1999 Multiple Modernities

7/28/2019 1999 Multiple Modernities

1/14

Multiple Modernities in an Age of GlobalizationAuthor(s): S. N. EisenstadtSource: Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring,1999), pp. 283-295Published by: Canadian Journal of Sociology

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3341732Accessed: 03/04/2009 11:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Canadian Journal of Sociology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3341732?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3341732?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/14

Note on Society/Note soci6teMultipleModernities n an Age of GlobalizationS.N. Eisenstadt

IRecent events and developments,especially the continualprocesses of glo-balizationand the downfall of the Soviet regime,have indeed sharpened heproblemof the natureof the modern,contemporaryworld.Indeed,as we areapproaching he end of the twentiethcentury,new visions or understandingsof modernityareemergingthroughouthe world,be it in the West where thefirst cultural program of modernity developed, or among Asian, LatinAmerican and African societies. All these developmentscall out to a far-reachingreappraisalof the classical visions of modernityandmodernization.

Two major nterpretationsf these eventson the contemporarycene haveemerged,one promulgatedby FrancisFukuyama 1992) announcing he "endof history" thehomogenizationof the liberalworld-viewandpredominanceof marketeconomy, a perspectivevery close to the earliertheories of theconvergenceof industrial ocieties. Theoppositeview has beenputforthmostnotably by Samuel P. Huntington(1992). While not denying the growingtechnological convergence in many parts of the world, this perspectiveemphasizesthat the processesof globalizationbringus not to one relativelyhomogeneous world but ratherto a "clash of civilizations" in which theWesterncivilizationis comparedoften in hostiletermswith othercivilizations-especially the Muslim and Confucianones.While, needless to say, both these scholars point out to some very im-portantaspects of the contemporaryworld,yet to this author hey both seemto be incorrect.Inmy view, what we witnessin thecontemporaryworld is theCanadianJournalof Sociology/Cahierscanadiensde sociologie 24(2) 1999 283


3/14

284 Canadianournal f Sociologydevelopment certainlynotalwayspeacefuland ndeedoftenconfrontational- of multiplemodernities.Such a view necessitatesa far-reaching ppraisalof the classical visionsof modernity ndmodernizationcp. Eisenstadt,1996,1973).Such a reappraisalhould be based on severalconsiderations.t should bebased,first of all, on the recognition hat the expansionof modernityhas tobe viewed as the crystallization f a new type of civilization,not unlike theexpansionof GreatReligions, or the great Imperialexpansionsof the past.Because, however, the expansion of this civilization almost always andcontinuallycombinedeconomic,political,andideologicalaspectsand forcesto a much longerextent, its impacton the societies to which it spreadwasmuch more intensethan in most historicalcases.

This expansion indeed spawned a rathernew and practicallyuniquetendencyin the historyof mankind n the form of the developmentof uni-versal, worldwide nstitutionaland symbolicframeworksand systems. Thisnew civilization thatemergedfirst in Europe aterexpanded hroughoutheworld,creatinga series of internationalrameworks rsystems,eachbasedonsome of the basic premisesof this civilization andeach rooted in one of itsbasic institutional imensions.Severaleconomic,political, deological,almostworldwide systems - all of them multi-centredand heterogeneous-emerged,each generatingts own dynamics, ts continualchangein constantrelations o the others.The interrelations mongthem have never been staticorunchanging, ndthedynamicsof these internationalrameworks rsettingshavegivenriseto continuouschanges n these societies.Just as theexpansionof all historical civilization, modernity undermined the symbolic andinstitutionalpremisesof the societies incorporatednto it, openingup newoptions and possibilities.As a result of this, a greatvarietyof modernormodernizing ocieties,sharingmanycommoncharacteristicsut alsoevincinggreatdifferencesamongthemselves,developedout of these responsesandcontinual nteractions.

