Suchergebnisse

Douglass reviews 'Political Theory, Modernity and Post-Modernity' by N. J. Rengger.

The article discusses the concept of multiple and entangled modernity that is proposed instead of universal Western-type modernity that is criticized by the modernity discourse. We argue that the concept of multiple modernity is broadened by the concept of entangled modernity. The latter explains the multiplicity of modernities and the theoretical possibility of a certain universal model of modern society through the global interaction of societies. From the point of view of entangled modernity, a certain universality of societies arises not from the structural evolution of society itself, but from the interaction of modern and pre-modern societies. The concept of entangled modernity allows one to analytically distinguish between the Soviet modernity and the Soviet period modernity, which can be used to describe the modern Lithuanian society of the Soviet period. The modern Lithuanian society of the Soviet period is the result of an interaction of the modern Lithuanian society with the Soviet project of modern society that was forcibly implemented by local social agents of the occupied society.

This article offers the concept of `global modernity' ( in the singular) as a way to understand the contemporary world. It suggests that the concept helps overcome the teleology implicit in a term such as globalization, while it also recognizes global difference and conflict, which are as much characteristics of the contemporary world as tendencies toward unity and homogenization. These differences, and the appearance of `alternative' or `multiple' modernities, it suggests, are expressions, and articulations, of the contradictions of modernity which are now universalized across, as well as within, societies. If we are to speak of alternative or multiple modernities, which presently valorize the persistence of traditions and `civilizational' legacies, we need to recognize that the very language of alternatives and multiplicity is enabled historically by the presupposition of a common modernity shaped by a globalizing capitalism.

The contention of this paper is that organic farming, the movement and ideology, challenges sociological theory of the nature–culture relation (environmental issues, the role of science). The idea is discussed and explored in two ways. Firstly the paper gives a 'diagnosis' of organic farming in terms of modernization. The organic farming movement is a social movement having some success in a period when the power of social movements in general seems low. It is also a movement with a radical view on environmental issues and the man–nature relationship. Recently, several researchers have written about the institutionalization of organic farming, where institutionalization might be understood as a kind of modernization. How can we understand the organic farming movement in terms of modernization? Is the organic farming movement a movement opposing modernity, arguing for pre‐modern structures of society? Is it perfectly modern in the classical sense? Or is the existence of the organic farming movement rather a frontier empirical example of the reflexive state of modern society? The Danish organic farming movement serves as an example for the discussion. The 'diagnosis' depends on the theoretical point of departure – which theory of modernity is used. This leads to the second approach, namely the comparison of Ulrich Beck's theory of risk society and Bruno Latour's theory of actor‐networks. Both theories are dealing explicitly with the nature–culture relation in late (or 'post' or 'reflexive') modern societies.

What is the conceptual status of modernity in the Muslim world? Scholars describe Muslim attempts at appropriating this European idea as being either derivative or incomplete, with a few calling for multiple modernities to allow modern Islam some autonomy. Such approaches are critical of the apologetic way in which Muslims have grappled with the idea of modernity, the purity and autonomy of the concept of which is apparently compromised by its derivative and incomplete appropriation. None have attended to the conceptual status of this apologetic itself, though it is certainly the most important element in Muslim debates on the modern. This essay considers the adoption of modernity as an idea among Muslim intellectuals in nineteenth-century India, a place in which some of the earliest and most influential debates on Islam's modernity occurred. It argues that Muslim apologetics created a modernity whose rejection of purity and autonomy permitted it a distinctive conceptual form.

This article rereads Paul Virilio, drawing on the distinction between topography and topology to argue a case for Virilio as a rewriter of modernity. Invoking Jean-François Lyotard's notion of rewriting modernity as an unbroken process of accumulation founded on affective life in "Re-writing Modernity" and "Argumentation and Presentation: The Foundation Crisis," it enlists topology as a horizontal spatial structure that enables us to rethink space, time, and modernity outside the limits of the "squared horizon," where the "squared horizon" is viewed as a spatial and textual metaphor for framing perspectives on the past, present, and future. The analysis deconstructs the topography of the "squared horizon" as a relationality in an unfolding continuum, where spaces exist ontologically and where the immaterial forces of the dromospheric and the atmospheric generate a relational and historical connectedness.

This study examines the tunic designed by Lemur Nguyễn Cát Tường—most often cited as the precursor to the modern áo dài—as a physical entity and as a historical and abstract symbol of modernity. My argument is twofold: first, that Lemur was the first modern Vietnamese designer, evidenced by his engagement in two modern fashion practices—the establishment of an institutionalized system and his proposal for a Vietnamese national costume. Second, I argue that despite protestations of its insignificance, dress served as a ground on which weighty social and cultural battles—such as gender, class, national identity, aesthetics, and modernity itself—were fought.

The paper focuses on the Latin American perspective on modernity, especially on the Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano's notion of coloniality. Coloniality is explained as a theoret- ical framework for critical reflection of modernity with an emphasis on the forms of knowledge (episteme) and on non-Western, more specifically Latin American historical experiences and perspectives. The aim is to introduce some Latin American efforts to critically understand coloniality as the other face of modernity and to develop a distinctive critique of capitalism, globalisation and Eurocentrism in their historical dynamics, In the first part, the paper briefly introduces Latin America as a geocultural place and a object of social research in a historical perspective. Special attention is paid to the question of racial classification and authenticity. In the second part, the paper focuses on the notion of coloniality as it was conceptualised by A. Quijano and by other Latin American authors. In the third and fourth parts, the paper deals with the problem of coloniality in wider epistemic contexts of modern social sciences and in relation to the notion of alterity and to the question of decolonisation of social scientific thinking. The final discussion addresses some of inspirational and problematic points of this conception such as problems of decolonisation, intellectual dependency and critique, and the problem of conceptualisation of differences in scientific discourses.

The future of socialism is discussed, with focus on: whether capitalist production encompasses a rationality that socialism lacks; the relation between capitalism & socialism; & the connections between capitalistic development & modernity. The institutional dimensions of modernity are identified -- capitalism, industrialism, administrative power, & military power. Understanding this multidimensional character of modernity is important to understanding types of movements, ie, the labor movement, civil & human rights movements, peace & disarmament campaigns, & ecological movements. Utopianism, which Karl Marx disdained, & which ironically is currently disavowed due to the failure of Marxism, is discussed, & a new utopian realism proposed. 3 Illustrations. C. Grindle

Discusses the relationship between modernity & anthropology in the context of posttotalitarian Eastern European countries. Modernity is defined as a Western ideological attitude, implies progression & a notion of preconceived temporality, & requires the appropriation of social elements from foreign civilizations. In the context of anthropology, modernity is an object, manner, or method of study as conceived by an individual anthropologist in his or her own society. Since anthropological studies were inaccessible to European societies under totalitarian rule, classical ethnography is prevalent in posttotalitarian scholarship, & the introduction of anthropology is perceived as a process of modernization. Anthropological studies in posttotalitarian nations have strengthened scientific approaches to social & cultural studies & helped develop cultural & psychological identities, focusing on the center-periphery relationship. Anthropology's importance to the contemporary world is discussed in conclusion. 22 References. Adapted from the source document.