\\IS
Behavioral
FERDAM—PARIS---NEW
Center
Max
for
of
Planck
Encyclopedia
Advanced
International
I,zstitute
the
Study
YORK—OXFORD-—SE-{ANNON-—SINGAPORE--TOKYO
for
Editors
in
Neil
Paul
Human
the
Volume
ELSE
Social
2001
J.
Behavioral
B.
in-
Smelser
VIER
Development,
Baltes
Chief
15
Sciences
Sciences,
Berlin.
Stanford.
Germans’
&
C’A, USA
The
9944
is Modernity:
framing Anthropology
Touraine
Vieillard-Baron
Smart
1.
Jameson
M
Rince Maffesoli Lipovetsky
Morin Lyotard
Harvey
Giddens
Habermas FourastiC
Domenach Deroche-Gurcel
Deroche-Gurcel Campbell
Burger
Benjamin
Benjamin
Bell
Bauman
Bauman
Bauman Modernity
modern
Germany,
Grasset,
Philosophie
usil
Bordas, Minuit,
Routledge, Rey
Durham, Suhrkamp,
Cultural Oxford, G
Paris
Presses
sitaires
Germany
Suhrkamp,
Conswnerism. JVovus.
mann,
ralisnie.
University
Press,
London
Modernity
D
idea
Sociologie—Etudes
R
D
A
B
E
1976
1931
P
D
A
(eds.)
Z
Ithaca,
J-F
1984
Z
A
1962
for
1992
London
F
Suhrkamp,
M
de
J
Universitaires
W
Z
C
Paris
Paris
Presses
UK
Paris 1994
W
of 1989
Logic
J
G J-M
(radically 1988
1989
1969
NC 1997
1992
Vol.
2000
1991
France, 1987
Der
The
1955,
London
Press, 1992
de
anthropology,
Frankfurt,
1985 Frankfurt,
1987
1985
Baudelaire.
L
modernity
Dictionnaire
Modern 1969
J-L
Les
Modern
1986
la ‘Esprit
NY
L L Oxford,
Anthropological
Mann Le
Postniodernity
Critique
Prosa
The
Cultural
1
of
L’bistant
as
The
Universitaires
[1979
In:
2000
1997
,nodernitè.
1961,
L’Empire
1989—1
Intimations
Consequences
Der
New
La Grand
Late
Charles
Paris
Frankfurt,
Approches
Frame
Condition
Romantic
Fish
new)
ohne
dii
it
Conditions,
Sinrnwl
Avant-propos
de der
Condition
philosophische
Les
1966
Germany
Germany
UK, York
v
de
sur
990
Capitalism. Contradictions
In: and
tenips—Essai
Espoir
France,
des
éternel.
Eigenscha/len.
has
S
Ia
Moderne.
Contradictions
in
de
Baudelaire.
Schr
Payot,
de
and
London
Introduction.
the
les
modernité. (ed.)
Linératures
but
et
the
and
l’éphémère.
of
de
Ethic
Germany
de
of
de
Beaumarchais operated
-
du
Holocaust.
Ia
formes ((ten,
post-moderne.
la
Denoël,
Problem Paris
Postmodernity
France,
Ia
Postmodern
the
human
its
Postmodernity.
modernité.
XXe
Post-Modernism—or
Paris,
modernité.
modern
and
and
Duke
sur Discontents.
Suhrkamp,
Illuminationen.
Diskurs
categories
Aspects
of
siècle.
Fayard.
Tiedemann
Rowohit,
(he
de
Ia
Preface.
Vols. de
Gallimard,
Paris]
Paris
culturelles
In:
Capitatisni.
condition Cornell
as
ité.
University
languefrançaise.
Spirit
in
Ia
Presses
SimmelG
J-P,
a Controversies. Ellipses,
der
L’Harmattan,
1—2
socialisation.
Editions
Paris
B.
historical
In:
Cambridge
Routledge,
Hamburg,
Frankfurt,
Blackwell, of
University
Couty
de
of
Moderne.
Valade
du
Univer R
Modern
Angelus
Paris Simmel
masse.
Heine
what
have
Press,
Paris
(ed.)
capi
(ed.)
