Modernity
Nearly term-time again, so I might have some 'serious' things to write about in addition to what I find in the supermarket (although I have my fears that what I find in the supermarket is a lot more serious than what I find in the library).
An ill-thought out suggestion resting on colossal over-generalization and over-simplification follows. Any comments on why I haven't the first clue what I'm talking about graciously received.
Anyone who wants to start talking about "modernity" needs to start thinking at least as far back as the 12th century or so and start making comparisons. A certain scepticism toward claims for the "universality" or the eternal or fundamental nature of certain social institutions (nation, marriage, the body) which has tended to focus on the formation (or 'construction') of certain kinds of knowledge about these things in the 18th and 19th centuries, has reached its reductio ad absurdum. To read a lot of modern history, you'd think that nothing like the ideas of 'individual' or 'society' existed in Europe before 1750. But of course, these ideas did not just appear out of a vacuum, and if we want to understand what underlies them, we need to look a bit deeper at their development. There are the faintest indications that a few historians might be beginning to realize that 'modernity' is more like a gradual process of accommodation than a cataclysmic epistemic rupture (even if its intellectual history is characterized by 'discontinuities' on a smaller scale a la early Foucault.) These strange, paradoxical accommodations within which modernity formed its own (dis)enchantments need to be probed a lot deeper if we want to understand our situation.
An ill-thought out suggestion resting on colossal over-generalization and over-simplification follows. Any comments on why I haven't the first clue what I'm talking about graciously received.
Anyone who wants to start talking about "modernity" needs to start thinking at least as far back as the 12th century or so and start making comparisons. A certain scepticism toward claims for the "universality" or the eternal or fundamental nature of certain social institutions (nation, marriage, the body) which has tended to focus on the formation (or 'construction') of certain kinds of knowledge about these things in the 18th and 19th centuries, has reached its reductio ad absurdum. To read a lot of modern history, you'd think that nothing like the ideas of 'individual' or 'society' existed in Europe before 1750. But of course, these ideas did not just appear out of a vacuum, and if we want to understand what underlies them, we need to look a bit deeper at their development. There are the faintest indications that a few historians might be beginning to realize that 'modernity' is more like a gradual process of accommodation than a cataclysmic epistemic rupture (even if its intellectual history is characterized by 'discontinuities' on a smaller scale a la early Foucault.) These strange, paradoxical accommodations within which modernity formed its own (dis)enchantments need to be probed a lot deeper if we want to understand our situation.
posted by UK plc at 4:28 PM
2 Comments:
Dude, this is somewhat fucked up. In general, of course, you are right. From the small amount you ahve written here, there are several gaping holes. It sounds like you have never heard of the Dark Ages. That aside, the historiography of the textual bridges formed by the rediscovery of classical texts in the mediaeval and early modern centuries, and the result - the birth of 'modernity' kind of IS the history of Europe in this period. Third, there is a reason why people like Weber compare the cities of three periods: classical, mediaeval (think, above all, the autonomous Italian republics) and modern. The points of contact between the work of Weber and Moses Finley on this issue remain too little looked at and remarkably instructive. Finally, I instinctively disagree with your final point: I think the birth of modernity IS an important rupture - something important is going on behind 'The Cheese and the Worms.'
I have not yet had time to seek out Momigliano et al.; will do so soon. J.
Thanks for the reply. "Somewhat fucked up" is one way of putting it. Someone else replied to me verbally about this today, with similarly massive objections. I think that at best this was an ill-expressed comment made out of huge frustration. There is something to be drawn out of it, but it's nearly as well to go back to the drawing board. I might see if I can respond in a such a way as to defend some of this later.
On the final point, I think there is something to be salvaged - it is more complex than it looks. But I need to work on this. Again thanks - and thanks too to Tim if he is reading. I hope I can make myself clearer and more precise (a long process).
Post a Comment
<< Home