After finally being able to discuss the readings which were assigned to 9/4 in class, I realized that an interesting theory was posed by Marshall Berman. As the author of one of the readings, All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity, Berman suggests that the definition of modernity is twofold. The duality of modernity is both rebellious and conservative, to be living within the aspects of individual and social development and destruction. To be comfortable amongst the chaos is to be a modernist.
The way I tend to think about modernism follows the former half of the definition, the rebellious angle. I think about changing our societal structures, progressing together as a global community. I think about things like social justice and civil rights movements, like how people fought for suffrage, the right to marry, the right to stay together with one's family. I think about evolving and innovative technology, the creative chaos that spurs us forward.
Yet, I don't tend to think about the other half of the definition. Modernity is just as much rooted in conservative order as it is in creative chaos. Perhaps other people immediately think about this side of the definition, but it's not the first thing that comes to my mind when discussing modernity. Still, an argument can be made that to be modern is to strive for order. To be modern is to impose rules and regulations, to find a steady pace and roll with it. Both conformity and chaos hold their roots in modernism, despite being opposites of each other.
Of course, the whole point in providing a definition for modernity is so that the readership may take that definition, apply it, and will hopefully come to an understanding of the world around them. As Kant's answer provided, modernity is "humankind's emergence from its own minority...and its new motto is sapere aude: dare to know." Humanity, through modernity, dares to know, dares to understand the ever-changing world in which we live in. However, too many contradictory answers and explanations of modernity confuse readership and ultimately loses the audience along the way. Understanding modernity proves to be a double-edged sword, so to speak.
The way I tend to think about modernism follows the former half of the definition, the rebellious angle. I think about changing our societal structures, progressing together as a global community. I think about things like social justice and civil rights movements, like how people fought for suffrage, the right to marry, the right to stay together with one's family. I think about evolving and innovative technology, the creative chaos that spurs us forward.
Yet, I don't tend to think about the other half of the definition. Modernity is just as much rooted in conservative order as it is in creative chaos. Perhaps other people immediately think about this side of the definition, but it's not the first thing that comes to my mind when discussing modernity. Still, an argument can be made that to be modern is to strive for order. To be modern is to impose rules and regulations, to find a steady pace and roll with it. Both conformity and chaos hold their roots in modernism, despite being opposites of each other.
Of course, the whole point in providing a definition for modernity is so that the readership may take that definition, apply it, and will hopefully come to an understanding of the world around them. As Kant's answer provided, modernity is "humankind's emergence from its own minority...and its new motto is sapere aude: dare to know." Humanity, through modernity, dares to know, dares to understand the ever-changing world in which we live in. However, too many contradictory answers and explanations of modernity confuse readership and ultimately loses the audience along the way. Understanding modernity proves to be a double-edged sword, so to speak.
Comments
Post a Comment