The
D,
de
edges.
scientific cultures.
ally
a social magic,
nature tablished to complex, characterized
other There for
logic, and
encounters
opposition anthropology 2.
transformations.
ethnographic
From itself the techniques, project,
plural ethnographer’s social
modern The
Western to
lation
been the granted
aspects the
ernity
as
used is
(exotic) becomes
knowledge study would
of
simple
generally shifted
lated
reflexive
discover
both
This
an
modern
capture
historical
twentieth
ever
modern
the
lvi
included
second
as
cultures
ethnographic
area?
to
extension,
was
to
worlds, has
its
system,
odernirt’
social
of
of
sexuality,
rationalities,
This
a level,
throughout
relationship
a
or
social
other,
of
one
aspects
shifting
assumptions Anthropology
treat
modernity
an
a
forms.
product,
Euro-American
the
about
very paradox
element
given
human
also
subaltern
a
rationality
between
between
Euro-American
We
power.
social
through
object
the
cultural
distinctive
ideas
that
implicit
framing
we
settings.
century.
that
nuclear
anthropology
the
has
consequences
and
modernity the
by
a
giving
beginning
can
craft
and
anthropology
the
of
more
The
and
webs
particularistic
can
and
Initially
indictment stripped
tracks
field
forms,
into dealt
and existence
about
of
to
such
‘premodern’
Western
For
findings
say
the
study
the
is
the
its
others
logic
is
of
and
as
an
knowledge
say
pose of
exchange
most
of
alternative
as
family,
critique
Anthropology
it
anthropologists
radical
of
perhaps
an
is
the
that
Others
history
so-called
thus a discuss
aspect
modern
anthropology
with modernity an
plural
as
European
a
particularly
humanity. the
intimate
and
rationalities
embedded
that
modernity,
discipline of
as as
interrogator,
driven
their
away
‘science’
in
the
positive
undoing,
modernity
anthropology
promising
rationality,
to
modernity.
modern
that
in
was
studied
an
encounters
a
spread
modernity
of epistemological
and
subjects
its
question
the
question
of
modernisms,
of of
well
specific
which
modernity
which
experiences
the and
academic
production
and
existential
racism,
to
customs
followed
by
‘primitive’
dominated the
anthropofogys
the
social
experience
and
the
modernity
of
taken that
suited
that
valence
within
an
the societies.
those
of
as
of
also
unique
and
discipline.
that
human
acted
in
worked
towards
profit
approach
the
and its
of
a
rational
ethnographic
of
the
political
evolutionary For
of the
with
the
as
nonmodern.
produces
a
as
field sciences
a
for
others,
introduced
is
modernity.
to
modernit
from
discipline.
aspects
shape
as
European
the
variety
regarding
doubling. aiithropos
technique
historical
taken
progress.
a
as
assumed
research Oedipus
much
as
societies in
of
that
granted
modern
of
identify
motive.
knowl
project modern
an
gradu and
so
by
of
within
native
that
a
a
mod
such
non-
At
way
new
and
why
and
and
our
foil
iso
has
es the
for are
re
an
an
of
its
of
of
it
a
and .:.i contunun;
ca uivilizatic on cstablish eLiltUlal
COfltIU1t1 The .unthropc dition and eokniali
CXtStjnt (l95) ltnijts the worlds. theory ucaul cIciitilic record cultures cotid
in human peoples .-\tlantic world identities ‘salvage part dependel
PrOd lorms shov formed sicia utterly nut
theiy luiggerna hunianit
human terms. premode
Karl
\Iost
Lvi-Slrt
Ruth
leti
A
the
In
In
ctiltut
origil
icipa
\Veb
corn agall
sucH
vor
Po1
I
Ia UCtC
Sit!fl
thc
the
froi
sch
of
difi
tIa
cli;
Be
by
sh re
tic
bt
d
to
in
B
b
c.
