Modernism
Joseph C Wang
In article <5hngdp$d...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
Donald Phillipson <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Askew takes her a naive and unrealistic attitude to technology.
>People have since at least 1800 (e.g. Robert Owen) to the early 1900s
>(Lenin, Henry Ford) equated "modernism" with science and technology as
>well as with personal liberty -- not liberty alone.
But we live in interesting times, because this equation is facing its
first serious challenges. Much of the reason for that is that we are
seeing for the first time the emergence of non-Western industrial
societies who have the ability to put accross different definitions of
what modern really means. The other reason is that technology has
provided people with more wealth than the really know what to do with.
When you are starving, then economic progress is a pressing issue.
When you are comfortably middle class, then it is less of one.
So you get people like me who are pro-science and technology yet at
the same time think that people would be better off reading more of
Confucius and the familial loyalities ought to be strengthened. A
good part of the reason I am Confucian is that my familiarity with
science, makes me think it makes a poor guide for running ones
personal life. Does this make me a modernist, a traditionalist, or
rather does it show that the distinction really isn't that useful.
>By the late 19th century, "modernism" had come to appear
>characteristically American. W.T. Stead (British journalist) wrote
>about this as early as 1901 under the title "The Americanization of
>the World," which he saw acting on manners (e.g. adults' behavior
>towards children and children's towards adults) as well as being
>enabled if not primarily driven by industrial technology.
The trouble with this view is that people do not want to become
American. People want the United States's wealth and power, but
without losing their own cultural identity in the process. IF it is
the case that the cultural norms of the United States are a
requirement for developing an industrial and technological society,
then this won't work. But it doesn't seem clear to me that this is
the case. Rather it seems clear to me that the reverse is the case
and that you can be technological without being American.
I should note that one big misconception of Islamists in the in Middle
East is that they are anti-technological. They aren't, and in fact
most of the leaders of the Islamist movements are Western education in
technolgical fields. The point of the Islamist movement is to create
a society which both technological and Islamic.
>This approach to modernism is more convincing than Askew's because it
>looks for what is characteristically different in modernism, e.g.
>technology, rather than what is common in many societies, ancient and
>modern (e.g. warlords, democracy vs. despotism, etc.)
But it makes the assumption that technology makes modernism
characteristically different, and I don't think that this is the case.
I suppose you can define modernism as the belief that certain specific
traits are the by-product of technological progress.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wang Globewide Network Academy
j...@mit.edu FREE Distance Education catalog database
http://www.gnacademy.org Thousands of Courses and Programs
Donald Phillipson
Joseph Askew (as...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) answered Joseph C Wang
(j...@athena.mit.edu) re: Why didn't the Chinese get modern
science and technology? (March 28):
>Mostly what I have to say concerns the previous post rather than
>Joseph Wang's. My problem is less that it is a tautology but that it
>does exactly whta I object you. It lists things Americans do as
>modern. Among others. This is just what the first Anglophones did in
>the nineteenth century as well except of course they had a very
>different list. China allowed polygamy and divorce for instance.
>Britain did not. Thus monogamy and no (or difficult) divorce was held
>up as a sign of modernity. It is a clever way of defining things but
>of limited use. If you claim that "all men are equal" is a modern
>concept then Qing China has as much right to be counted as modern in
>1833 as Britian or America did. Neither of which were willing at that
>time to admit all White men were equal let alone anyone else. . . .
>
>The big step forward in "modernity", I think and I expect most people
>would agree, is the French Revolution. . . . Was Napoleonic France
>modern?
>
>. . . Just a list of things Americans do is no way to define what we
>mean by modern. Is, to take an obvious example, modern Islamic
>Fundamentalism modern or a throw back to the fourteenth century? . . .
>
>Warlords are a rare but not unusual feature of Chinese history. They
>have appeared more than once and no doubt will do so again. As they
>will in America or any other country isolated from powerful nearby
>nations. I don't see it happening any time soon. Bureaucratic rule by
>bureaucrats selected by exam I see occuring again simply because it is
>the way most nations are ruled. The French, in my opinion, picked up
>the Chinese model wholesale and have spread it all over the world....
Askew takes her a naive and unrealistic attitude to technology.
People have since at least 1800 (e.g. Robert Owen) to the early 1900s
(Lenin, Henry Ford) equated "modernism" with science and technology as
well as with personal liberty -- not liberty alone.
