The concept of "modernity".

The point of departure of any investigation is to define the problem under scrutiny. Our subject is "modernity", a term of universal use, charged however with a great deal of cultural valuations. To the point that its meaning becomes uncertain.
One way of looking at "modernity" is chronological. If we take this position, "modern" is the newest, the recent. But since life is but a flowing dimension, "modernity" must be a relative concept. In other words: "modern" in respect to what? The middle ages were "modern" times compared with the Roman Empire, and today's society is "modern" compared to last century's. But we are obviously living in very ancient times compared with the year 3.000. From this point of view, "modern" is a subjective, relative and timerelated value. Which makes no sense unreferred to another period of time, that the observer regards as "non modern".
Another interpretation of the term "modernity" results from the opposition (using Marxist terminology) of reactionary and progressive valuations of the dialectic process of change. In traditional, conservative, societies, whith great fear for the unknown, there will be nostalgia for the "good ole times". Therefore, "old" will mean good, and "modern" will mean bad. But in societies willing to accept the challenge of changing patterns, "modern" would be a synonym of advanced, and "modernity" a desirable goal. Pessimism and optimism at play, around a simple term.
In this essay, we will take the pragmatic third position prevailing now. The term "modern" means a certain way of life, a certain scale of values, and a certain sociopolitical organization. Those which are generally accepted at the time when the observation takes place. An essential ingredient of this thinking is that everything is in a process of change, full of contradictions. It results from innumerable influences, that make it impossible to establish a point of departure. If "modernity" began, for instance, with the French Revolution, could we claim that 1789 were "modern" times, but 1788 ancient times? Obviously, that would be a simplistic approach, because history and society result from a slow evolution thru time. Many interacting processes, some of them accidental, lead to "modernity" with different origins, trajectories and tempos. No monocausal explanation exists. Present society was determined by many longterm historical trends, that create new social patterns. Due to these dynamics, different degrees of development have always coexisted. And each period of time is taken by its actors as the culminating point of history.
Our way of conceiving a society defines if it is "modern" or "old". And this judgement is the consequence of a certain scale of values. But since no observation is conceivable without an observer, the prevailing values will condition our judgement of reality.

Main dimensions of our "modernity".

The period covers an epoch when certain main constant features concurr. All of them with different points of departure and own evolutionary patters. Not devoid of temporary setbacks, like in a multiplot thriller. And due to the process of globalization that started with the great discoveries, they are becoming world-wide valid. Such elements are:
1.- Political power took secular forms, and now is centered on the ideas of sovereignity and legitimacy. Both operating in a defined territorial environment, the national state.
2.- Social order has changed from authoritarian rule and fixed structures into dynamic forms. The difference between "public" and "private" became relevant, and two important processes occurred. Class formation, and new gender relations. The class system is based on waged labor, and the gender relations on new work patterns.
3.- There is a monetarized market economy, as a force developing the capitalistic (private or collective) system of property and of accumulation of wealth.
4.- A materialistic, rational and secular culture develops. Then, valuerelated forms of seeking knowledge give way to a factual approach. The formation of individual geopolitical communities, follows. "Christianity" no longer exists as a political point of reference.

Development of today's society.

Man has never jumped from black to white, and there have always been long intermediate zones between defined periods. But as the temptation of placing historical events in perspective is great, we will try to establish here an approximate lapse of time when those main features evolved. Traditional thinking identifies the emergence of "modernity" with the industrialization process and growth of the XVIII and XIX centuries. A deeper study, however, locates its origins at the end of feudalism. Major historical transitions are involved, and their "modus operandi" is interaction. In other words: none of these events would have triggered by itself the process that culminated in today's world.
Our story begins with the European expansion that started in the early XVI century. A movement that is contemporary with the development of centralized national powers. Other landmarks in the road to "modernity" are the Renaissance and the Protestant Reform with its peculiar view for ethics. Later the Enlightment, proposing to eliminate superstition and prejudice. A dream that forecasts an era of unending progress, by mastering nature thru human knowledge. These ideas lead to the French revolution and to the collapse of colonial rule in the Americas. Then comes the XIX century, when social thinking becomes an independent field of knowledge, much more than a collection of opinions and historical memories. Sociology, whose deductive-inductive procedures lead to an interdisciplinary approach. Capitalism and the establishment of a complicated international order are also main features of the process leading to our "modernity". A specialized science is born here as well, with the appearance of an own environment. Economics, triggered by the division of labor and by the expansion of trade. But baffled by inmense contradictions. Here opulence, the market, everrising standards of living. There its antithesis: the Third World, misery, the homeless. From Adam Smith's elementary agromercantile society to Marx and Engels' intricated, conflicting, industrial world. From the peasant to the urban proletariat. And at the end of the XX century, new pessimistic valuations of society appear, leading to skepticism and discontent. The following features are evident at this point of history:
1.- A confrontation between "the West" and "the rest".
2.- A development of eurocentric views of society, that slowly become international.
3.- A development of a Western desirable identity, point of departure for new ethnical conflicts.

Conclusions.

"Modernity", rather than a chronological phenomenom, is a way in which society looks at itself. A set of values that appear by evolution of old ideas. A moving shadow, as today becomes yesterday, and the future becomes history. But its origin could hardly be placed in a static point of time. The complexity of culture recognizes innumerable interacting forces, that never give a motionless picture. Everything in the universe is in a state of change. So is man, his ideas and the sociopolitical organizations that they determine. An exciting game!

---

Tillbaka till tidskriften

Tillbaka till Immigranternas Riksförbund