c
1
( I Modern ill: Anthropological Aspects
,line. At a conducted in the shadow of European imperialism and the Asia-Pacific became functionally articulated ienceSare exposed its destruction of native cultures and its with the capitalist system (Godelier 1977). Ethno es. so why dependence on racism in colonial systems. Claude graphies captured in vivid and concrete detail the as an iso- Levi-Strauss ruminated on Europe’s destruction of the parasitic dependence of capitalism on the labor of a modern premodern as inseparable from the loss of its own slaves, sharecroppers, cash-cropping peasants, and wit hropos cultural ideals. women in the developing world. Premodern labor technique In the United States, the pioneers in anthropology forms and the domestication of women in far away oduces its participated in debates over the fate of traditional places have historically been part of capitalism, and ce of the cultures under modern conditions. Nineteenth century therefore a part of modernity itself. Forms of servitude e in that it ‘salvageanthropology’ engaged in a valiant attempt to such as guest workers and maids, often organized nodernitY. record dying cultures, sometimes rendered in utopian along gender, ethnic, and national lines,are an integral irds mod- terms. By the early twentieth century, Franz Boas part of advanced capitalist societies. These cultural doubling, established cultural anthropology as a field that spoke others furnish the images of the premodern Other to taken for out against the human costs of Western conquest, contemporary capitalism’s own self-reflection. r much of colonialism, and racism. Boas sought to develop a The concept of commodity fetishism influenced kedwithin scientificlanguage of cultural differences and universal ethnographic studies of how the market, bureaucracy, ithers, and human dignity as inescapable aspects of modern and mechanical media erode and reform indigenous e assumed humanity. During World War II, Margaret Mead and notions of sociality and personhood. For over a progress. Ruth Benedict popularized the study of national century, anthropologists have decried the destruction logy’s re identities, often contrasting the rationality of Amer or debasement of native cultures that came with . as a way ican society with premodern others. capitalism, Christianity, and foreign rule. Anthro S of non In the post-Second World War era, classic social pologists have documented the social despair, mil ili modern theory in the writings of Marx, Durkheim, Simmel, lennial movements, and rituals of violence inspired by roach has and Weber replaced earlier evolutionary perspectives missionaries, travelers, and traders. Another perspec inographic on cultural change. Capitalism is now taken as the tive mines the folklore and magical beliefsof colonized litical and utterly revolutionary force that has created the modern peoples for their hidden critique of the objectifying n of new world by radically breaking with the past. Market meanings of capitalism. The fetishization of market variety of civilization tore asunder personal relations, destroyed goods creates conditions for social competition, and .eldand an communal social systems, and introduced egotistical gives rise to new hierarchies along lines of town and to identify calculations and the modern state to premodem country, class and gender differences. Across the shape our worlds. Thus emerged a strong anthropological tra world, the mass production of culture, including soap modernity dition to study the varied impact of the capitalist operas and beauty contests, engender a variety of juggernaut on native social forms, subjectivity, and cultural configurations, displacing revolutionary sen social change. timents with new desires and confusion.
discipline. 2.1 historical Commodity Production and Fetishism 2.2 Modern 1(1’and the Spread of Rationalitr onmodern, Most scholars would agree that modernity began with The Weberian view in anthropology dealt with the from such the original capitalist transformations in the North universal difl’usion of the peculiar social rationalities •olutionary Atlantic world, and their effects on the direction and of Western capitalism to traditional societies. Like ted by an limitsof social change for all of humanity. For Marxist much of the social sciences in the 1960s and 1970s, e’ societies anthropologists, the most resonant story was the ways Weberian-inflected anthropology was framed by a regarding peoples of the new and ancient worlds were displaced modernization theory which ranked societies accord as a foil and compelled to engage in commodity production. ing to the degree of their adoption of modern Western ie Oedipus The works of Eric Wolf (1982) and Sidney Mintz values and institutions. In a series of studies on fit motive. (1985)show that exploitative market relations trans Indonesia, Clifford Geertz (1963) observed that the ical project formed colonized peoples into new kinds of alienated limited adoption of rational values and entre rithe native human beings, as commodity relations dissolved pre preneurial forms such as capital accounting ‘stranded’ Ce that es