ibrahim kaya - modernity, openness, interpretation.PDF - Nauki społeczne - MKTK

Social Science

http://ssi.sagepub.com

Modernity, Openness, Interpretation: A Perspective on Multiple

Modernities

Ibrahim Kaya

Social Science Information

2004; 43; 35

DOI: 10.1177/05390184040685

http://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/35

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Maison des Sciences de l'Homme

Additional services and information for

Social Science Information

can be found at:

Email Alerts:

http://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions:

http://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from

http://ssi.sagepub.com

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Information

The online version of this article can be found at:

Theory and methods

Th ´ orie et m ´ thodes

Ibrahim Kaya

Modernity, openness, interpretation:

a perspective on multiple modernities

Abstract. This article aims to inspire an analysis of modernity that would provide

a starting point for conceptualizing multiple modernities. First, I argue that

conceptualizing modernity as an open-ended horizon engenders spaces to interpret

modernity in multiple ways. A view of modernity is thus developed that questions

totalizing and Eurocentric theories of modernity. Then the current state of the

plurality and diversity of identities and practices is emphasized as the consequence of

the openness of modernity to interpretation. In this respect, it is insisted that the

different features of non-western cultures should be seen as the indication for the

existence of multiple modernities. Finally, for a sociology of multiple modernities,

four basic themes are outlined that need to be worked on: plurality of civilizations,

histories, modernizing agents and the projects of modernity.

Key words. Interpretation – Modernity – Multiple modernities – Openness – Plurality

R´sum´. Le but de cet article est de susciter une analyse de la modernit´ qui servirait

de point de d´part ` la conceptualisation de modernit´s multiples. Tout d’abord,

l’auteur pose que conceptualiser la modernit´ en tant qu’un horizon non-ferm´ cr´e des

espaces d’interpr´tations multiples de la modernit´, proposant ainsi une vision de la

modernit´ qui remet en question les th´ories eurocentriques et totalisantes de la

modernit´. Puis, l’accent est mis sur l’´tat pr´sent de la pluralit´ et de la diversit´ des

identit´s et des pratiques appr´hend´ comme la cons´quence de l’ouverture de la

modernit´ ` des interpr´tations plurielles. A cet ´gard, l’auteur met en avant que les

diverses caract´ristiques des cultures non-occidentales doivent ˆtre prises en compte en

tant qu’indicateurs de l’existence de modernit ´ s multiples. Pour ﬁnir, l’auteur indique

quatre voies fondamentales de recherche ` explorer pour une sociologie des modernit ´ s

Social Science Information & 2004 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New

Delhi), 0539-0184

DOI: 10.1177/05390184040685 Vol 43(1), pp. 35–57; 040685

Downloaded from

http://ssi.sagepub.com

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Modernity, openness, interpretation:

a perspective on multiple modernities

36 Social Science Information Vol 43 – no 1

multiples: la pluralit´ des civilisations, les histoires, les agents de la modernisation, et

les projets de la modernit´.

Mots-cl´s. Interpr´tation – Modernit´ – Modernit´s multiples – Ouverture – Pluralit´

Over the past few decades comparative historical sociology has

undergone a number of socio-political and theoretical develop-

ments. In the 1950s and 1960s modernization theory assumed that

functional exigencies and societal competition would converge

social conﬁgurations. Talcott Parsons, as the leading theorist of

this tradition, viewed modernity as a uniform, unambiguously struc-

tured pattern in progress towards harmonious integration. Not only

are the autonomous components of the system believed to be inte-

grated, but also, on the basis of the American model of modernity,

other societies are assumed to converge. At the moment, neo-

modernization theory, in the context of globalization and neo-

liberalism, agrees with earlier modernization theory in assuming the

necessary convergence of social conﬁgurations. Perhaps Francis

Fukuyama’s thesis of the end of history summarizes the current

state of this theorizing on convergence. He argues that the liberal

way of life is the optimum mode of the good life for any society in

the world. In this case, comparison would be of residual interest; if

modernity converges different socio-political contexts, there would

be no need to compare them. In response to critiques of this per-

spective, however, new attempts at theorizing modernity have been

proposed over the past few years, which aim at analysing ‘‘multiple

modernities’’, thus reopening comparative societal analysis. The

theme of multiple modernities, in its new form, has occupied a pro-

minent position in social theory and research. 1 Scholars involved

with the projects on the study of multiple modernities have reopened

the debate on comparative historical sociology either by going back

to civilizational analysis or by emphasizing the agency of modernity

in different socio-political contexts. These observers no doubt pose

serious questions about ‘‘Eurocentric’’ theories of modernity; once

the concept of multiple modernities is shown to be a plausible obser-

vation on the current state of the social world, it should become

harder to defend the notion that modernity is a European project.

