[ Introduction and Description | Schedule and Readings | Assessment and Policies | Related Resources ]
COURSE PACKET
OTHER
In this first week of Unit 1, we will look at modernity as it is used in a broadly descriptive sense: as a way of talking about changes that have occurred in society and also in terms of human consciousness. We'll maintain the tension identified last week between the notion of native and analytic categories, and also question whether the notion of the modern is primarily descriptive (it describes something that really happened) or discursive (it's something people say about themselves).
The readings this week follow a pattern that we'll make use of in Unit 1. The majority are theoretical, and we'll concentrate on these for much of the class. However, we also have a literary text--here the Pramoedya short story--which we'll use to think through notions of the modern as they are explored and thematized in cultural texts.
In class, we'll probably proceed in the following way. We'll begin with a quick look at the literary text, and revisit our assumptions about literary texts and literary analysis. We'll then look at the Kant and the Marx, and use the Fornäs essay to place them in context, before going back to the Pramoedya short story and seeing what this exploration has yielded for us. You thus may want to mimic this approach in your reading: read and enjoy the Pramoedya short story first, and then look at the theoretical texts.
Both the Kant and the Marx texts may contain surprises for you. Kant begins with the notion of Enlightenment as "sapere aude," of daring to know and to rationally free oneself from past beliefs: this has often been taken as paradigmatic of notions of what the "modern" might be. However, I'd like you to think of two things in your reading. The first is to note what implicit comparisons Kant makes in the first four paragraphs: what are unenlightened people compared to, and how do women figure? Second, after paragraph four Kant seems to change tack somewhat and argue that there are limitations placed on freedom which centre on a distinction he makes between"public" and "private." These lead him to the rather surprising conclusion that a benevolent monarchy enables more freedom than a republic, and to note that there is something centrally "paradoxical" about the freedom that modernity brings. I'll be interested in exploring this more deeply: if you want to know who Frederick is, the enlightened ruler who might say "argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey," look at the wiki entry for Frederick II of Prussia.
The series of selections from Marx concentrate on something different: the economic and social aspects of changes in the modern world, and indeed, crucially, relations between society and economy, which contemporary neo-liberal thought might often posit to be distinct. As the introduction to the selection notes, Marx has proved prescient in some ways, wrong in others, but the essays collectively are thought-provoking. One way of thinking of them is to note that Marx, like Kant, posits that modernity, paradoxically, brings both new freedoms and new mechanisms for control.
The Fornäs article is much more difficult than the others, so think of it more as a resource you can come back to, rather than thinking of it as a text whose every corner you must explore. Note that the article represents both an attempt to survey different ways in which the concept of modernity has been used and, simultaneously, an argument for a certain view of the modern: note, for instance, Fornäs's preference for the term "late modernity" over "postmodernity," which indicates an underlying critical stance that you may or may not agree with. Modernity is such a contested term, however, that any effort to define it is also likely to end up making normative statements about it with which others may disagree.
In class, we will probably only focus substantially on the inherent tensions in modernity that Fornäs identifies, and which may have connections to the paradoxes present in Kant and Marx. You'll note that the three early "characteristics of the modern" -- "irreversible dynamization," "ambivalent rationalization," and "differentiating universalization" -- outlined are all paradoxical and indeed oxymoronic. Focus in particular on three sections of this discussion:
Irreversible dynamization as expressed in "Modernity is not heading ... rationalization, differentiation and universalization" (pp.26-27).
Ambivalent rationalization as expressed in "Habermas has distinguished .... precise but contradictory implications" (pp. 28-29).
Differentiating universalization as expressed in "Modernity has a universalizing tendency . . . than was ever any original pre-differentiated unity" (pp. 30-31).
The reading guide below may be helpful for exploring the rest of the article:
The Fornäs article elaborates on some of the issues we'll have begun to discuss last week, and is a very useful starting point. It's also one of the more difficult articles you'll have to read. One thing to be aware of is that Fornäs is doing three things in the article. He is laying out for us how a variety of people have seen or categorized modernity. At the same time he worries incessantly at the categories he describes, thinking of possible counter arguments or weaknesses. Finally, he is also presenting his own views on what modernity is. While he maintains strategic ambiguity on many questions, it is clear that he considers that we are living in a late modern, rather than a postmodern epoch, and that he considers the term "postmodernity" problematic (35-37).
Fornäs presents a way of cutting the cake of modernity in several ways: his way is certainly not the only way, but the essay is useful because it divides everything up into manageable chunks. In the following paragraphs, I'm going to give an overview of the way in which the essay makes these divisions. If you find Fornäs's essay difficult, I'd recommend that you read the essay first, and then go back through the text with the aid of the guidelines you have below. Try, in each case when a concept of category is used, to think of a possible illustration. Feel free also to argue with Fornäs, or suggest things that he has missed out.
Fornäs begins with the paradox that modernity itself has a long history. He begins by considering different theories of modernization. These may concentrate on different aspects or connotations of the modern ("recent times" (19), "the evasive present moment" (19), or "the new" (20), but they all identify certain key "processes of change" (20). Fornäs identifies these as 1) irreversible dynamism, 2) ambivalent rationalization and 3) differentiating universalism. Try to express what these concepts are in your own words, and to think of examples of them. Note also some interesting arguments that Fornäs makes on the way. First, he seems to suggest that tradition is not simply the opposite of modernity (21-22); secondly, he makes a key distinction between "goal-oriented rationality" and "communicative rationality" (28-29).
Fornäs now moves to "cut the cake" of modernity in three complementary ways. First, in terms of "phases," he suggests that we can think of Early, High, and Late Modern periods, while always remaining flexible about the application of these categories. Again, you might want to think of your own examples. Is contemporary Singapore undergoing high or late modernity? Was colonialism part of early, high, or late modernity-or was it modern at all? Second, in terms of "modes," Fornäs distinguishes between modernization, modernity, and modernisms. Think through what he means by these categories, and again try to think of examples. Finally, Fornäs looks at "levels" of the modern. Here he makes a more complex division, which goes something like this:
Note also the key discussions on pp. 44-45 on individualization and reflexivity as features of the modern; again you might want to flesh this out mentally with examples. Fornäs goes on to explore some key ways in which individuals or groups might respond to the problems of modernity, either negatively, or positively. Again, you might wish to "unpack" his summary of Ziehe's double triad of reactions to modernity. Responses can be divided first into "conventionalist," "neoconservative" and "collective striving" movements, and secondly into subjectivising, objectivising and "potentiating" tendencies (46-47). If you can think of other illustrations here, you'll have finally completed all of Fornäs's taxonomizing.
Last updated: 12 July, 2007