The "original"modernityas it developedin the West, combined severaltwo closely interconnected imensions.The first of these was the structural,organizationaldimension- the developmentof the many specific aspectsofmodernsocial structure, uch as growingstructural ifferentiation, rbaniza-tion,industrialization,rowingcommunicationsndthelike,which have beenidentifiedandanalyzed n the first studies of modernization fterthe SecondWorldWar. The seconddimensioncan be designatedas institutional,whichis characterized y the developmentof the new institutionalormations, hemodernnation-state,moder national ollectivities,newandcapitalist-politicaleconomies,and a distinct culturalprogram hatis closely relatedto specificmodes of structuringmajorarenasof social life.The "classical heories" f modernization,uchas theclassicalsociologicalanalysesof Marx,Durkheim nd,to a largeextenteven Weber see Kamenka,


4/14

Noteon Society 2851983; Weber, 1968a, 1968b; Durkheim,1973), have implicitly or explicitlyconflated these differentdimensions of modernity; hese approachesassumedthateven if thesedimensionsareanalyticallydistinct,theydo historically useand becomebasically inseparable.Moreover,most of the classics of sociologyas well as the studies of modernization f the 1940s and 1950s have assumed,even if only implicitly, thatthe basic institutionalconstellations which cametogether n Europeanmodernity,andthe culturalprogramof modernityas itdeveloped in the West will "naturally"be taken over in all modernizingsocieties. The studies of modernizationand of convergence of modernsocieties have indeed assumed that this project of modernity with itshegemonicandhomogenizingtendencieswill continue in the West, andwiththe expansionof modernity,prevailthroughouthe world.Implicit n all theseapproacheswas the assumptionthat the modes of institutionalintegrationattendanton the developmentof such relatively autonomous,differentiatedinstitutionalsphereswill be, on the whole, similarin all modern societies.But the reality thatemerged provedto be radicallydifferent.The actualdevelopmentsindicatedin all or most societies that the variousinstitutionalarenas the economic, thepoliticalandthatof family- continuallyexhibitrelatively autonomousdimensions that come together in different ways indifferentsocieties and in differentperiodsof theirdevelopment.Indeed, thedevelopmentsin the contemporary ra did not bear out this assumptionof"convergence"andhave emphasizedthe greatdiversityof modernsocieties,even of societies similarin termsof economic development,like the majorindustrial apitalistsocieties in Europe, he U.S. andJapan.Sombart's[1906]1976) old question:Why is there no socialism in the U.S.? formulated n thefirst decades of this centuryattests to the first, even if still only implicit,recognitionof this fact. Far-reachingvariabilitydeveloped even within theWest within Europe,and above all betweenEuropeand the Americas(U.S.,LatinAmerica,or ratherLatinAmericas) (cf. Goldthorpe,1971; Eisenstadt,1973, 1977.The same was even more true with respect to the relation between thecultural and structuraldimensions of modernity. A very strong, even ifimplicit, assumptionof the studies of modernizationnamelythat the culturaldimensions or aspects of modernization are inherently and necessarilyinterwovenwith the structuralones, became highly questionable.While thedifferentdimensions of the originalWesternprojecthave indeed constitutedthe crucial starting and continual reference points for the processes thatdevelopedamongdifferent societies throughout he world, the developmentsin these societies have gone far beyond the homogenizing and hegemonicdimensionsof the originalculturalprogramof modernity.

Modernityhas indeedspread o most of the world,butdid not give rise toa single civilization,or to one institutionalpattern,butto the developmentofseveral modern civilizations, or at least civilizational patterns, i.e. of


5/14

286 Canadianournalf Sociologycivilizations which share common characteristics,but which yet tend todevelop different even if cognate ideological and institutionaldynamics.Moreover,far-reaching hangeswhich go beyondtheiroriginalpremisesofmodernityhave been takingplace also in Westernsocieties.