existing cultural relations among people, uprooting a country seemingly poised to take off into industrial I European them from former ways of life. capitalism. Geertz observed that Javanese cultural and aspects of A significant contribution of anthropology is to economic spheres were firmly integrated by an over for granted show that the market system, contrary to Marx and riding communal ethos that thwarted the rise of introduced Karl Polanyi, did not gradually replace all other social individualism and impersonal relations required by nan knowl forms, but rather interacted with other social systems market organization. The Weberian assumption that tional and in the differentiation of modern society. The ‘modes of economic rationalization would be gradually split off nity gradu production’ school demonstrated that kinship- and from other spheres was itself challenged by studies of as research Communityi,ased systems in Africa, Latin America, advanced capitalist societies. Marshall Sahlins (1976)
9945 Modernity: Anthropological Aspects
argued that in American society, practical reason can detour in the anthropological theory of modernity. be shown to be informed by religious and aesthetic They do frolli not develop a positive concept of modernity Indee schemes of meaning. But clearly, the project to or analytical categories that can be applied to the decenter certain dominant Western conceptions of systematic may study of social forms that will allow for metre humanity must be embedded in an analysis of how theoretical generalization. these schemes of meaning are transformed Thi in relation m to the power dynamics of class, gender, ing and race. purch 4. Modernin’ as Political and Social Rcitionalities specif 3. The Neiv Modernisms The anthropological focus on modernity as an eth ‘ii obses: By the early 1980s,the end of the Cold War spelled the nographic problem in its own right was stimulated by decline of universalizing theories of modernization, recent European social thought. In American anthro niiiy 1 areaII and new generations of anthropologists rejected the pology, with the help of his American interlocutors I all’ totalizing, evolutionary assumptions about social Herbert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel change. The writings Michael Foucault’s ocurre came to have a wide-ranging influ Mo of Foucault, and the discip rediscovery of Nietzsche, popularized ence on different approaches to questions of mod understanding reauCi about the intimate relations between knowledge and ernity. The fundamental question was not to treat 1990) power and focused intellectual projects not on things modernity as an analytical opposition to given eth but on the conditions of emergence of new forms that nographic realities, but rather to take modernity itself p101CC as an ethnographic object, as specific social and focusi have been built into the conduct of life. Foucault’s The other Order of Things (1970) first sets out the ways political rationalities configuring particular worlds. et hrio knowledge/power schemes shape and normalize Foucault’s Discipline and Punish (1977) has been ob especially ovCr jects of knowledge, and his later works have had a influential in the anthropological analysis of modern power. We can identify three conceptual to glc powerful effect on anthropology’s analytical tech descri niques self-perception. clusters: (a) a positive (not repressive) capillary’ and ii But the so-called postmodern challenge, and an notion of modern power as circulating practices y. influential text, Anthropology as Cultural Critique arising from multiple domains; (b) the role of knowl (Marcus and Fischer 1986), became symptomatic of edge/power schemes in proliferating social norms and forms that produce subjects; and (c) the specific the misrepresentation of the crisis of knowledge as 4.,? simply a ‘crisis of representation.’ The self-reflexive technologies of governmentality—grids of knowl turn caused many to scale down their anthropoLogical edge/power, mechanisms of surveillance— that gov In Fr project to an experiment in writing ethnography. First, ern our everyday behavior and make us particular space a ‘politics and poetics’ of representation approach kinds of modern human beings. Such a reconceptual experi seeks to redress the temporal and political inequalities ization of modernity as projects and schemes of power mode between ethnographic informants and the anthro is particularly suited to the ethnographic method of rc2til’ tracking the logics everyday pologist (Clifford and Marcus 1986). Second, femin of attitudes, habits, and trio 1 ists—concerned about partial truths and informant practices (Bourdieu 1977). It becomes apparent that daily the goal is not to arrive at some empowerment—popularized multivocality to under grand theory about how i cut the authority of the author. Third, a radical modernity, but rather to scrutinize the concrete mani lutive deconstructionist approach privileges language and festations of emerging social practices, norms, and SociCt writing over the theorizing of social forms. Such cultural politics in relation to the market, the