In the third chapter of Joe Harris’ “Rewriting”, he addresses the topic of countering texts, and this refers to scrutinizing the text very closely and determining which details were left out or overlooked. Countering is used to critique other writings in the most efficient manner possible using 3 methods, and those methods are arguing the other side, uncovering values and dissenting. Harris’ description of arguing the other side is “showing the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized or noting problems with one that she or he argued for.” (pg. 57) Giddens appears to be quite an advocate of this procedure; he very often brings up the ideas of another person to address their beliefs on a certain topic, and then proceeds to argue his own beliefs. He does this to demonstrate the common beliefs on a topic and after doing so and sharing as much as he can on a topic, he argues the other side of the topic and expresses his own beliefs. Due to the fact that I am in disagreement with quite a few of Giddens’ beliefs, I wish to argue the other side of some of Giddens’ ideas concerning “disembedding”.
Overall, Giddens’ does a phenomenal job of expressing his beliefs, he makes his point very clear in a majority of his arguments. However, I cannot say that I am in agreement with everything that he says. Rather than just stating that I think Giddens’ is wrong and bashing his ideas and beliefs, I will use Harris’ method of arguing against the other side. Giddens describes “disembedding” as “the lifting out of social relations from local contexts of interaction and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time-space.” (pg 21) He then goes on to discuss “money” as a symbolic token of disembedding in our current society today. Giddens’ believes that money lifts us away from our local contexts and in a way causes society to become more “disembedded”. This may be true, money has definitely expanded our methods of interaction greatly; but personally I do not believe that this is a bad thing. Giddens’ also goes on to say that “money does not exist” and “money is a mode of deferral” (pg 24), and he talks about how money simply took away the traditional methods of trade which was simply exchanging item for item. He then goes on to say that money provides for the interaction of agents who are widely separated in both time and space.
Though some of Giddens’ statements may be true, I am still perplexed on why Giddens would say that “money does not exist” and that it is “a mode of deferral”. Money is absolutely real and it does exist, it plays an important part of everyday life for a majority of humans on this earth. People devote a large amount of their time to working in order to obtain money so they are able to support their families and live their everyday lives. Though Giddens’ is correct about money taking away the traditional methods of exchanging item for item, I personally believe that this is not really a bad thing. Giddens was not stating that money actually does not exist, he was most likely trying to express that money simply represents debt that humans possess, and that is all it’s good for. Money may be a piece of paper that is symbolic of a debt owed from one person to another; however in my opinion it is an efficient manner of trading between one another. Prior to its paper form, money was definitely around fundamentally, people simply traded item for item. Debt, which is what money today represents, has always been around since the early days of humans trading with one another. Money, in its current form today, has simply helped expand the area in which humans are able to have debt and trade with one another. Debt and trading will always be prominent in our society, thus proving the existence of money now and in the many following years to come. By arguing the other side, it was simple to counter Giddens ideas and further scrutinize his statement that “money does not exist” and that it is a “mode of deferral”.
Globalization & Modernity (77) 
I can relate to several key points you bring up in your argument relating to Giddens. I like that you acknowledged Giddens exceptional work of stating his beliefs and making his main points clear in his arguments. However, I definitely stand by you when you say, “I cannot say I am in agreement with everything he says.” Although Giddens can deliver his main point to the audience, he does a poor job of explaining in detail how he got to that point. Instead he works in a mode that goes from point A to point B to point C without much transition or clarification in between. An example I noted was when Giddens develops his viewpoint of symbolic tokens, money in particular as permitting the exchange of anything for anything regardless of the qualities of the goods. He then goes on a few pages later to say that money relates to a means of bracketing time-space by coupling instantaneity and deferral, presence and absence without any clarification on how he reached that conclusion.
LikeLike
I like the way you summarized Giddens’ method of critiquing; ” ..he very often brings up the ideas of another person to address their beliefs on a certain topic, and then proceeds to argue his own beliefs.” This is seen throughout his book. On pages 65-66, Giddens brings up the belief upheld by a few theorists that our different governmental systems are in an “overall movement towards ‘one world'” (Giddens 66). He then makes a point that the idea of the international coordination of states mainly applies to nation-states, and not so much pre-modern states, as there is much more administrative power in the nation- states than in their previous governmental systems.
LikeLike
Giddens uses Harris’ method of arguing the other side very well as the author did the same here. The author says Giddens idea and then expresses his own by saying, “Money is absolutely real and it does exist.” Money does exist and is used every day, but the idea of credit cards, online shopping, and debt as you mentioned do hint at the movement from money as a legitimate object to just being a number on a screen. But Giddens contradicts himself later on by saying, “Modern money economies is vastly greater than was the case in any of the pre-modern civilizations” (24-25). Here Giddens says that money actually is important in our modern society, but how is this the case if money does not exist? Giddens makes arguments and then changes his ideas while explaining those arguments. Without consistency in your thinking your arguments and opinions are flawed which the author of this post points out. How is a capitalist economy a benchmark of modernity when money does not actually exist?
Stephen
LikeLike
Connor,
I wonder how much of your disagreement with Giddens is based on a too-literal reading? As the Director of the London School of Economics, I’m guessing that he knows that money is real. But you raise an important issue when you start to think about whether or not disembedding is necessarily a bad thing. Can you think of some liberating effects of disembedding?
~DM
LikeLike
It is safe to say that up to this point Giddens has used arguing the other side the most out of the three methods of countering. I agree with you when you say “ Giddens appears to be quite an advocate of this procedure; he very often brings up the ideas of another person to address their beliefs on a certain topic, and then proceeds to argue his own beliefs.” The example you gave regarding Giddens views on money and “disembedding” showed how Giddens does not do a good job in connecting the points he is trying to make. Even though his individual points make sense, and are very detailed, for me the connections are not there.
LikeLike
This post starts off very sting. You connect Harris’ method of “arguing the other side” and instances where Giddens uses this very nicely. You also use his method of arguing the other side and show you have a deep understanding of what it is when you say, Rather than just stating that I think Giddens’ is wrong and bashing his ideas and beliefs, I will use Harris’ method of arguing against the other side.” You then go on to do exactly what you said you would do. Although I disagree with some points you make, I do see where you are coming from and appreciate that you have your own personal input in this post. What do you think Giddens means when he says “money does not exist”? He obviously does not mean that literally, so what could he be trying to get across?
-AP
LikeLike