IIThe civilization of modernityas it developedfirst in the West was, from itsverybeginning,besetby internalantinomiesandcontradictions,ivingrisetocontinuouscriticaldiscourse which focused on the relations,tensions andcontradictionsbetween its premises and between such premises and theinstitutionaldevelopment of modern societies. The importanceof thesetensions was fully understoodin the classical sociological literature ofTocqueville,Marx,WeberorDurkheimand was latertakenup in the thirties,above all in the Frankfurt chool under the umbrellaterm of so-called"critical" ociology that focusedmainlyon theproblemsof fascism but thenbecame neglected in post-SecondWorld War studies of modernization. tcame again later to the forefront o constitutea continualcomponentof theanalysisof modernity cp. Eisenstadt,1998).The tensions thatdevelopedwithin the basic premisesof the theoreticalprogrammeof the analysis of modernitywere: (1) between totalizingandmore diversifiedconceptionsof reasonand itsplacein human ife andsociety,and of the constructionof nature,humansociety and its history; 2) betweenreflexivityand active constructionof natureand society; (3) those betweendifferent evaluations of major dimensions of humanexperience;and (4)betweencontrol andautonomy.In the political arena, these tensions coalesced with those between aconstructivistapproachwhichviews politicsas the processof reconstructionof society andespeciallyof democraticpolitics- active self-construction fsociety as againsta view which accepts society in its concretecomposition;betweenlibertyandequality,betweenthe autonomyof civil society andthecharismatization f statepower;between he civil andtheutopiancomponentsof the cultural and political programof modernity;between freedom andemancipation n the name of some, often utopian,social vision; above allbetweenJacobinand morepluralisticorientations r approacheso the socialand politicalorder;and betweenthe closely related tensionbetween,to useBruceAckerman'sormulation,"normal" nd"revolutionary"olitics.These various tensionsin thepoliticalprogramof modernitywerecloselyrelatedto those betweenthe differentmodes of legitimationof modernre-gimes, especially but not only of constitutionaland democraticpolities -namelybetween,onthe onehand,proceduralegitimationn termsof civil ad-herenceto rules of the game and on the otherhand n different"substantive"


6/14

Note on Society 287terms; and a very strong tendency to promulgateother modes or bases oflegitimation,above all, to use EdwardShils'terminology,variousprimordial,"sacred" religiousor secular-ideological components (cp. Shils, 1975).It was around hese tensions that theredevelopedthe critical discourseofmodernity.The most radical "external"criticism of modernitydenied thepossibility of the groundingof any social order, of morality, in the basicpremises of the culturalprogramof modernity especially in autonomy ofindividualsand supremacyof reason;it denied that these premisescould beseen as groundedin any transcendentalvision; it denied also the closelyrelated claims that these premises and the institutional development ofmodernitycould be seen as the epitomeof humancreativity.Such criticismsclaimed that these premises and institutionaldevelopmentsdenied humancreativityand gave rise to flatteningof humanexperienceand to the erosionof moral order;of the moral- and transcendental bases of society, andto the alienationof man from nature and from society. The more internalcriticismsof this program,which could often overlapor become interwovenwith the "external"ones, evaluatedthe institutionaldevelopmentof modersocieties from the point of view of the premisesof the culturalandpoliticalprograms of modernity as well as from the point of view of the basicantinomiesandcontradictionsnherent n thisprogram.Of specialimportancehere was the multifaceted,continual and continuallychangingconfrontationof the claims of the programto enhance freedom and autonomy with thestrong tendency to control;and the continual dislocation of various socialsectors that developed with the crystallization of modern institutionalformations.

IIIAll these antinomies and tensionsdevelopedfrom the very beginningof theinstitutionalization f modernregimesin Europe.The continualprevalenceofthese antinomies and contradictionshad also - as the classics of sociologywere fully awareof, but as was to no small extent forgottenor neglected inthe studies of modernization far-reaching nstitutional mplications,andwere closely interwovenwith differentpatternsof institutionalconstellationsanddynamicsthatdevelopedindifferentmoder societies. With theexpansionof moder civilizations beyond the West, in some ways already beyondEuropeto the Americas,and with the dynamicsof the continuallydevelopinginternationalframeworks or settings, several new crucial elements havebecome central in the constitutionof modern societies.

Of special importance n this context was the relative place of the non-Western societies. Various international(economic, political, ideological)systems differed greatlyfrom that of the Westernones. It was not only that


7/14

288 Canadianournalf Sociologyit was Western ocieties whichwere the "originators"f thisnewcivilization.Beyond this, and above all was the fact thatthe expansionof these systems,especially insofar as it took place throughcolonializationand imperialistexpansion- gave to the Western nstitutions he hegemonic place in thesesystems. But it was in the natureof these international ystems that theygenerateda dynamicswhichgave rise both to politicalandideologicalchal-lenges to existing hegemonies,as well as to continual shifts in the loci ofhegemonywithinEurope, romEurope o the UnitedStates, hen also toJapanand East Asia.

But it were not only the economic, military-politicaland ideologicalexpansionof thecivilizationof modernityromthe Westthroughouthe worldthat was importantn this process.Of no lesser - possibly even of greaterimportance,was the fact that this expansion has given rise to continualconfrontationbetween the cultural and institutionalpremises of Westernmodernity,with those of othercivilizations- those of other Axial civiliza-tions, as well as non-Axialones, the most importantof which has been, ofcourse,Japan.Trulyenoughmanyof thebasicpremisesandsymbolsof West-ernmodernityas well as its institutions representative,egal and adminis-trativehave become indeedseeminglyacceptedwithin these civilizationsbut at the same time far-reachingransformationsave takenplace andnewchallengesandproblemshave arisen.The attractionof these themes- and of some of these institutions, ormany groupswithin thesecivilizations lay in the fact that theirappropria-tion permittedmanygroups n non-European ations especiallyelites andintellectuals o participate ctivelyin the new modern i.e. initiallyWestern)universal radition,ogetherwith the selectiverejectionof manyof its aspectsas well as Westerncontrolandhegemony.Theappropriationf these themesmade it possible for these elites and broaderstrataof many non-Europeansocietiesto incorporateome of theuniversalistic lementsof modernityn theconstructionof their new collective identities,withoutnecessarilygiving upeitherspecific componentsof theirtraditionaldentities,often also couched nuniversalistic, speciallyreligioustermswhich differedfrom those thatwerepredominantn the West or theirnegativeattitude owards he West.The attraction f thesethemesof politicaldiscourse o manysectors n thenon-WesternEuropeancountries was also intensifiedby the fact that theirappropriationn these countriesentailedthe transpositiono the internationalscene of the struggle between hierarchyand equality. Although initiallycouchedin Europeanerms, t couldfind resonances n thepoliticaltraditionsof manyof these societies.Suchtransposition f these themesfromtheWesternEuropeano Centraland EasternEuropeand to non-Europeanettingswas reinforcedby the com-bination,in many of the programspromulgatedby these groups,of orien-tations of protestwith institution-buildingnd center-formation.


8/14

Note on Society 289Such transpositionwas generatednot only by the higher hierarchical

