Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Seminar Proposal
Have we (Mediterraneans) ever been “modern”?
Agnese Vardanega
This seminar proposal should be part of course B “Space, Memory, Identity” of the Summer
School, aimed at investigating the relations between culture and space in late modernity. The main
objective of the seminar will be providing students with a better epistemological awareness of some
categories involved in the relationships between space, time and identity.
1) Research base
According to Giddens, a distinguishing characteristic of modernity is the disembedding of social
relationships from time and space1. I will try to look into this idea to show its relevance in the
interpretation of the processes of constructing of territorial identities.
Late modernity may be considered as characterised by the extreme consequences of social
reflexivity and disembedding processes on (social) space-time splitting, and thus on identitarian
processes. To focus the analysis of late modernity on the Mediterranean area, it seems necessary to
adopt a critical approach both to the modernization process and to its self-representations2.
In particular, considering the world in its globality, it is now evident that modernization has not
been (and is not) a single global process, but a differentiated and fragmented one, with possible
unintended and unpredictable outcomes. Furthermore, social scientists are now widely aware that
modernization theories have been produced within modern societies, often reflecting their utopias
and desiderata (apart from describing and criticizing them).
This perspective leads us to raise several questions, related to the theme of this Summer School.
Has modernity replaced tradition? Or is tradition a modern category, used to elaborate “the past of
the future” and the various so-called “cultural resistances”? Are people still guided by the narratives
of modernity, or do they orientate themselves referring to multiple universes of discourses? Is this
multiplicity a characteristic of post-modernity, or has it always accompanied modernization, though
eclipsed by the dominant modernistic ideology?
In short, and to paraphrase Latour, “Have we ever been Modern?” 3. A question that fits perfectly
for Mediterranean countries, characterised by differentiated cultural backgrounds and patterns of
development.
Cultures and symbols, as well as social institutions, have to deal with the problematic nature of
“absence”4, rather than face-to-face interactions5: symbols refer to objects that are not actually
present; history refers to facts that are past; predictions, to facts that are future; hypotheses, to facts
1 19/04/10
that are possible; agreements, norms and roles to behaviours that are expected; and so on.
Disembedded modern institutions actualize (= make real in the present) what is distant in time and
space – absent – so that distant or past actions may have consequences here and now.
The same category of identity has to do with “absence”. In accordance with Ricoeur 6, in fact, we
may intend “Identity” in two senses: as idem-tity and (at the same time!) as ipse-ity. While the
second meaning refers to specificity (I am a unique individual, different from the others), the first
one refers to the (perceived) continuity in time (I am always the same individual, in the course of
the time). This second meaning of “identity” is problematic because of the «continuous shifting
between being present … and being absent»7 which is typical of social experience8.
3) Program description
2 19/04/10
A space defined by transit and movement, may, in the words of Augé, be denominated a “non-
lieu”11. Not inhabited, but “only” transited. This acceptance of the category of “non-place”
(introduced with a different meaning by De Certeau) really exemplifies the «academic neglect of
various movement»12, and the persistent preference accorded to what is stable, still, and – for this
only reason – “structural”.
Modern attempts to fix identifiable places (nation states) by means of boundaries and narratives,
seem to be destined to collide, in late modernity, with “simultaneity”, the new modality of re-
integration of space and time. People in fact can have distance relationships in real-time, integrating
distant peoples and cultures in the constitution of new “spaces”, beyond political and time
boundaries.
Thus, while boundaries persist, self-definitions pass through them, defining new and
differentiated relations between places and identities.
11 M. Augé, Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, Verso, 2009 (2 ed), (or. ed.)
12 M. Buscher and J. Urry, 2009, «Mobile Methods ...», cit., p. 99.
3 19/04/10