Despite all the advantages of these arguments, there are some

inescapable problems that need to be faced. Particularly striking is

Downloaded from

http://ssi.sagepub.com

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Kaya

Theory and methods 37

the weakness of these theories in conceptualizing modernity. What

kind of theorizing then could shed light on the argument for the con-

cept of multiple modernities? I propose that a theory of modernity

should be able to provide tools that would make the concept of

multiple modernities plausible, and I argue that modernity is an

open-ended horizon in which there are spaces for multiple interpre-

tations. This immediately implies a critique of totalizing theories of

modernity. In this article I therefore aim to provide a conceptual

analysis that considers modernity to be open to interpretation

rather than being a closed monolith.

Many observers have explained modernity, over the last two

centuries or so, as being a single, uniform, coherent world (see

Kolb, 1986). It is for this reason that many currently assume that

modernity can be conceptualized either as nearing its end or as an

uncompleted project. These are the conclusions at which ‘‘post-

modernism’’ and ‘‘modernism’’ have thus far arrived. In other

words, reading modernity as a coherent whole has led some obser-

vers to conclude that modernity is a dead end, while others recon-

struct modernity as the incomplete project of Enlightenment.

Once modernity is deﬁned as a totality – rational, ethical, etc. – it

becomes hard to think about any alternative perspective beyond its

rejection or defence. When we think of modernity, for example, as a

totalizing logic based on instrumental rationality, we would have to

read modernity as a dark age, having caused the Holocaust,

Hiroshima, Chernobyl, etc. for, if an epoch is unifying – and uniﬁed

– in one fundamental way, there cannot be any way of talking about

it other than marking it as a destroying or dehumanizing epoch.

On the other hand, when we read modernity, for example, as an

emancipating project, in this case modernity would have to be cele-

brated as a bright age, bringing about liberty, universality, social

security, etc.

From these considerations, one might want to argue that moder-

nity is a double-edged phenomenon. In fact, both dark and bright

‘‘stories’’ have unfolded in modern history. Indeed the Holocaust,

ethnic cleansing, etc. occurred in modern times, but so did ‘‘develop-

ment’’. Does this show that modernity is a double-edged phenom-

enon? Viewing modernity as double-edged would also imply

holding a coherent vision of life. In other words, dividing modernity

into dark and bright sides could easily lead some to conclude that

modernity is a ‘‘totalizing’’ epoch by insisting on one side and by

viewing the other side as a by-product. It should be clear by now

Downloaded from

http://ssi.sagepub.com

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

38 Social Science Information Vol 43 – no 1

that, in reducing modernity to a double-edged phenomenon, there is

always a risk of viewing it as totalizing.

Rejection of the idea of modernity as a coherent whole or even

as a double-edged phenomenon could of course indicate that ‘‘our

horizons are multiple, and that multiplicity is not itself a collection

or a system appearing within some last uniﬁed horizon’’ (Kolb, 1986:

241). Kolb does a wonderful job of showing that, beyond Hegel

and Heidegger, there are other ways of understanding modernity.

One does not necessarily need to be an adherent of the Enlighten-

ment, nor is it necessary for one to be a ‘‘priest’’ in order to judge

modernity from a Christian point of view. To the partisans of

modernity as a coherent whole, it may be said ‘‘that many of the

cultural, political, and scientiﬁc forces in our lives move in com-

peting and often inconsistent directions’’ (Yack, 1997: 130–1).

There is no single, agreed idea of modernity, but there is space

which provides opportunities to interpret ‘‘imaginary signiﬁcations

of modernity’’ in multiple ways, 2 and this space is culture, or lan-

guage or history, whose importance is no less than that of power

or rationality.

To make this argument plausible, the ‘‘openness of modernity’’ to

interpretation will be discussed. If it is shown that modernity could

be interpreted in multiple ways, the idea of modernity as a coherent

whole would fall. For instance autonomy, as a most basic imaginary

signiﬁcation of modernity, has been interpreted in multiple ways, so

that the tension between individualist and collectivist interpretations

of autonomy has played a central role in the history of modernity.

Next I will explore the question: what is it that makes modernity

‘‘a ﬁeld of tensions’’? I want to argue that it is modernity which

makes it possible for radically plural world-interpretations to be

expressed openly, and it is for this reason that the ﬁeld in which

human beings live necessarily becomes a ﬁeld of tensions. More pre-

cisely, because conﬂicting, opposite views of life ﬁnd shelter under

conditions of modernity, tension-ﬁlled relations between human

beings become unavoidable. However, the argument should show

the limits of modernity’s openness, too. In other words, what is pos-

sible and what is not possible in the interpretation of modernity

must be clearly shown: for example, whether ethnocentrism is a

modern phenomenon or not.

In the contemporary phases of modernity its very openness

creates new possibilities for even further opening. Certainly changes

in the recent history of modernity are due precisely to its openness

Downloaded from

http://ssi.sagepub.com

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

ibrahim kaya - modernity, openness, interpretation.PDF

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: