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...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |