessarily subscribing to a post-modern frame andfrom accounts that are ‘post-traditional’ is equallyimportant. The observer must not be confused with the enthusiasticparticipant. However, before doing so it would be reasonable to make thecase for including a chapter on post-modern/post-traditional perspectives,since this could be seen as an unwarranted intrusion by some ill-manneredsociological neighbours who mock the cherished, but ‘kitsch’possessions within the home of social policy (Mann, 1998; Soper, 1993).

Although a number of distinct and different insights are provided byobservers of post-modernity (Bauman, 1992), post-scarcity society (Harvey,1994), risk society (Beck, 1992) and commentators on post-traditionalsociety (Giddens, 1994, 1998), the number and type of ‘posts’alone can be confusing to the uninitiated. Here five themes are seen assignificant and although some are peculiar to one ‘post’perspective, others are shared, albeit with a few quibbles over the degreeof consensus.

• • First, there is a suggestion that a number of social changeshave combined in a manner that means society is very different todayfrom 50 years ago when the ‘modern’ welfare state wasestablished.

• • Second, these changes pose fundamental questions about theability of any form of public welfare to address the desires andneeds of the population.

• • Third, some of the brightest sociological minds arepersuaded that contemporary developed societies, like Britain, theUS and Australia, are qualitatively different to their predecessors,wrestling by and large with the problems of success rather thanfailure. Such claims have to be taken seriously because they appearto have had some influence, even infiltrating the vocabulary ofpoliticians. The agenda set by those at the ‘toptable’ can clearly be significant.

• • Fourth, difference and diversity, part of the mantra ofpost-modernity, have also been key themes for specific welfareconstituents. Thus there may be pressures and processes that are‘bottom up’ as well as ‘top down’ thatcorrespond with a post-modern/post-traditional perspective.

• • Fifth, and finally, the central themes of a post-modernframe – risk, diversity, anti-universalism, ambiguity, desireand difference – have profound implications for the future ofwelfare in general and retirement pensions in particular.