Modernity of this century: Four ethnographic perspectives

From an anthropological perspective, ‘modernity’ appears at once conceptually straightforward and theoretically elusive. Scholars seem to know it when they see it, yet specific definitions and approaches to the study of modernity rarely seem complementary. Some scholars, especially those steeped in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: HARMS, Erik, JOBSON, Ryan, MERRIFIELD, Caroline, RANDLE, Sarah Priscilla
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cis_research/118
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.cis_research-1117
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.cis_research-11172023-03-16T07:54:03Z Modernity of this century: Four ethnographic perspectives HARMS, Erik JOBSON, Ryan MERRIFIELD, Caroline RANDLE, Sarah Priscilla From an anthropological perspective, ‘modernity’ appears at once conceptually straightforward and theoretically elusive. Scholars seem to know it when they see it, yet specific definitions and approaches to the study of modernity rarely seem complementary. Some scholars, especially those steeped in European and North American philosophical and historical traditions, insist that modernity is a particular form of social and political organization with European origins. In this conceptualization, modernity is a product of processes which define the ‘modern period’: the expansion of capitalism, the rise of nation-states, and the development and spread of forms of rationality associated with scientific reason (Giddens 1991:1; Rabinow 2008: 2). But these conceptions have not gone unchallenged. One particularly influential body of literature critiques the very concept of modernity as a repressive technology of differentiation involving the forced and largely fictional purification of nature from culture (i.e., Latour 1993), and of Europe from its colonial others (i.e., Dussel 2000; Escobar 1995; Mignolo 2011). Other perspectives critique the idea of a single modernity with discrete origins by broadening the concept’s reach to encompass and celebrate ‘alternative’ modernities not beholden to a single genealogy emanating from enlightenment Europe (Gaonkar 2001; Rofel 1999; Trouillot 2002). The differences are clear: some say modernity comes unequivocally from Europe; some say we have never been modern, that modernity is a fiction imposed on the world by powerful actors seeking to dominate others; and others say that everyone is potentially modern in her own alternative way. 2013-10-01T07:00:00Z text https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cis_research/118 Research Collection College of Integrative Studies eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Anthropology
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Anthropology
spellingShingle Anthropology
HARMS, Erik
JOBSON, Ryan
MERRIFIELD, Caroline
RANDLE, Sarah Priscilla
Modernity of this century: Four ethnographic perspectives
description From an anthropological perspective, ‘modernity’ appears at once conceptually straightforward and theoretically elusive. Scholars seem to know it when they see it, yet specific definitions and approaches to the study of modernity rarely seem complementary. Some scholars, especially those steeped in European and North American philosophical and historical traditions, insist that modernity is a particular form of social and political organization with European origins. In this conceptualization, modernity is a product of processes which define the ‘modern period’: the expansion of capitalism, the rise of nation-states, and the development and spread of forms of rationality associated with scientific reason (Giddens 1991:1; Rabinow 2008: 2). But these conceptions have not gone unchallenged. One particularly influential body of literature critiques the very concept of modernity as a repressive technology of differentiation involving the forced and largely fictional purification of nature from culture (i.e., Latour 1993), and of Europe from its colonial others (i.e., Dussel 2000; Escobar 1995; Mignolo 2011). Other perspectives critique the idea of a single modernity with discrete origins by broadening the concept’s reach to encompass and celebrate ‘alternative’ modernities not beholden to a single genealogy emanating from enlightenment Europe (Gaonkar 2001; Rofel 1999; Trouillot 2002). The differences are clear: some say modernity comes unequivocally from Europe; some say we have never been modern, that modernity is a fiction imposed on the world by powerful actors seeking to dominate others; and others say that everyone is potentially modern in her own alternative way.
format text
author HARMS, Erik
JOBSON, Ryan
MERRIFIELD, Caroline
RANDLE, Sarah Priscilla
author_facet HARMS, Erik
JOBSON, Ryan
MERRIFIELD, Caroline
RANDLE, Sarah Priscilla
author_sort HARMS, Erik
title Modernity of this century: Four ethnographic perspectives
title_short Modernity of this century: Four ethnographic perspectives
title_full Modernity of this century: Four ethnographic perspectives
title_fullStr Modernity of this century: Four ethnographic perspectives
title_full_unstemmed Modernity of this century: Four ethnographic perspectives
title_sort modernity of this century: four ethnographic perspectives
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2013
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cis_research/118
_version_ 1770576493575929856