<<

\\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 :

framing

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 .

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

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 .

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 , 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 , 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 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 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, (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 - 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 ’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 (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 —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 . 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 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 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 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 : An 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. 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 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