Download - Modernity vs Postmodernity

7/31/2019 Modernity vs Postmodernity

1/5

REPROACHES WITHIN FOUNDATION

Human beings born in different ages, possess distinct characteristics that madethem different dictated by the eras they were born. Being raised and influenced by thecustoms, prevailing thoughts and beliefs commonly result to the unique themeforwarded by the prominent thinkers of a particular era, thus making the era distinct.16th century marked the beginning of the modern period and lasted until the half of 20thcentury. After bequeathing a great contribution to different subject matters, remarkablyto political thought, modern period was shadowed by the beginning of another era onthe latter part of the 20th century, known as the postmodern period. These two themesgreatly vary from each other, especially to their foundation (Pulkkinen, 1997:88).Modernity having the advantage of being primarily perceived, it was characterized ashaving an emphasis for the search for basis or a core for the subject of the study(Pulkkinen, 1997:88). The scholars under this period are always going to the in-depthstudy of their focus to provide a new groundwork. On the other hand, the

postmodernity was said to be the critic of modernity. They put emphasis not onestablishing foundations but on contesting them to find more essence (Pulkkinen,1997:88). They does not give credit in the core, instead they explore works of others,specifically the works of the scholars under modernity, to arrive or to generate a newconcept without establishing any groundwork.

Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mil are two of the many scholars that areclassified under modernity. These two are known for their adherence to liberty. As hediscussed America during his time, Alexis de Tocqueville put emphasis on thesovereignty or democracy that the people of America are experiencing. There are manyfactors which contributed to the adaption of democracy in America, some of these, as

discussed by Tocqueville was their forefathers, influence of religion and its law. Heargues in his work that there is an advantage of having a democratic governmentdespite of the criticisms. To support this basis of his, he compares the republic ofAmerica to that of France. America having a republican democratic state which givesimportance to the equality of its citizens as oppose to the monarchial state of Francewhich only support minimal equality among its citizens just to strengthen theirmonarch (Tocqueville, 1981: 309 ). Tocqueville bares his own foundation throughfocusing on the democracy that was adapted by the Americans, and its entire tenetsbased on the application in America.

Another modern scholar who forwarded a foundation during his time was John

Stuart Mill. He forwarded his foundation by discussing about the civil liberty focusingon individual liberty. But before he delved into the discussion of individual liberty, hestated first the meaning of liberty. According to him, liberty denoted protection againsttyrannical rulers (Mill, 1993: 3) He argued that authorities of the society cannot andshould not interfere to mans interests, except during times that these interests arehaving effect on others (Mill, 1993: 18). It is evidently seen through the works of Mill hisemphasis on individuals. He does not want anything or anyone by any means interfereto mans independence. Mill believes that allowing individuals to live on their own will


2/5

drive them to search on truth and this will be beneficial to the society. However, thegovernment may interfere to this freedom when regulation and morality is concerned.He discusses different kinds of liberties: the individuals right s regarding thought andconscience, individuals right to action and the right of groups (Mill, 1993: 17).

These two scholars have a common idea that they share in their primary works.

The tyranny of the majority was first seen on the work of Tocqueville where he claimedthat the will of majority is dangerous as it was considered to be powerful (Tocqueville,1981: 149). This was also became one of the argument of Mill. They both maintainedthat the majority of the people can oppress the minority (Tocqueville, 1981: 153) (Mill,1993: 8). They both want to prevent this, which is the reason behind their proposal tocontrol the public thought, as for Tocqueville (1945) and to control the public opinion,as for Mill (1993). The justification is that the truth that the majority believed in is notnecessarily right, and the minority does not have the capacity to contest them becausethey might be oppressed. The tendency is all the citizens might believe what themajority have thought the truth and what they have been expressed through their

opinions regardless if it is right or otherwise.Aside from tyranny of the majority, Tocqueville and Mill gave stress on

individualism. However, they discussed it through different approach. Individualismfor Tocqueville is the detachment from society (Tocqueville, 1981: 395). An individualtends to isolate himself and limit his interests. This was branded by Tocqueville asdangerous to democracy because it may result to selfishness (Tocqueville, 1981: 395).This may affect the individuals relation to others, and may cause him not to think ofothers interest. On the other hand, Mills individuality was different to that ofTocqueville. For him, individuality was living in a different atmosphere, a differentpattern (Mill, 1993: 73). He considered this as the best way to live a life, for a person

owns his choice and through this, he can develop and can reach their potentials,because for him, there is no single form of life, people need to experience variations onlifes pattern to help them expand.