nation- than ethnographies seek to capture the jarring experiences state, and to globalizing forces. mode of colonial and proletarian subjects, both to uncover and p the hidden ‘truths’ of subaltern suffering and re fererit 4.1 AIterna sistance, and to subvert objectifying categories of rice Modernities 11151itt. terent description. Fourth, the so-called ‘culture/power! The Foucault effect on thinking about colonialism and history’ orientation takes modernity as a historical postcolonialism shifts attention from reactionary proce: cul so cultural formation, embedding the study of discourses tural formations to strategic modern projects. More hjec Ia and cultural politics within the specific political econ attention is now given to social rationalities—law, bor omic contexts. These varied approaches seek to cap hygiene, sex, and labor disciplines—involved an ob in civiliz tar2et ture the particular conjunctures and disjunctures of ing colonized societies and subjects. The study of ill a discourse, culture, and power in encounters with postcolonial development itself is reconceptualized as r COrnp Western power and knowledge. But unlike exper regimes of discursive power that have material effects imental ethnographies of earlier generations, the on shaping the politics for remaking the Third World current postmodernist assault on the ideological con (Escobar 1995). The anthropology of imaginary stitution of Western social science does not offer an modernities—narratives that depend on the creation 4.3 alternate method for studying schemes of practice, of the otherness of their own pasts as well as of the their logics and limits, and possibilities for trans West—show that in the new China, different gener The rr formation. Thus, postmodern approaches represent a ations have been shaped by visions of a movement is the 9946 Moderjnn: Anthropological Aspects f modernity. from a dark past into a bright socialist future. the most extreme expressions of individual freedom t of modernity Indeed, for other countries, folk theories of modernity and impersonal objectification. Earlier anthiopo applied to the may even incorporate backwardness, thus subverting logical studies of urban life focused on the retention vill allow for metropolitan development programs. of village bonds among migrants or the maintenance The concept of ‘alternative modernities’ risks reify of ego-centered networks among working class com ing native views of modernity, and it will have more munities, as a defense against the alienating effects of purchase if ethnographic attention is also paid to the modernity’s flux. Indeed, more and more, cities rather ,l Ratio1i0Iit1’S specificsocial practices and forms that are distinctively than nations have become the salient sites for examin modern. For instance, anthropologists note that the ing the gap between political citizenship and the nitv as an eth promotion of marginal cultural practices experiences of different categories of persons who have by obsessive LS stimulated within anthro may engender a ‘spectacular modernity’ in societies been excluded or subordinated the ideal ncr can greatly transformed by industrial capitalism and deep national community. A central problem in conceptual n interlocutors about the loss of national identity. izing modernity then is an ethnographic investigation Michel ly anxious hinow, More grounded approaches have explored the of the mechanisms and routines of governance and the c-ranging influ effects of agricultural programs and bu practices of subjects being thus constituted as ad of mod- disciplining stiOflS reaucracy in shaping developing societies (Ferguson ministrative subjects of particular cities, zones, and not to treat as 1990).Others consider how modernity becomes a state nation-states. n to given eth in developing and postsocialist countries, There has been a spate of ethnographies on mimi itself project modernity on the interactions between the market and grants, drug-addicts, prisoners, street-persons, youths, and focusing :ific social other social systems that discipline civil society. Such the working poor. and racial minorities protesting icular worlds. ethnographies demonstrate how the novel forms of their illusory juridical status and exclusions from the 1977) has been governmentality and governance, evolving in relation ‘liberal community.’ Generations of anthropologists analysis of ‘gical to globalizing forces, are dialectically linked to self- have studied black ghetto culture and poor urban iree conceptual of alternative configurations of modern- neighborhoods, stressing the differential forms of capillary descriptions si’.e) ity. integration into American society. More recent works l.iting practices explore how marginalized urban groups formulate c role of knowl their demands for substantive rights—to schooling, g social norms housing, clean water, cultural difference, and re I (c) the specific 4.2 Modern Schemes and Subjectivity spect—from the state and fellow citizens in Western rids of knowl democracies (Holston 1998). A concept of citizenship, Rabinow opens up the .nce— that gov In French Modern (1989) Paul not simply