Social Scientist

Demystifying Modernity: Notes Not so Tentative

Author(s): G. Aloysius
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 37, No. 9/10 (Sep. - Oct., 2009), pp. 49-54
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27748606
Accessed: 18-09-2015 15:11 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.99 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:11:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Demystifying Modernity
Notes

Not

so Tentative

p
>
o
CO
c'
to

The foundational nature of the concept ofmodernity not only for the
understanding of most other issues of social sciences but also for
actual solution of the problems of the individual and collective lives
of the nation-state. Either in conscious and systematicmanner or in
an unconscious and vague sense it is what we understand and
evaluate as modernity that affectsmost of our particularly collective

decisions.

As the foundational concept the contextuality of its reading is

also acute in the case of modernity. And as context is always
pluralistically and contestatiously perceived several conflictual

readings of this crucial concept are unavoidable and even desirable.

Accordingly the present reading is to be considered as one among the
several within both the academic and popular discourses; it also is to
be treated like all perspectives within academics as reflecting certain
definite interestswithin society.
The termmodernity (not to speak of its correlatives modernism

and modernization)
is used in several senses; firstas a time period
and second referring to a set of particularly political institutions
specifically addressed as modern. Within the framework of this

these two meanings are considered derivative and

consequential and as such they are not the issues of discussion. The
third and contested meaning of the termmodernity is of a discursive

presentation

formation of a special kind which is a constant dialectic between a

description and prescription. It is an ideology (could also be termed

as an ideal or orientation) engendering and legitimizing a set of

practices and by the same register inhibiting and delegitimizing
another set of practices.
With

the

of
through
apprehension
hegemonization
ever on the increase it has become customary and

homogenization
even fashionable to speak ofmultiple forms or varieties ofmodernity.
Implicit here is the notion that singular/grand narratives and
singularly normative conceptions are always hegemonic, and

therefore to be avoided in all theorizing. The position taken here is

somewhat different.While it is a salutary advice in the context of

persistent cultural totalization, the same cannot be made into an

absolute law or be deployed indiscriminately to wriggle out of any

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.99 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:11:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

49

Social

ON
o
o

CN|
L_
CD
_Q
O
tj

L_
(L>
_Q

Scientist

every theoretical or practical impasse. The attempt here is to

conceptualize unabashedly a singular modernity and whether the same

and

escapes the charge of hegemonizing is for the participants to decide.

Modernity often enough at least in this part of the world is identified
eithermanifestly or implicitlywith 'westernity' ifone could coin such a term.

such identification it is also presumed that the argument against

modernity both conceptual as well as practical has been won with hands

With

down as itwere. Again it is suggested that such a depreciatory use of an idea

and only whenever one is in theoretical straitjacket is plainly
untenable. One needs on the other hand to negotiate with the substantial

Cl

whenever

issues involved. Though this presentation takes off clearly from within a
western context it attempts to move beyond it. And again its success or

O
O

otherwise is to be judged by the participants of the discussion.

The singlemost important point that has been noted on the question of

m
>

modernity ever since the problematic surfaced in collective consciousness is

its ambivalence: its enabling and ennobling qualities on the one hand and an
apparent emaciation ithas brought about in several spheres of human lifeon

"?

the other. The classical sociologists D?rkheim, Marx and Weber and later
thinkers of the Frankfurt school and more recently Immanuel Wallerstein,

Charles Taylor and several others have noted this and have made
their own important problematics.

itas one of

ambivalence, the thinkers mentioned

Despite its well-acknowledged
a
one
not
to
of them, has
date called for a reversal to a stage of
above,
single
pre-modernity. To be sure, when the discourse was in its formative stage

therewere enough social forces though named differentlywhich demanded a

reversal towhat they thoughtwas a status quo ante. But once the bottom-line
was cleared certain irreversibilityhad been achieved and the situation was

accepted by contenders on all sides. Tackling the negative side of the

ambivalence then only meant working with the present or as Marx did,
moving forward. This consensual irreversibilityof modernity did indicate

that what had been achieved despite its obvious negative consequences
much too precious for all to be given up.

is

This precious core of modernity, its emancipatory thrust has been

though formulated variously centered around the correlated concepts of

rationality, rationalism and rationalization. This logic of reason if further

explained at two levels: one, that ofmetaphysics or philosophy in general and
two, as economic/bureaucratic or instrumental/technological. The rationality

50

so explained is also posited as an intellectual-universal principle common to

all of humanity. And ironically the negatives aspect ofmodernity too do not
veer much away from the same set of concepts and they are sought to be
expressed through terms such as homogenization, uni-dimensionalization,