Modernism in the 18th century appeared to be a British invention,
because of the coincidence of Newton's being English (cf.
European-wide adoption of Newtonian mechanics as the model for all
sciences) and the industrial revolution (cf. Philip Mathias's book The
First Industrial Nation, showing interactive function of social
elements like religion and banking in early capitalism, besides
technology.> The French revolution offered "Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity" as another basis for modernism: but this did not work in
practice (because of the excesses of the Terror, the character of the
Napoleonic empire, and Napoleon's defeat by the allied powers. That
is why France's direction oscillated so much in the restorations and
revolutions of 1815, 1848, 1851, 1870 etc. France was in this period
uniquely complicated but not uniquely "modern.")
By the late 19th century, "modernism" had come to appear
characteristically American. W.T. Stead (British journalist) wrote
about this as early as 1901 under the title "The Americanization of
the World," which he saw acting on manners (e.g. adults' behavior
towards children and children's towards adults) as well as being
enabled if not primarily driven by industrial technology.
This approach to modernism is more convincing than Askew's because it
looks for what is characteristically different in modernism, e.g.
technology, rather than what is common in many societies, ancient and
modern (e.g. warlords, democracy vs. despotism, etc.)
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
Donald Tucker
Joseph C Wang (j...@athena.mit.edu) writes:
> [cut] Donald Phillipson <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>[cut] People have since at least 1800 (e.g. Robert Owen) to the early
>>1900s (Lenin, Henry Ford) equated "modernism" with science and
>>technology as well as with personal liberty -- not liberty alone.
[cut]
> But it makes the assumption that technology makes modernism
> characteristically different, and I don't think that this is the case.
> I suppose you can define modernism as the belief that certain specific
> traits are the by-product of technological progress.
The "Modernism" project is the pursuit of rationality that was
formulated in the 18th century "Enlightenment" as the idea that
problems could be solved by the application of rationality and
everything had a rational explanation. It was implemented by:
political redesign, begining with the new US governmental system,
and the revolutionized French system; by economic change, in
agriculture, commercial and production methods; and by social
change in the rejection of traditional authority. Some changes
occured early and some were later. The rate of change was very
different from country to country. For example Britain and
North America allowed incfeasing political participation by
non-elites during the 19th century, but the old patterns
of authority persisted in Germany and Russia until the social
crisis of WW I. Finally, we have the transition from a world
of production relationships based on feality (e.g. tennent
farmers, peasants, social dependents of patrons) to those of
contract payment, i.e. the world of jobs and employment for pay.
So "modernism" is a multidimensional construct. Much of it *is*
the traits that result from being exposed to technological
change, both in the artifacts that impinge on people's lives,
and in how people are involved in making and acquiring
technological products. But it's also the social values and
attitudes that come with "modernism."
We see in the Far East the evidence that its possible to
become "modern" while retaining some form of traditional
cultural values. "Modern" does *not* equal Western.
In much of the third world, "modernism" is only now replacing
traditional economic, social and political relationships.
"Modernism" was at its peak as a construct from the 1920's to
the 1950's. We have been shifting into a "post-modern" era
for nearly a century. First in the visual, dramatic, musical
and written arts (Picasso, dada, jazz, Joyce). Then in science
(quantum reality, relativity). Later, from the 1960's onward,
in loss of the idea that technological progress is always
"good." We also see "post-modern" technology in the form
of computer technology replacing masses of people employed in
"modern" industrial factories and white collar jobs. Finally,
we see the "post-modern" loss of belief in the certainty of
rationality in relationships, whether scientific (chaos theory),
social or economic.
This is truly broad-brush and a gross oversimplification. But
I hope it's helpful in giving some idea of the meanings
associated with "modernism."
Cheers ___,__<@~__,___
Donald "Press any key to continue or /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\
any other key to quit." _/|\_
Petranodon logo Copyright © 1996 " " ©1996
Joseph C Wang
In article <5hre49$7...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Finally, we have the transition from a world
>of production relationships based on feality (e.g. tennent
>farmers, peasants, social dependents of patrons) to those of
>contract payment, i.e. the world of jobs and employment for pay.
It should be noted that the decline of feudalism in response to
industrialization was a uniquely European event. In China (as in the
United States) there was no feudal system to begin with. One impact
that industrialization had in China was to paradoxically increase the
power of the landlords with respect to tenant farmers. Before 1850 or
so, all sorts of social pressure could be brought against oppressive
landlords and the government generally did not intervene to enforce
contracts, both because of ideological and logisitical reasons. With
industrialization, landlords moved to the cities where they were
immune from local social pressures. Also the government began willing
as it's role as to enforce social contracts. Finally,
industrialization and civil disorders allowed landlords to raise their
own miltias, which made the government more of a tool of a landlords.
My bias against modernism is that it assumes that a lot of changes in
response to industrialization are general. Some of the surely are
(for example the formation of mass organizations and relatively strong
nation-states). Some of them aren't (decline of feudalism is
imposible without a feudal system to begin with).
>We see in the Far East the evidence that its possible to
>become "modern" while retaining some form of traditional
>cultural values. "Modern" does *not* equal Western.
But does it equal "industrial" or "technological"? My argument is
that it does not. Modernism does not merely assert that
industrialization will change things. It asserts that
industrialization will change things in certain specific ways, and I
question whether modernism is correct in interpreting how
industrialization affects societies.
>In much of the third world, "modernism" is only now replacing
>traditional economic, social and political relationships.
But this is not happening in China. In China, a lot of "traditional"
elements disappeared around the turn of the last century. Those that
remain are likely to stay here.
>We have been shifting into a "post-modern" era
>for nearly a century.
Who is we? "Modernist" thinking in China is stronger is some respects
that in the West. Most Chinese intellectuals, for example, have far
more faith in science than Western intellectuals, and it's no
coincidence that the top leadership of the Communist Party are all
engineers who rose to the top as factory workers.
The main source of Post-modernism in the West has been a
disillusionment with the consequences with industrialization. This
sort of this is likely in developed parts of East Asia, but there is
no reason to think that East Asia will react to it in a similar way.
In Taiwan, people are responding to the sense of industrial alienation
by turning to Buddhism rather than to deconstructionism.
>Finally,
>we see the "post-modern" loss of belief in the certainty of
>rationality in relationships, whether scientific (chaos theory),
>social or economic.
This is quite ironic. Much of the reason that I am a Confucian is
that it offers a vision of rationality in social relationships and a
sense of connectedness that most post-modern philosophies don't. Does
that make me a traditionalist, because I believe in the Confucian
classics, or a modernist, because I think that society can be
rationally ordered? Probably it illustrates that these sorts of
distinctions aren't useful.
One other thing that is that you mentioned chaos theory. I shudder
whenever scientific concepts get incorporated into the mainstream,
because the public generally gets the concept wrong. This can be
disastrous (i.e. as with Darwinism).
Dick Wisan
In article <5hu39o$p...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, j...@athena.mit.edu says...
>In article <5hre49$7...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
>Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>Finally, we have the transition from a world
>>of production relationships based on feality (e.g. tennent
>>farmers, peasants, social dependents of patrons) to those of
>>contract payment, i.e. the world of jobs and employment for pay.
>It should be noted that the decline of feudalism in response to
>industrialization was a uniquely European event. In China (as in the
>United States) there was no feudal system to begin with...
>...My bias against modernism is that it assumes that a lot of changes
>in response to industrialization are general. Some of the surely are
>(for example the formation of mass organizations and relatively strong
>nation-states). Some of them aren't (decline of feudalism is
>imposible without a feudal system to begin with).
>>We see in the Far East the evidence that its possible to
>>become "modern" while retaining some form of traditional
>>cultural values. "Modern" does *not* equal Western.
>But does it equal "industrial" or "technological"? My argument is
>that it does not. Modernism does not merely assert that
>industrialization will change things. It asserts that
>industrialization will change things in certain specific ways, and I
>question whether modernism is correct in interpreting how
>industrialization affects societies.
Is it harder to fit the notion of "modern", as you're laying it out,
to non-western societies than it to fit concepts like "medieval",
"feudal", or "ancient" to them? All these terms are generated from
the study of European history. No doubt, looking for similar things
in the history of other peoples will illuminate some things and
muddle others. How misleading is it, for instance to think about
medieval Japan, which seems to equate samurai=knight.