as imposed rights for abstract individuals, the modernity and the e us particular space between high cultures of but as a set of contingent, negotiative relations ‘middling a reconceptual experiences of ordinary life as a domain of between local authorities and self-making subjects, technologies encounter and :heines of power modernity’ where social suggests a distinctly modern form of state-subject iphic method of regulate everyday sensibility. By seeking the coming relations and subject-making. ds, habits, and into being of modernity in the mundane details of s apparent that daily life, ethnographers present a complex picture of nd theory about how the nondramatic norms and forms are consti C concrete mani tutive of what it means to be human in particular Ces.norms, and societies. Perhaps anthropologists have gone further 4.4 Transnationalisn 1, Difj&en tiation, and Subject rket. the nation than other social scientists not only in grounding Formation norms modernity as a particular set of rationalizing Of course, the modern condition now includes the locations of and practices, but also to specify the dif proliferation of transnational networks that are trans ferent kinds of rationality in modern, universalizing forming earlier understandings about community, delineates how institutions. Ethnographic scrutiny dif mobility, and belonging. In our globalized world, ferent regimes of power/knowledge have identified, I Colonialism modernity is increasingly understood and experienced and processed, kinds of modern reactionary and constituted particular in terms of transnational processes and webs of cul subjects and scientific projects. in runaway factories, hospitals, relationships shaped by the intensified flows of people, More Thus, modernity as iilonaljties_law. laboratories and in utopian cities. images, knowledge, and practices in everyday life. an object of anthropological inquiry itself is a shifting flolved in civiliz Such reconfigurations of social life and connections target, as anthropologists track specific technologies S. The study of unsettle earlier anthropological notions of culture, in a situations, and allow for Onceptualized range of ethnographic community, and identity, suggesting that it may be as comparison beyond cultural particularities. e material effects possible to talk about a global ecumene spawned by the Third World intensified cross-border flows and exchanges (Hannerz y of imaginary 1992). An approach to the cultural dimensions of I on the Creation globalization (Appadurai 1996) suggests that the 4.3 Cities and the Reconfiguring of Citizenship as ‘ell as of the spatial and imagined coordinates of culture and - different gener The metropolis, as Benjamin and Simmel have noted, community are now shaped by diasporic communities of a movement isthe locus classjcus of modern sociality, the setting for that are in the process of becoming ‘postnational.’ The
9947 category an Modernity: of global networks homelessness should produced relation ated ations worlds. materiality
pression ogists modern different may
and subjects bility, the direction
places, ethnography meaning
migratory cine, rhetoric
subjectivity forms modern 1998). of
4.5 contingent, But volatile toxic modernity. vations—that contingency of ernity.
simply (Luhmann
calculations as remains
anthropology how
9948 and modern
How
tourists,
indeterminable
rules
There
a
space
invention
be
border
formations
the
business,
dependent absorb
Living
companies,
societies
of and
of
seek
Such be
wastes, are at
to
the
and Thus,
cultural
we who
of human While
cash
places, governmentality
operation are of
people and
of to
work subsystems
and
theoretically
investigates
and the are
intellectuals,
of such Anthropological aspects
competitiveness
the
have
perception
in to be projects
and
‘the flows
globalization
1998),
with
Capitalism
all
risks
of of
subjects, internalize the
variety
proliferated
that flows,
is time—space of
signs bureaucracy—that a
expose
in
proliferated
(Ong
investigated and
transnational
sharpen
of everyday
migrant
rather imagined
light
problematize sociologists beings.
variety variable.
and
globalization
forms
set human’
new
privilege
multilateral Uncertainty
new
‘modern a
unit
in
have
modernity
of
can
our
of
individuals world
up
2000).
that
will
unsettling
their
what of
technologies—time—space that
everyone rationalities—in
arms,
of the different.
techniques, rationalities distinguished
and
configurations
and
expatriates, for
of social
thinking
multiplied has track workers
the
questions
require life
analysis,
is
communities
enables
the
everyday
go domains. by
where
and distanciation—anthropol
rationalities alternative
Transnational
ourselves Aspects
new containment
(Martin
the is society’s
problematized
subjects
intensified
norms
not
have and imaginary,
agencies, in globalization?
to
how systems
future
will
has
the
to
information,
live
engage
social
their
The
as
us
kinds
make
and
needs
us
the
are
the
proliferated
and
concern bioscientific practices,
an risks
performative
about
specific
is of
and
to
focused
routines.
with to
Attention
1994).
from
voluntary are
to everyday
shaping
directions
refugees.
