A passage from this reading that really spoke out to me was " a modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern."
We tend to think about modernism and post-modernism as chronologically related; the modern comes before the post-modern. This piece however, highlights an undeniable relation between the two. The modern is characterized by rebelling against tradition and everything that is considered the norm. Tradition, however, also evolves with time. This means that, what was once "modern" we now consider "classical" because we adapted such previous modernity as tradition.
Habermas talks about how modernity cannot be anchored to a single historical period, which is precisely why he views it as "incomplete". There are different traditions during different periods of time so like a cycle, the modern then becomes the tradition, and is re-broken. I understand the argument that post-modernity does not exist at all because what we call "post-modern" and the essence of "anything goes" can also be understood as a breaking from the norm. Our norms are just not the same ones than the 1960's. I think that this is in alignment with the concept of a "new era." I think that with a new era come new traditions; every societal structure has social norms and I think that the desire to break away from them is also normal. Such tendency is historical.
This argument raises a series of questions. Does post-modernism really exist? If not, and based on the arguments brought up in this reading, will it ever exist? We have begun to explore these topics and I am sure these concepts will become clearer as we go through the term.
We tend to think about modernism and post-modernism as chronologically related; the modern comes before the post-modern. This piece however, highlights an undeniable relation between the two. The modern is characterized by rebelling against tradition and everything that is considered the norm. Tradition, however, also evolves with time. This means that, what was once "modern" we now consider "classical" because we adapted such previous modernity as tradition.
Habermas talks about how modernity cannot be anchored to a single historical period, which is precisely why he views it as "incomplete". There are different traditions during different periods of time so like a cycle, the modern then becomes the tradition, and is re-broken. I understand the argument that post-modernity does not exist at all because what we call "post-modern" and the essence of "anything goes" can also be understood as a breaking from the norm. Our norms are just not the same ones than the 1960's. I think that this is in alignment with the concept of a "new era." I think that with a new era come new traditions; every societal structure has social norms and I think that the desire to break away from them is also normal. Such tendency is historical.
This argument raises a series of questions. Does post-modernism really exist? If not, and based on the arguments brought up in this reading, will it ever exist? We have begun to explore these topics and I am sure these concepts will become clearer as we go through the term.
Comments
Post a Comment