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.99 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:11:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Demystifying Modernity Notes

spiritual flattening, tyrannyof the reason and so on. It is at the behest of this
double-edged sword ofmodernity as rationality all the paraphernalia ofwhat

p
>
o

subsequently have been identified as modern are seen as flowing.The socially

good and bad or liberative and oppressive, then of modernity are seen as
originating from the same source of rationality as explained above.
Modernity as rationality is viewed as having a logic of its own moving

inexorably forward liberating and enslaving simultaneously the different

spheres of human life.
The

critique proffered here is, that the mainstream explanation of

as philosophical
or instrumental rationality engendering
modernity
contradictory dynamics within human collectivities is a reified one,
essentialistic in conception and somewhat monolithic in characterization.

And

understandably
modernity has been

the contextual
riddled with

and

applicational

elaboration

of

or plain

ambiguities, equivocations
is suggested here is to bring down the concept of rationality
in the context of our discussion ofmodernity from the high heavens it resides

confusion. What

in and through its social contextualization prise it open so that a somewhat

amended and more adequate formulation could be tried.

It is in this context that the term social rationality is suggested as a better

substitute in the explanation ofmodernity. The core substance ofmodernity
is social rationality. It replaced what could be termed as the social

irrationality of pre-modernity. The term social rationality has several

advantages over the other forms of rationality offered, philosophical or
instrumental or even simply rationality. It brings down the discussion to the
sociological level of society and social relations. Itmakes the social man as the

subject as well as the object of discussion. Once rationality is seen as social

contextual it could be analyzed as a humanly designed and socially
determined process subject to all the historico-political vagaries. In other
words rationality is about what human beings think, speak and do in the
course of organizing their complex activity of production exchange and
consumption. Social rationality iswhat determines and in turn determined in
the very vortex of social power relations which is the foundational raison

d'etre of its birth and beginning itself.

The single most important and determining irrationality of pre
is perception of ascriptive differentiation and practice of
modernity

discrimination among members of the society. The differences among men

and women on account of their circumstances of birth being important these

differences were treated as the basis for the social practice of discrimination.
Such perception and practice were seen as naturally given or divinely ordered

and hence the role ofmen and women constituting such a society ismerely to
accept and abide by it. The raison d'etre of such an ordering came from

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.99 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:11:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

51

Social

o
o
o

CN|
<D
_Q
O
tj

O
<D
E
CL)
.+-?
a.
cu

Scientist

without and hence the proper attitude is acquiescence. Man

indeed was
under the spell of a self-imposed tutelage. The hierarchical ordering as well as
its sacred legitimacywent as a single package - theDivine Rationality.
In thewake ofmodernity this changed. The sameness of human essence

in spite of birth and other ascriptive differentiations came to be recognized as

important and determining; and since the essence and worth being the same

all men are entitled to be treated similarly. The change thus is at two levels
simultaneously: cognitive/epistemological on the one hand and conduct/
ethical on the other. This is the core and non-negotiable minimum of

Enlightenment-Modernity: universality of perception as well as universality

of practice. Humanism demands the direct abolition of the social irrationality
of pre-modernity, in other words, supernaturalism. Religio-cultural
hierarchy is hereby replaced with politico-ideological horizontality. This is

on
o

the core as well

as foundation of all modernity. The emergence and

man
from his self-imposed tutelage is the process by which
of
emancipation
he discovers universality. It is the question ofHuman Rationality.
Egalitarianism as a principle and practice in social relation entrenched

no
>

within society and culture as the single hegemonic legitimizing criterion of

evaluation and guide to action then constitutes the essence ofmodernity. It is
enshrined within modernity as a dialectical tension between an 'already' and
a 'not yet' a given but still to be achieved and an ideal to strive for and also a
template for the construction of a discourse. As an operationalised definition

it reaches itsmost unambiguous formulation in the Kantian Categorical

Imperative. The rise to hegemony of the egalitarian principle as modernity
means
that there gets built around it a confluence, consensus and
commitment of interests, stakes, perceptions and practices. A process is set in

motion

towards a new discourse whose

implications get unfolded only

and
gradually
historically.
The twin process of deconstructing the pre-modern social irrationality
and the reconstructing themodern social rationalitywhile at the conceptual

level is abstract and universal, at the experiential level it is verymuch concrete

and culture-specific and by and large an internal matter. No culture or
human collectivity has ever been in isolation and interaction between

cultures and societies has been the norm, this having been said, dynamics of
cultures are spurious ifnot spontaneous and self-generated. In context this
thenmeans that embedding of egalitarianism within a given collectivity is a

process that is posterior to the dismantling first,of the culturally constructed

irrationality.The discriminated mass of pre-modernity needs to experience

52

the gradual or sudden disappearance of the irrationality and in those very

aspects egalitarianism is to be seen as taking position. Elevation to the equal
status is to be experienced culturally and historically. This also means that the

