The author begins by expressing that historians from a non-European perspective, such as those

focused on China, might find the concept of "modernity" elusive when viewed through a Eurocentric
lens. In contrast, the author suggests a definition of modernity that is not tied to a strict chronological
timeline but instead focuses on a combination of elements that societies exhibit.
The proposed definition emphasises three critical components of modernity:
Power over others: This involves the ability to exert control and influence over human beings, whether
they are states, groups, or individuals. The author sees this as a crucial aspect of modernity, reflecting
the capacity to dominate in various social and political contexts.
Practical power over nature: Modern societies are characterised by their ability to control and harness
nature for economic purposes. This includes advancements in technology, industry, and economic
production. The idea is that modern societies can manipulate their environment to achieve economic
growth and prosperity.
Intellectual power over nature refers to the capacity for prediction, understanding, and creativity.
Scientific advancements and a comprehensive world understanding are considered integral to
modernity. The author argues that pursuing knowledge and intellectual creativity is a significant
aspect that distinguishes modern societies.
The author then notes that attempts to define modernity solely in terms of increased "rationality"
encounter difficulties. The author uses the example of late imperial China to illustrate that European
societies did not necessarily have a decisive superiority in terms of rationality, particularly in areas
such as economics, politics, and religion. The essay suggests that emphasising rationality as a defining
feature of modernity could be more problematic when applied to ends rather than means.
From a non-European perspective, the author suggests that what stands out most about "modern"
Europe is its ability to create power. This power is seen as a complex of more or less effectively realised
elements, including power over others, practical power over nature for economic production, and
intellectual power over nature through scientific advancements.
In summary, the essay aims to provide a nuanced understanding of modernity beyond a Eurocentric
viewpoint. It suggests a definition based on the complex interplay of power dynamics, economic
control, and intellectual advancements, highlighting that modernity can be perceived differently
when considering non-European societies.
Defining Power in Modernity:
The author suggests a refined definition of "power" within the context of modernity. Instead of simply
seeing power as the ability to direct energy, the author proposes defining it as "the capacity to change
the structure of systems." This definition encompasses literal applications, like the thermodynamic
revolution, and metaphorical applications, such as military power, administrative control, and
increased economic output—characteristics associated with modern societies.
Society as Modern:
According to the author, a society can be considered "modern" when its power complex, which
includes the ability to change the structure of systems, is dominant over other goals. The dominance
of this complex needs to be successfully implemented. The coexistence of modern and traditional
values is seen as essential, as an entirely modern society might be psychologically challenging for
people.
Transition to Modernity:
The essay explores the idea that the transition to modernity is more efficient and effective when
there's a degree of mutual support between continuing traditional cultural values and, precisely,
modern values. The author uses China as an example, where radical attacks on tradition may have
hindered adaptation to modernity.
Implications of the Approach:
The proposed approach to defining modernity is outlined with several implications. Firstly, it's
considered value-free, meaning it doesn't take a particular stance on whether certain institutions or
values are modern. It encourages empirical evaluation based on specific criteria. Secondly, the
approach respects ambiguities, acknowledging that commitments to values like personal freedom can
vary in their impact and manifestation in different contexts.
Moral Complexity of Modernity:
The essay raises the question of the moral aspect of modernity by emphasising that if modernity
concerns various forms of power, the purpose or goal of that power remains open-ended. The author
points out the moral emptiness of modernity, questioning the ultimate purpose or direction of the
power it generates.
Concerns for the Future:
The author expresses concerns about the long-term future of modern societies. There is a perceived
contradiction between the short-term operational timeframes used by current institutions (like firms
and state bureaucracies) and the longer-term implications of modern technologies, particularly
concerning environmental issues and resource depletion. The essay suggests that a radical change in
the operational time units of present-day institutions might require a fundamental shift in their
essential nature.
Conclusion:
The author concludes by emphasising the essay's relatively limited goal: characterising the transition
to modernity. The author admits uncertainty about whether the East Asian perspective offered in the
essay would be seen as a clarification or a distortion by those with different points of view, quoting a
Chinese proverb: "One throws a brick, hoping for a jade in return." This suggests a degree of
uncertainty or open-mindedness about the reception of the essay's ideas.