globalization irrationalities
main
incomplete independent
that
mobility,
go
cultural
forms ask
constituted
and the
science, in the
up
of
be
businessmen to in that
enter
of
emerging however,
uncertainties beneath
institutions
the
what what which
considered have visions
particular dominance
go (Rabinow corporate diasporic
multisited A
risk. configur
itself
Acceler
attribute’
diseases, on
go
What objects, of
modern
further
forced into
life,
beyond
to risks—
logics flows
medi
com
been
kinds
flexi
of What inno mod
new
into
new
and
the
with and
the the
of
and in
but is
in
the
of do an
of
of how
stance, plants, cope genomic
as borderlands. spaces—global and different target—the porary
ethnographic modern norms, devices, ethnographic ing within Woolgar
absorb observations graphic The theory
we
their
of systematic methodology—whether subject-formation, functions the linking sions we political the
human condition
See ization,
History nity of, ciety;
Appadurai Bibliography
Bourdieu
While
health,
For
well
Press,
Cambridge
to
take anthropology
do
may
cross-border global,
management challenge
with
Multinational
also:
in
interpretive,
the
anthropologists
of social Sex they
and all
must and
an
the
arrangements, human
History;
beings the
analysis the research.
ways will
Minneapolis,
to
ask
of
1986
P rationalities the
Anthropology
science, performative
the modernity.
Globalization
A
and
systems,
Differences
actor-network
1977
solve
the particularistic uncertainties
exposition the practices
anthropology particular be
the
postsocialist
1996
whether life—there
University
be
AIDS
attend
diagnosis
beyond
self-reflection for
method
is
[1979]).
we
characteristic
subjects
the
structural
Outline
politics
cities,
Concept;
based
for
Modernization,
of
problems? Moderniti
networks—are
ordering The
moral of
have
morality,
remains
decision
biotechnological
the Corporations;
pandemic.
anthropologists
MN
modes
risks
that
to
we
of
constituting
study the
with Our and
By have Press,
in
in is
become. production of in
aspects practicable,
of
and
is
a
aspects.
to
and
how
of want
of; formations, Pay
with
specific
Theory at
Modernization of an go
ideal configurations a
identifying
immediate techniques,
they
formulation the emerging
human
methodology
the
explored
In
about
study Cambridge,
fundamental
Large. and
one
of our of
modernity
and
moral
into of
ever-widening
World Modernity;
the
the particular
the
heterogeneous
divergent to
general,
of
ruling,
all
of Modernity
for modern
criticism,
Sociological
human
experimenting
of
fields
capitalism,
intersecting
remain
University
the
emerging the
Practice the
interpretive sociality.
threats
our
Rationality
entail—allows
perils
strategic
to zones,
the
identifying
development, a
Culture;
worlds.
refugee
constitution
future.
and
field
UK
the interactions
wed
of
has plural
modalities rigorous
the
(Iatour
ways
science, as
human
society
unity
of
techniques.
the power.
[trans.
and
of of
for
the
Modernity:
social
of
a is well
an
situation. local
practices
blighted spiral contem
nuclear
shifting
features
Theories human
Minnesota
both for kinds camps.
people realms attend
Such
Global
project
worlds.
Moder
dimen ethno
social
in
Nice
in
must with
fate
The with new
with and
and
in the and
and
for
of the
So
of
or
ol
of
of
R].
a
Clifford
EscobarA Ferguson Godelier Foucault Gccrtz Foucault
Flanncrz II Lalour ()ng Ltihnsainn
Marcus Martin SahIis Mints
Rahinow WolfE Rihinow
employed Moderii of ntodern In of Certainly Same title
rnoderni of the Stood fore War
awarded
the
olsion California moderni versity Press.
Human
Prison bridge Press.
Press. In: WI.
Universit Unt’ersit
Chicago Chicago l)urhain. of
The the
modei
thete
the
Caljfo
assur
Kupei
l960t
A have
a2ai
Stani
S
C
twe
dec
E B.
J.
l98
G,
M Pri
Bei
Dii
J so ro 191 [Ir,
U
Ut 20 Pr
M M
M
IS S.