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.99 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:11:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Demystifying Modernity Notes

cultural wherewithal for the reconstruction of the new rationality is to be

found within. Such a view gives us a more nuanced as well as a dynamic
notion of cultures as negotiated settlements of plural power position. Culture

p
>
o
CO
c'

is a way of struggling together, a negotiation between dominance and

resistance. In theory and under ideal circumstances then modernity is the
resurgence of the earlier suppressed traditions of a culture in a new context. It
is here that the singular and plural natures ofmodernity are to be delineated.
Formulating modernity as social rationality, itwas suggested was a mere

amendment

of the established

formulation. The

relation between

this

amendment and the others needs to be commented upon. Prioritizing the

human-social
initiative over the non-human gives us an advantage in
explaining the process. The primary and original thrust of modernity we
suggest is the social and the others are only consequential to as well as means
are
to achieve the former. Bureaucratization
and technologization

necessitated by the fact that mass has surfaced within the new scenario
demanding to be served and supplied in a similar/egalitarian manner.
Bureaucracy and technology are strategies to serve themass society; they are
not an end in themselves but means

to serve the newly homogenized mass of

of social organizations through differentiation
and diversification also serves the purpose of accommodating the needs as
individuals. Rationalization

well as expressing the multifarious skills of the numerous. Philosophical

rationalization is again a search for themetaphysical foundation of as well as
explanation for the new social reality. The basic raison d'etre however
remains at least in theory the social rationality. Egalitarianization,
are analytically
rationalization and homogenization
(similaritization)

distinct concepts capable of being grasped in their own terms. However in

concrete social processes they inevitably appear as intertwined, inseparable
and differentiatedmerely through emphases. It is this, that is the source of so

much

of modernity's

ambivalence. However the provocation for these

aspects
secondary
becoming primary distorting the picture that is, themeans
an
one
end
ought to search elsewhere.
becoming
as
Modernity
egalitarianism iswilly-nilly also a process of leveling. It is
an ideological process of dismantling the theologically legitimated
asymmetrical social power structure. In other words it is a process of
democratization. It is a process by which social power is sought to be
relocated and re-configured. As a process of democratization process it also
calls for dissolution of elitist and exclusivist social enclosures and insist on

social merger at least in the public and political spheres. That ismodernity is
a movement in favour of those who hitherto had been relegated to a social

limbo. Any such move even in the best of. circumstances would not be
conceded without confrontation and challenge; on the other hand such a

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.99 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:11:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

53

Social Scientist

o\
o
o

move would

depending of the politico-economic

configuration under even the most
or
innocuous
revolutionary pretexts.Hence the actual scenario at a particular
point of time of a given collectivity is to be seen in the balance of social forces

CNl
i_
CD
_Q
O
tj
si
CD
_Q
E
CD

S_
(U

On
O
co
o
z

>

ideologically as well as actually be resisted, sabotaged,

redefined, reoriented and if possible reversed. If modernity as social
rationality is a move forward, itwould at every stage be met with its counter
be

at play. A successful counter force would certainly tip the scale on the
negative side of modernity in innumerable ways open specifically to that
particular

culture.

Such analyses of actual scenarios more often than not get bogged down
a
by theoretical inability to distinguish between the promise and project, the
project and performance of modernity. Modernity is eulogized or censored

without

differentiating between the actual and the conceptual. The

ubiquitous sliding downwards ofmodernity from ithigh theoretical promise
to its actual low performance, needs to be accounted by among several other

aspects, to this of power bifurcated as dominance and resistance. One cannot

at least in logic perennially frustrate the forward thrust of modernity and
simultaneously also run itdown. Conflict of ideologies is a fact of life and its
tentacles need to be recognized everywhere in capillary and camouflaged

forms.

it is claimed that the priority of the social in rationality

has been hinted at ifnot elaborated by most of the serious
here
highlighted
thinkers of the day. Most important among them are Immanuel Wallerstein
and Charles Taylor. Particularly the latter's essayModern Social Imaginaries
Finally

would verymuch run along these lines. The entire range of political theory
for example is concerned with explicitation of this egalitarianism through the
agency of the State.

G. Aloysius

is an

independent

researcher

based

in New

Delhi.

54

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.99 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:11:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions