Through the course of ‘What is Modernity?’ we have studied several themes that will help us formulate a thought provoking answer to the question, ‘What does Modernity mean to you?’ When we look at the dictionary meaning of the word ‘Modernity’ it can be described as a historical period as well as the ensemble of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes and practices that arose in the wake of the Renaissance, in the 'Age of Reason' of 17th-century thought, and the 18th-century ‘Enlightenment.’ In the view of Michel Foucault (1975) modernity is marked by developments such as a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom and formal equality; faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress, rationalization and professionalization, a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy, industrialization, urbanization and secularization, the development of the nation-state, representative democracy, and public education.
While looking at the readings in the course, the one’s that best resonate to explain what modernity stands for are: ‘Progress,’ in the Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power by Jose Maria Sbert (2009), Progress and the demented quest for historical purity,’ by Ben Ehrenreich (2019), The Origins of the Third World by Mike Davis (2001), The Emergence of the Economy by Vivienne Brown (1992) and The shock of the Anthropecene: The Earth, History and Us by Christophe Bonneuil and Jean Baptiste Fressoz (2016). The essay further discusses the themes within and how these contribute to our understanding of what is modernity.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In looking at ‘Progress,’ in the Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power by Jose Maria Sbert (2009), the author talks about how over time, the concept of development grew and this caused ‘progress’ to be the word associated with only with what the First world had already achieved and the great potential they could bring to the rest of the world or also known as the Third World through their science, technology and economy (Sbert, 1977). According to Sbert (1997), after the concept of development grew which gave progress a new reputation, the First World believed that the Third World had to first develop before thinking about progress. This development that would lead to progress which the Third World had to undergo was thought to come from the First world which was considered to be already developed and progressing. Moreover, the idea of progress and the subsequent belief that the technologically advanced West would pave the way for development due to their superior means that came as a result of constant war that fast-tracked technological growth and made Europe invincible in every field provided a justification for Western self-assertion abroad and inequality at home in the Third world (Sbert, 1997). This put the non-western nations in a vulnerable position as it, concept of progress, allowed Europeans to what they considered ‘discover’ the whole world and gain hegemony over the global horizon. The Europeans thought they had discovered the whole world because they believed that with their superior means and lifestyles they had provided the rest of the world a better, improved way of living and due to the growth of strong faith in progress this rhetoric was accepted by those outside the west hungry for progress. Sbert (1997) mentioned how what was not understood by the rest of the world was the, intentional or unintentional, loss of identity that would result from progress. Faith in progress would be stripping the common man from all his traditional means, cultural footholds and personal confidence as he faces the market, industry and the nation state.
In looking at the second reading, Progress and the demented quest for historical purity,’ by Ben Ehrenreich (2019), the author talks about how the relationship between racism and the ideology of progress is that which is considered as if Europe with its moral superiority had lit the way for humanity. The relationship is looked as white supremacy having given the rest of the world an improved way of living; a way of life that matched their supposedly superior one. It was considered as if the superior white race had almost civilized the scattered other races of the earth (Ehrenreich, 2019). They thought of themselves as having brought about human improvement in the Third World. They considered themselves a superior nation that brought about light into the lives of other nations and despite having inflicted oppression and exploitation in the form of slavery they believed themselves to be the instrument of benefit for the people of Africa, indigenous slaves and the rest of the world. According to Ehrenreich, the Europeans destroyed civilizations as primitive and savage, leaving the victims who survived in a degraded manner which served to use as evidence and validation for your own superiority, right to rule over and exploit them under the false banner of having the motive of ‘civilizing’ the world. He stated that this paved the way and provided justification for non-western exploitation and slaughter at the hands of the Western people and their dominance as it put Europe at the pinnacle of human history and achievement whereas the rest of the world was shunned as ‘lowland wastes.’
Both these readings are similar in their themes. They talk about Modernity and world historical identity and how the West greatly influenced and shaped the lives of those in the third world. They exploited them under the banner of progress and development and stripped them off their own sense of identity, portrayed themselves as the epitome of the progress- a model for the world to follow. This exploitation in reality weakened the third world further who till this day suffer from the brunt of the actions of the power-greedy west. And this explains our understanding of Modernity in the sense that previously societies were functioning well on their own until the power-greedy West put them in doubt, made them question and stripped them of their sense of identity, traditions and norms, and simply just the way they lived, to shape their world according to their own supposed, superior standards.
In looking at the third reading, The Origins of the Third World by Mike Davis (2001), the author talks about how the idea of Third World also known as the Developing World had not existed until the second half of the nineteenth century. In theory, the First World is categorized as capitalist nations, the Second World is categorized as communist nations and the remaining, decolonized parts are known as the Third World. Mike Davis laid down that the foundation of the idea of Third World was a consequence of British colonization of China and the Indian subcontinent. He points out that British colonial period led to catastrophes in the form of droughts, which caused large amounts of the population in the colonized parts of the world to face death (Davis 2001), weakening existing economies and resulting in the emergence of a ‘weak and suffering’ Third World. Davis, firstly, claimed that British used ‘bad climate’ as a curtain to cover up for their inadequate system of governance. He gave an example of the El Nino event of 1743-44 in North China when two spring monsoons failed and scorching heat strokes killed farmers but still starvation and disease did not cause as many people to die as did the ENSO droughts of 1876-78 or 1899-1900 which the British portrayed as natural disasters. Secondly, Davis said that the standard of living of an agricultural laborer in India before and during eighteenth century was higher than those in Europe. However, by the end of nineteenth century the mean household income for a British agriculture laborer became 21 times higher than the Indian farmers, shedding light on how much the living standards had fallen. Thirdly, Davis stated that colonized economies further suffered by British military expenditure as the British required Indian economy to finance the debt for the 1857 revolt as well as the British military operation throughout Asia. Military expenses accounted for about 25% of total Indian budget, and the Viceroy made sure that money became available no matter the circumstance even if it meant taking it out of the Famine Funds.
This reading was based on the theme of Political Modernity. It reflected on the history of the word ‘Third World’ and how this word was used to categorize those who belonged to weak countries struggling economically and socially, categorized by those who put them in this situation in the first place. The reading contributes to our explanation of modernity as it highlights how the British ensured and continued to weaken us, setting up policies and systems of economy that worsened our conditions further to the extent that it would be difficult to recover and we see these effects and consequences till this day. It explains Modernity in the historical context of how society was functioning well but interference from the British changed that for the worse and effected how we live today.
In looking at the fourth reading, The Emergence of the Economy by Vivienne Brown (1992), the author talks about how Adam Smith introduced the concepts of free market, self-interest, and division of labor as the functions of an economy. He also gave the theory of ‘invisible hand,’ which helped in forming an entire market structure. His ideas created a capitalist society later, which explains his significant role in economic theory. Adam Smith introduced the idea of free market for all the economies. He suggested that a market should operate without any kind of government intervention. He wanted the government to be able to differentiate that politics and economics have different implications and one should not inter-mix them. Moreover, the concept of self-interest is important as it recognizes human cognition and how it molds the market accordingly. Adam Smith argued that consumers are rational human beings and they always act in favor of their self-interest, regardless of the effect on others. Smith also put forward the idea of division of labor and specialization. He claimed that in order to increase productivity, labors should specialize in what they are skilled at and then repeat that task in order to do it with speed and perfection. Smith portrayed this with the example of production of a pin. He broke down its manufacture into 18 different stages, which increased the production to 48 pins a day from 20 pins a day. The concepts of free market, self-interest, and division of labor for an economy to function properly introduced by Smith also faced criticism. The concept of free market was criticized based on the requirement of public goods. Government involvement becomes valid in the case of providing public and merit goods. The element of self-interest is questioned because of the selfish drive behind it. Lastly, Adam Smith himself criticized the idea of division of labor. He critiqued that specializing labor might increase the output but the performance of monotonous tasks would lead to decrease in motivation. Workers are likely to get exhausted of executing repetitive jobs as they are expected to behave like machines.
This reading was based on the theme of Economic Modernity and talked about capitalism and the thought processes of Adam Smith that provoked such an economic system. It highlighted the elements of free-market, self-interest and division of labor and the important role they play in a economy. This contributes to our understanding of modernity as it highlights the shift in economic systems and the economic characteristics of societies over time. It was a new way of looking at the economic system, questioning the existing systems, and the new economic system continued to impact millions of people, then and now. It greatly changed political systems, production systems, education systems and many more.
Lastly, looking at the fifth reading, Chapter 1: Welcome to the Anthropocene in The shock of the Anthropecene: The Earth, History and Us by Christophe Bonneuil and Jean Baptiste Fressoz (2016), the author talks about how the earth has entered into a new epoch known as the Anthropocene. According to Bonneuil and Fressoz (2016), the start of this new era began the year James Watt introduced the steam engine, symbolic of the start of the industrial revolution and the ‘carbonification’ of our atmosphere. Buffon (1778) explained that the entire face of the earth today bears the imprint of humn power. The Anthropocene is characterized by an upsurge in energy mobilization with coal, hydrocarbons and then uranium. This leap in energy has served to transform the planet with multiplied power to urbanize and domesticate ecosystems. Erle Ellis stated that moving into the Anthropocene introduces a new world view that rather than natural systems with humans disturbing them it is human systems with natural ecosystems embedded within them. According to Bonneuil and Fressoz (2016), Anthropocene, characterized by irreversible damage to the earth’s atmosphere, is the result of our own modern development, our own industrial modernity.
The themes in this reading are concerned with how industrial revolution and the two World Wars greatly affected our earth’s ecosystem, how we have entered a phase in the earth’s climate where we are completely in-charge of the earth’s ecosystem. The developments in technology and the more frequent use of power resources have allowed us to take control of how we affect the earth. Anthropocene explains modernity as instead of the traditional way of believing that there are natural systems which humans have an impact on, it is now in fact humans systems entirely as they have the ability to form, create and impact the earth systems. Everything is now man or machine controlled.
In conclusion, this is what modernity means to us. It is one that is characterized by change in earth systems, ecosystems, economic systems, how society’s work after the extensive and exploitative influence of the West. It is a new way of looking at the world with new systems and ways of living with the doings of the past still heavily affecting us till this day- a byproduct of modernity is the prolonged suffering of those in the Third World by those in the First World.
Stuck on your essay?