It's natural, of course, that western historians would begin by
trying to apply these concepts to non western cultures, and that
this would be both as illuminating and as confusing as asking for
the present tense in English (a muddle inflicted on English
school children by grammarians trained on Latin grammar). What
happens when people of other cultures try using these concepts on
themselves, like trying to "modernize" or trying not to? I should
expect the concepts would begin to change under that burden.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Donald Tucker
We are having a fine discussion about an archetypal
"weasel word," or "plastic word," which can have whatever meaning
a user wants to promote. About all that is factual about "modernism,"
is that it is something characteristic of modern times. The term
"modern" was, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, first
used in 1585 to describe things pertaining to the present
and recent times. The OED identifies the companion term
"modernist," which was first used in 1588 in the Roman
Catholic Church encyclical "Pascendi gregris"of Pope Pius
X who condemmned "de modernistarum doctrinus," of some
church members. This was followed shortly after, in 1741, by the
term "modernize," to make or render modern. Finally, the term
"modernism" appeared in 1737 to describe a things that are
characteristic of modern times.
My point is that we should not try to claim that a particular
interpreation of the term "modernism" is right and excludes
other valid interpretations.
In my previous post I attempted a broad-brush inclusive
destcription of the term "modernism" which prompted a
reaction from our learned colleague Joseph C Wang
(j...@athena.mit.edu) whod wrote:
> Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>Finally, we have the transition from a world
>>of production relationships based on fealty (e.g. tenant
>>farmers, peasants, social dependents of patrons) to those of
>>contract payment, i.e. the world of jobs and employment for pay.
>
> It should be noted that the decline of feudalism in response to
> industrialization was a uniquely European event. In China (as in the
> United States) there was no feudal system to begin with.
I did not use the term "feudalism," which was a construct
cobbled together by post-medieval European scholars (first usage
of "feudal" was in 1614, according to the OED) to
encapsulate the European medieval life experience.
But I can see where Joseph might have thought that I was
referring to "feudalism." I should have further generalized my
description of the transition of production relationships to
make clearer that the important part of a current concept of
"modernism" is the world of jobs and employment for pay, rather
than production based on any other social relation, including
peasants -- whether independent or subject to landlords -- who
use their surplus production to exchange at market, pay taxes,
and in the case of tenant farmers, to pay rent.
> [cut Joseph's interesting discussion of the impact ]
> [of industrialization had in China where it increased the ]
> [power of the landlords over tenant farmers. ]
> My bias against modernism is that it assumes that a lot of changes in
> response to industrialization are general. Some of the surely are
> (for example the formation of mass organizations and relatively strong
> nation-states). Some of them aren't (decline of feudalism is
> imposible without a feudal system to begin with).
I think we agree here on that responses to industrialisation have
varied widely around the planet. About all that I hang on a
usable current concept of "modernism" is that it describes
an industrial society as opposed to a society where industrialization
has not occured.
>
>>We see in the Far East the evidence that its possible to
>>become "modern" while retaining some form of traditional
>>cultural values. "Modern" does *not* equal Western.
>
> But does it equal "industrial" or "technological"? My argument is
> that it does not.
That would be a possible interpretation of the term "modernism,"
since the term predates industrialisation by over 200 years.
But AFAIK the usual current meaning of "modernism" includes the
context of ïndustrial." As for "technological," that depends
on what we mean by the term "technological," which opens a
whole new can of worms.
> Modernism does not merely assert that
> industrialization will change things.
Thats all it means to me.
> It asserts that
> industrialization will change things in certain specific ways, and I
> question whether modernism is correct in interpreting how
> industrialization affects societies.
A problem here is that *some* people *do* use this concept of
"modernism" as a crutch for thinking. The error here is
the use of patterns generated from the study of European history
to interpret the history of other peoples.
Joseph's point makes clear that the term "modernism" has acquired
a conceptual burden in east-Asia that it does not have
in usual usage in English speaking Atlantic society.
>>In much of the third world, "modernism" is only now replacing
>>traditional economic, social and political relationships.
>
> But this is not happening in China. In China, a lot of "traditional"
> elements disappeared around the turn of the last century. Those that
> remain are likely to stay here.
Again, Joseph's point makes clear that the term "modernism" has
acquired a conceptual burden in east-Asia that it does not have
in usual usage in English speaking Atlantic society.
>>We have been shifting into a "post-modern" era
>>for nearly a century.