J P
I’
P ‘
1
1’
S Modernliv: I-Iisiorr of the Concept
[ing realms Chiford J, Marcus G (eds.) 1986 Writing Culture. University of had emerged from earlier social configurations by way Press, Berkeley, CA rn. for in California of a profound rupture. This rupture, although it 1995Encountering Development. Princeton University ays people EscobarA could stretch over long periods and occurred in nuclear Press, Princeton, NJ different societies at different points in time, regularly of 1990 Anti-Politics Machine. Cambridge Uni Ferguson J The brought about a new set of institutions, most impor of human versity Press, Cambridge, UK tantly a market-based economy, a democratic iumafl fate Foucault M 1970 The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the polity, ous social Human Sciences [trans. Sheridan A]. Tavistock, London and autonomous knowledge-producing institutions blighted Foucault M 1977 [1975] Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the developing empirical-analytical sciences. Once such ee camps. Prison [trans. Sheridan Al. Pantheon Books, New York ‘modern society’ was established a superior form of nting with Geertz C 1963 Agricultural Involution. University of California social organization was reached that contained all it Press, Berkeley, CA needed to adapt successfully to changing circum sa shifting Godelier M 1977 Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. Cam stances. Thus, there would be no further major social f conteni bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK transformation. Hannerz U 1992The global ecumene as a network of networks. inityin the During the I980s, it was exactly this key conviction KuperA (ed.) Conceplualizing.Societv. Routledge, London In: of the modern social sciences that was challenged by echniques. 1998 Cities and Citizenship. Duke University 1-loistonJ (ed.) the idea titution of Press, Durham, NC of ‘post-modernity,’ often understood as the ower. The Latour B, Woolgar S 1986 [1979] Laboratory Lfe. Princeton assertion that Western societies had recently turned fving rev University Press, Princeton, NJ into an entirely new form of social configurations, for attend Luhmann N 1998 Observations on Modernity [trans. Whobrey based on novel forms of social bond. As such, the e practices W]. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA assertion was most prominently made in Lyotard’s atour and Marcus G, Fischer M 1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique. (1979) ‘report on knowledge’ titled The Postniodern well must University of Chicago Press, Chicago Condition, but as a hypothesis of an ongoing major ience. and Martin E 1994 Flexible Bodies. Beacon Press, Boston socialtransformation it has guided much sociological York spiral of Mintz S 1985 Sn’eeiness and Power. Viking, New research since. In the course of the ensuing debate, Ong A 2000 Flexible Citizenship. Duke University Press, situation. Durham, NC further assumptions of the ‘modern social sciences’ an cthno— Rabinow P 1989 French Modern. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and of their diagnosis of the contemporary social ic features Rabinow P 1998 The Anthropology of Reason. University of world were questioned. The term ‘modernity’ entered ciety with Chicago Press, Chicago into the social sciencesin response to such questioning. Sahlins M 1976 Culture and Practical Reason. University of he project Chicago Press, Chicago )rous and WolfE 1982Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA s. Such a I. The Advent of Modern it , as a Rupture in actions ol 1-ILsioricalConsciousness dajities of A. Ong ‘prnent, or In its derivation from Latin, ‘modern’ is first of all a allows for temporal term. It refers to the present—to be modern local jtit means to be within one’s own time—and it implies a ive dimen rather strong distinction of this present from the past. ;ocial and There are, however, three distinct ways of relating the al worlds. Modernity: History of the Concept present to the past by use of this term. First, most iC kirds ol neutrally, ‘modern’ could refer to just what happens is both the In the social sciences, the term ‘modernity’—or to be present: in this sense it would mean nothing else niodernité, modern ith, Modern e—in this form has been but ‘contemporary.’ Second, ‘modern’ could be used employed only very recently. Publications with this to deplore the loss of the greatness of the past. Such e; Global title have flourished only during the last two decades usage was common until, and including, the Renais ofthe twentieth century. However, the sociological use sance. Third, the arrival of the ‘modern’ could be seen odernitv: of id ‘modernity’could draw on earlier concepts with the as an accomplishment, an overcoming of the limi 4 Moder same the ii Theories root, in particular ‘modern society’ and tations of past. modernitjon,’ work from In this latter form, the was it in So- key terms in sociological term made prominent in the 960s and 1970s drawing on related usage from La quérelle des anciens ci des niodernes in the sev Certainlyl the nineteenth century onwards. It is there enteenth century. From then onwards, most of the fore against the background of the broader meaning uses of the term have retained such strong temporal the term ‘modern’ that the more recent usage of implication, the later concept of ‘modern society’ modernity’ in the social sciences needs to be under being a key example. Drawing such distinction be stood. tween eras, however, also demands specification as to 1Minnesoti The social sciences of the early post-Second World how they differ, that is, a conceptualization of what is War decades—often also known under the self- modern. Such conceptualization regularly transcends Ins. Nice R]. awarded label ‘modern social sciences’—worked with historical time, and thus invites analyses that go the assumption that contemporary Western societies beyond the initial preference for the present over the
9949