Reading Summary
The word “modern” refers to a period of postmedieval Western history, which is distinctly different from the ages preceding it. This period is characterized by the extensive social, political, and technological change unprecedented in history. Diversification of values and social lifestyles, economic systems and political forms, artistic expression and technological advances – have all distinguished the modern period as fundamentally different from everything that came before.
A common division of history incorporates three major eras – the Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Modernity. The Antiquity is seen as the dawn of civilization, associated with light, knowledge, and wisdom. It is followed by the Middle Ages, which are also labeled Dark Ages – the time of ignorance and oblivion. What comes next is Modernity, which represents the awakening from darkness and reemergence of ancient wisdom. In essence, it synthesizes all previous values, information, and achievements in the form of the ultimate expression of human knowledge.
However, Modernity is not necessarily a temporal concept. It also has a spatial dimension as many historians attribute Modernity to Europe exclusively. The author notes a certain bias towards the European progress among historians. The underlying message is that the only way for nonwestern societies to become modern is to accept the European values and lifestyle. This viewpoint still has some basis today, as many westerners consider Islam to be an expression of tradition. At the same time, Europe is juxtaposed to the other world as the more developed, modern society.
As a result, there is a conflict between the tradition and the Modernity. As the author writes, “the dichotomy of tradition and modernity is a modern theoretical axiom on social change, according to which modernization stands for the decrease and eventual disappearance of tradition” (Anttonen, 2005, p. 34.). Subsequently, all societies are divided into traditional and modern, with the latter meaning European. Although it is a recognized fallacy, categorical opposition of tradition and Modernity exists and is still entertained in scientific circles.
Critical Reflection
Overall, the author tackles a distinct Eurocentric viewpoint. Following his line of reasoning, it becomes evident that the European civilization is presented as the powerhouse of development and advancement. Removing Europe from the equation defeats the entire purpose of distinguishing societies into modern and traditional because, without the European historians’ input, this theory would not have been born. This is the most confusing element of this reading. Unless the purpose is different, choosing the term “modern” for distinguishing societies does not make sense.
The original definition did not include the spatial aspect. It seems that the reason why Modernity was equal to following the European example was because, at the time of the Renaissance, Europe was the only region, which differed from the rest of the world. The desire to overcome medieval mentality, which rejected the legacy of the Antiquity, was indeed the hallmark of the European thought. However, as the interpretation of the Middle Ages as the Dark ages became more and more widespread, this uniqueness was no longer justified.
Moreover, the Antiquity is also a European concept, which is related to geography. The author specifically states that it refers to “a privileged and exemplary portion of the past: the pagan classical times and the authors of Greece and Rome” (Anttonen, 2005, p. 34.). This implies that, at the time of the Ancient Greece and Roman, their equivalent of Modernity also did not extend beyond Europe. Each nation entertains the idea of being the most advanced and unique civilization in history.
The same egotism can be attributed to the current proponents of the Modernity as driver behind contemporary progress. A particularly surprising discovery of this reading is that many minds are willing to interpret the existing knowledge in favor one’s viewpoint. It would seem that no matter how much information is amassed, no matter how much historical evidence is presented, they will always be twisted to propose a theory contradicting it and advancing some particular agenda.
As has already been mentioned, one of the ideas of Modernity is its opposition to tradition. The more society follows traditional values, the less it is likely to be considered modern. There are two issues with this point of view. First, it is reminiscent of the medieval thinkers who were quick to dismiss the Antiquity. They promoted their contemporary set of values as most preferable, which is similar to the proponents of the Modernity. Not only was the Middle-Age thinking dismantled, but it also became viewed as traditional by the modernists.
Second, indiscriminate promotion of the Eurocentric values fails to account for substantial regional differences. The author notes that in many ways, modernization “is a process of individualization and specialization” (Anttonen, 2005, p. 35). However, there are cultures, which are not individualistic at all. For such societies, Western values would not be entirely compatible. As a consequence, either these countries will always be viewed as incapable of achieving Modernity, or the concept of the Modernity is not really about change and development, but rather about favoring the Western civilization on an exclusive basis.
Reference
Anttonen, P. (2005). Tradition through modernity: Postmodernism and the nation-state in folklore scholarship. Finnish Literature Society.