Giddens and Existentialism

Gidden's understanding of modernity first relies heavily on a static view of anonymous/mass culture 'tradition', against which he is able to pose modernity as BOTH a phenomenon (he presents it as pretty much singular) of unhindered mobility (juggernaut out of control) AND one characterised by 'ruptures'. The effect of Gidden's metaphor is to present a vision of whatever he means by modernity (it's hard to use Giddens helpfully here in anything but abstract discussions) as being profoundly disempowering, deindividuating, and one, ultimately, in which hope (as involvement in positive transformation) has little place. He would not agree, I'm sure, but it is difficult to reconcile his vision of modernity with any helpful understanding of participative, transformative agency. One paradox is that this 'disempowerment' is probably understood in relation to an increase in 'individuation', as people move towards atomistic separation.

As I understand certain strands of intercivilizationalists, individual agency is paramount, in some cases even an absolute authority, and to my knowledge the chaos and extreme uncertainty that Giddens speaks of is also likely to be characteristic of world-views in some strands of intercivilizationalist thought. Many understandings of intercivilizationalism also use 'rupture' to characterise the way the world works. Similarly, sometimes the intercivilizationalist is understood as 'unhindered mobility' in the face of static 'tradition' (thereby effecting the 'rupture'. What are the paradoxes of modernity and dilemmas of self in an existential sense for Giddens? Any thoughts?

Kind