>
> Who is we? "Modernist" thinking in China is stronger is some respects
> that in the West. Most Chinese intellectuals, for example, have far
> more faith in science than Western intellectuals, and it's no
> coincidence that the top leadership of the Communist Party are all
> engineers who rose to the top as factory workers.
>
> The main source of Post-modernism in the West has been a
> disillusionment with the consequences with industrialization.
"Post-modernism" is yet another plastic word. Joseph's
interpretation is correct as far as it applies to the liberal
arts intellectuals encumbering tenured positions at Western
Universities. But the term also includes very different meanings
such as in physics where the mechanistic interpretions have
been replaced by more accurate non-linear concepts (quanta, chaos,
relativity) and architecture whree the sterility of Mises glass boxes
and concrete cast in the style of 20th century brutal have
been supplemented with design and detail to entice the appearance.
> This
> sort of this is likely in developed parts of East Asia, but there is
> no reason to think that East Asia will react to it in a similar way.
> In Taiwan, people are responding to the sense of industrial alienation
> by turning to Buddhism rather than to deconstructionism.
Deconstructionism is a nihlistic fraud, and except for the liberal
arts tenured crowd, is a joke. Other post-modern people still compose
fine narratives and have positive visions of post-industrial
futures.
>
>>Finally,
>>we see the "post-modern" loss of belief in the certainty of
>>rationality in relationships, whether scientific (chaos theory),
>>social or economic.
> This is quite ironic. Much of the reason that I am a Confucian is
> that it offers a vision of rationality in social relationships and a
> sense of connectedness that most post-modern philosophies don't. Does
> that make me a traditionalist, because I believe in the Confucian
> classics, or a modernist, because I think that society can be
> rationally ordered? Probably it illustrates that these sorts of
> distinctions aren't useful.
This was the weakest part of my original post. I was trying to
load too much into a single sentence.
Joseph's Confucianism is a workable way of handling social
relations in a post-modern world. There are others that
would also work fine. The key to success seems to be a value
system that emphasizes commitment and responsibility, rather
than a moral vacuum based purely on individual greed. The
"invisible hand" of laissez-faire markets is fine for solving
the price-quantity problem, but is useless for social well
being.
> One other thing that is that you mentioned chaos theory. I shudder
> whenever scientific concepts get incorporated into the mainstream,
> because the public generally gets the concept wrong. This can be
> disastrous (i.e. as with Darwinism).
Absolutely, Darwin's theory was welcomed in the 19th century because
it gave an intellectual credibility to the exploiting elites
who followed the philosophy of "social Darwinism."
Today, chaos theory is also misread as a license for anything
goes, rather than a mathematical formulation of non-linear
functions.
Hope this helps.
Cheers ___,__<@~__,___
Donald Global viewpoint maps now online at /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/ _/|\_
Joseph C Wang
In article <5i8q8u$v...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>We are having a fine discussion about an archetypal
>"weasel word," or "plastic word," which can have whatever meaning
>a user wants to promote.
The fun thing about "plastic words" is that they can serve as
intellectual Rosarch's tests. You can find out a lot about a person
or an ideology be examining how they define and view plastic words.
>My point is that we should not try to claim that a particular
>interpreation of the term "modernism" is right and excludes
>other valid interpretations.
As long as we agree about what we are talking about, it doesn't
matter. The problem comes when we use the same concept to mean very
different things.
>But I can see where Joseph might have thought that I was
>referring to "feudalism." I should have further generalized my
>description of the transition of production relationships to
>make clearer that the important part of a current concept of
>"modernism" is the world of jobs and employment for pay, rather
>than production based on any other social relation, including
>peasants -- whether independent or subject to landlords -- who
>use their surplus production to exchange at market, pay taxes,
>and in the case of tenant farmers, to pay rent.
The reason "feudalism" comes to mind is that I don't see the basic
difference in social relationship between a factory worker working for
wages and an independent farmer paying rent. If the farmer was a
serf, then I'd see the basic difference in production relationships.
>About all that I hang on a
>usable current concept of "modernism" is that it describes
>an industrial society as opposed to a society where industrialization
>has not occured.
In which case, I think it is better it use the word "industrial" since
it is much less plastic and contains many fewer hidden meanings.
>Deconstructionism is a nihlistic fraud, and except for the liberal
>arts tenured crowd, is a joke.
But it does affect the thought structures of society as a whole. The
general cynicism toward government and institutions in the United
States is in large part the result of deconstructionism.