Meaning

• Modernity signifies ceaseless efforts on the part of

philosophers, scientists, historians and other analytical
minds to chart a new course of human history better than
what existed before.
• The journey follows a diverse trajectory encompassing all
sorts of complexities and impediments in the way of the
emergence of modernity but all aiming at ameliorating the
human condition. It frees thinking from age-old constraints.
• Modernity epitomises freedom that enables the free flow of
ideas primarily based on reason. In the words of Kant it is
“man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding
without guidance from another”.
 Nature and Origin
• Modernity is considered to be an offshoot of European enlightenment
of the 18th century. Kant defines it as the freedom to make public use
of one’s reason with the goal of liberating mankind from its self-
imposed immaturity.
• It simply implies that both physical and moral worlds can be
comprehended with the application of reason which is what he meant
by public use of one’s reason.
• Modernity driven in the spirit of enlightenment gave rise to a new
philosophy centering around self and society-creation of a new
mentality.
• Some have traced it back to the age of exploration and the discovery
of the new world, beginning in the 15 th century, others to the scientific
revolution of Harvey, Galileo, and Newton, and still others to the
philosophical innovations of Descartes, Hobbes, and Spinoza with their
quest for new rational foundations for knowledge.
 Nature and Origin (Contd.)
• Modernity has also been associated with the
devastating wars of religion that wrecked
Europe through out the 16th century and
brought about the beginnings of our modern
theories of secularism and toleration.
• Modernity has been identified with the social
and political revolutions of 1688, 1776 and
1789 that for the first time introduced the
language of equality and the rights of man.
 The Discursive Quest of the Concept
• It underlines a long and sustained process of the
formation of modernity. It would indeed be naïve to
privilege one singular factor for its formation from among
many criss-crossing and overlapping factors. Hence, it is
important to consider all these factors together in order to
weave a coherent and comprehensive meaning of
modernity.
• It is normal that paradigmatic change invariably impacts
upon different aspects of social, political, economic and
cultural life of a society passing through such far-reaching
changes. Capturing these changes in a systematic manner,
Stuart Hall has identified the nature, range and scope of
the change in the following ways:
Nature, Range and Scope of the Change
• A) The Dominance of secular forms of political power and
authority and conceptions of sovereignty and legitimacy,
operating within defined territorial boundaries, which are
characteristics of the large, complex structures of the modern
nation-state.
• B) A monetarised exchange economy, based on the large-scale
production and consumption of commodities for the market,
extensive ownership of private property and the accumulation of
capital on a systematic and long-term basis.
• C) The decline of the traditional social order with its fixed social
hierarchies and overlapping allegiances and the appearance of a
dynamic social and sexual division of labour. In modern capitalist
societies this was characterized by new class formations and
distinctive patriarchal relations between men and women.
 Nature, Range and Scope (Contd.)
• D) The decline of the religious world view typical of traditional
societies and the rise of a secular and materialist culture, exhibiting
those individualistic, rationalist and instrumental impulses now so
familiar to us.
In addition to these four two additional cultural factors also accounted
for the formation of modern European societies:
i. First, the emergence of modern knowledge through the processes
set in motion from the Renaissance, the scientific revolution of the
17th century to the enlightenment of the 18 th century that gave birth
to a new intellectual and cognitive world in Europe. The impact of
this was evident in the emergence of early capitalism and nation-
state.
ii. Secondly, the religious social marker of traditional society-Christian
and Catholic-was gradually replaced by a strong sense of community
built around the construction of the European community.
 Teleological Conception of Modernity
Rejected
• The interplay of the factors mentioned above and the changes
introduced by them in the form of modernity did not follow a
unilinear historical path. It defies the pattern of homogeneous
historical time of its development.
• In contrast, a unified notion of modernity based on a single
historical time scale is being presented by those who believe in
the inevitability of the European kind of modernity. According to
them history follows a set pattern to achieve a preordained goal
of emergence of a particular modern society.
• But now this teleological view of history is rejected as it fails to
capture the complexities of the formation of modern societies.
Such a kind of fallacious argument was promoted in the 1950s in
the form of the modernization theory- e.g. Rostow model
(Walter Rostow).
Eurocentric Narrative of Modernity
• Under the modernization theory the basic assumptions that
were suggested for the development of newly independent
countries of the third world, were to emulate the path of
western industrialization and its concomitant social values.
• Later this hegemonic notion of modernity was utterly
disowned and rejected by the developing countries as a
Eurocentric narrative of modernity.
• Even a cursory glance at the diverse processes of
industrialization in Europe would explain the inadequacy of
the mono-causal explanation of the formation of modern
societies. It is not difficult to discern the different patterns
of industrialization in England, France, Russia and Germany.
 Patterns of Industrialization and Political
Systems
• While in the case of England and France consumer
industries inaugurated the gradual process of
industrialization, in case of Russia and Germany heavy
industries occupied faster investment, urgency and
pace. The different trajectories of industrialization
could be related to the emergence of democratic
political regimes in England and France and non-
democratic ones in Russia and Germany.
• A long, sustained and gradual process of development
laid the foundation of a democratic political system,
while the hurried processes in Germany and Russia did
not augur well for democratic development.
Development Democracy in the Western and
Indian Societies
• According to Prof Sudipto Kaviraj, in the West three major
historical processes were substantially complete before
transformation towards modern democracy began. The capitalist
disciplining of workforce through brutal production regimes, the
establishment of a secular state to avoid endless civil wars
between religious groups vying for political control of the state
and the birth of a modern ‘civil society’ of individuation- all
preceded the start of the democratic process.
• But the advent of democracy in India largely preceded the plank
of development as well as the advent of modern civil society
and a distinct sense of individuality. Such contextual differences
explain the varied nature of democratic politics in India and the
West and also the endurance of democracy in India despite
apparent challenges and unsuitable conditions.