Being known for not putting an emphasis on foundation of a study,postmodernity is characterized by the acknowledgment of the works in the modern,and of a refusal to follow or to adhere with it (Pulkkinen, 1997: 88). The works of thepostmodern scholars patterned their work on the foundations being forwarded by themodern thinkers, following the criticisms they laid in order to create their ownpropositions.

Hannah Arendt and Jrgen Habermas are classified into postmodernity for theyshare a common entity that can be found in their work: their criticisms concerning themodern thinkers. The criticisms of the political philosophy of Marx, is one of the themesin Hannah Arendts The Human Condition. She asserted that it is a threateningmistake to identify political action as making (the activity she calls work) (Arendt, 1998).She argued it is the craftsmen who do the making, and they do this by compelling a rawmaterial to conform to his model. The human beings dont have a voice when they arebeing used in creating a new society, just as the raw materials in the process. (Arendt,1998). Arendt observed that Marx has considered this misconception of politics.


3/5

Arendt focuses on proposal on establishing the situations of conceivable politicalexperience as opposed to human activitys sphere. She wants to offer a variety ofaspects of human activity which can affect political existence. She put an emphasis onthe notion that human action incorporates politics (Arendt, 1998: 7). She also mentionedthe vita activa which was comprises by the three fundamental activities of the human

life, the labor, work and action (Arendt, 1998: 7). These actions were arrangedhierarchically depending on their significance. Labor was characterized as a never-ending character for it creates nothing of permanence. Arendt considered this asopposing to freedom since the activity was directed by necessity and since the humanlaborers is the equivalent of slave (Arendt, 1998: 12). Arendt had a portion on her workwhere she discusses the public and private realm. According to her private sphere oflife corresponds to the household while the public sphere of life corresponds to politicalrealm. And the rise of the city-states greatly affects the private realm of families andhousehold (Arendt, 1998: 38).

In his work, Jrgen Habermas mostly deals with challenging realm of public

sphere tackling public life distinct to private domain, unlike Arendt; the focus of hiswork revolves with this topic. Public sphere was formed and influenced by the publicuse of reason or opinion by the bourgeois (Habermas, 1991: 28). The private realmchanged its nature when the bourgeois society risen. And this private domain,according to Habermas, was specified outside state affairs, and he refers to home orfamily. With this exclusion, the family or home was left as the basis of being privatewhile the work field grew out to be more public. The press played a vital role in thepublic sphere; it became their media (Habermas, 1991: 73). And places like theatres,parks, museums, operas and especially coffee-houses served as a venue where thepeople from different classes meet on equal footing. In line with his argument, he

criticized Marx for he denounced public opinion as false consciousness and thoseconditions that permitted it to function. He argued that if not for public opinion, therewill be no public sphere; all the affairs will be purely private.

To sum it up, it is apparent that there is a complete break in the issues andframeworks followed by the authors classified under each general theme of modernityand postmodernity. The works of Tocqueville and Mill were evidently fall undermodernity as they set a foundation or a basis for new subject of the study. These twothinkers are known for their adherence to liberty. Tocqueville as he talked about thesovereignty of America, he set groundwork about democracy, having it discussed basedon an actual situation. This groundwork on the argument of Tocqueville havingAmerica being compared to France, also the advantages lay down by him. As for Mill,he successfully offered his foundation of liberty pertaining to individuals freedom. Hisin-depth discussion and emphasis on individuals liberty made him qualify undermodernity. It can be considered as a foundation of a new subject of the study. Arendtand Habermas can be adequately classified under postmodernity. It materializes totheir work that they adapt the notion of those who are in modernity and successfullycriticized them to arrive at new ideas. Arendt, having criticized Marx, became fruitful atarriving regarding work and labor, effectively arrives at her argument that labor is no


4/5

good for political existence as it resists freedom. On the other hand, Habermas criticismof that of Marx, aided him to arrive at vivid discussion of public sphere. The thinkers ofthe postmodern did not forwarded any foundation or basis for a new subject of study,instead, they patterned their work to the ideas furthered by the modern thinkers notwithout criticisms. The concepts offered by the modern thinkers can be found to the

works of these two such as liberty and public opinion, but they altered it conforming totheir own approaches.

Bibliography


5/5

Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition (2nd ed.). London: University of Chicago Press.

Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an inquiry into a category of

Bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mill, J. S. (1993). On Liberty(Bantam Classic Edition ed.). New York: Bantam Dell.

Pulkkinen, Tuija 1997. The Postmodern Moment in Political Thought. In Finnish Yearbook of Political

Thought. Volume 1, 87-94.

Tocqueville, A. d. (1981). Democracy in America (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.