standing,actualhegemonyof theWesterncountries n these newinternationalsettings,but also by the fact thatthe non-Western ivilizations wereput in aninferiorpositionin the evaluationof societies which was promulgatedby theseeminglyuniversalisticpremisesof thenewmodern ivilizations.Thusvariousgroupsandelites inCentralandEasternEuropeand nAsianandAfricansocie-ties were ableto referto boththetradition f protestand the traditionof center-formation n these societies, andto cope withproblemsof reconstructingheirown centersandtraditions n termsof the newsetting.From hisperspective hemost importantaspect of the expansion of these themes beyond WesternEurope and of their appropriationby differentgroups in the non WesternEuropeansocieties may be seen in the fact that it allowed for the possibilityto rebel against the institutionalrealities of the new modern civilization intermsof its own symbols andpremises(cf. Eisenstadt,1998).IVThe appropriationf different hemes and institutionalpatternsof the originalWesternmoder civilizationin non-WesternEuropean ocieties did not entailtheir acceptance in their original form. Rather, it entailed the continuousselection, reinterpretationndreformulation f such themes,giving rise to asteady crystallizationof new culturalandpolitical programsof modernity,andthe developmentandreconstruction f new institutionalpatterns.The culturalprograms hat have repeatedlydevelopedin these societies entailed differentinterpretations ndfar-reaching eformulations f the initial culturalprogramof modernity, its basic conceptions and premises; they entailed, differentemphaseson differentcomponentsof this program,on its differenttensionsand antinomies and the concomitantcrystallizationof distinct institutionalpatterns.They entailed the continual constructionof symbols of collectiveidentities; heirconceptionsof themselves and of theirparts;and theirnegativeor positive attitudesto modernity n generaland to the West in particular.These oppositions between the different culturalprogramsof modernitywere not purely "cultural" r academic.They were closely related to somebasic problems inherent in the political and institutional programs ofmodernity. Thus, in the political realm, they were closely related to thetension between the utopianand the civil components n the constructionofmodernpolitics; between "revolutionary"nd "normal"politics, or betweenthe general will and the will of all; between civil society and the state,between individual and collectivity. These distinct cultural programs ofmodernity entailed also different conceptions of authority and of itsaccountability, different modes of protest and of political activity, ofquestioningof the basic premisesof the modernorderand differentmodes ofinstitutional ormations.


9/14

290 Canadianournalf SociologyIn close relationto the crystallization f the distinctculturalprogramsof

modernity here has been taking place in differentmodern societies a con-tinualprocessof crystallization f novel institutional atternsandof differentmodes of criticaldiscourse,which focused on interrelationsndtensions be-tweeninstitutional renas,andbetween them and thepremisesof the culturalandpolitical programsof modernityand their continualreinterpretations.My reflectionsaboutthemultipleprograms f modernitydo not of course

negate the obvious fact that in many centralaspects of their institutionalstructure be it in occupationalandindustrial tructure,n the structure feducationor of cities - in politicalstructures ery strongconvergenceshavedeveloped in different moder societies. These convergenceshave indeedgenerated ommonproblemsbut themodesof copingwith theseproblems, .e.the institutionaldynamicsattendanton the developmentof these problemsdifferedgreatlybetweenthese civilizations.But it is not only within the societies of Asia or Latin America thatdevelopmentstook place which went beyond the initial model of Westernsociety. At the same time in Western societies themselves there havedevelopednew discourseswhich havegreatly ransformedhe initial model ofmodernityand which have undermined he originalvision of moder andindustrialsociety with its hegemonicand homogenizingvision. There hasemergeda growing tendencyto distinguishbetweenZweckrationalitat ndWertrationalitit, nd to recognizea greatmultiplicityof Wertrationalitaten.Cognitive rationality especially as epitomizedin the extreme forms ofscientism- has certainlybecome dethroned romits hegemonicposition,ashas also been the idea of the "conquest" r masteryof the environmentwhetherof society or of nature.

VThe differentculturalprogramsand institutionalpatternsof modernitywerenot shaped by what has been sometimes presentedin earlier studies ofmodernization s naturalevolutionarypotentialitiesof these societies;or, asin the earlier criticisms thereof, the naturalunfolding of their respectivetraditions; orby theirplacementn the newinternationalettings.Rather heywere shapedby the continuous nteractionamong several factors. In mostgeneral terms they were shaped by the historicalexperienceof individualsocieties in civilizationalprocesses;and by the mode of impingementofmodernityon them and of their incorporationnto the modern politicaleconomicandideologicalinternationalrameworks.The emerging cultural programswere shaped by several frequentlychangingfactors.First,they were shapedby basic premisesof cosmic andsocial order,the basic "cosmologies" hat were prevalent n these societies


10/14

Note on Society 291throughouttheir histories. Second, they were influenced by the existingpatternsof institutional ormation hathaddevelopedwithin these civilizationsin the course of their historical experience, especially as a result of theirencounterwith other societies or civilizations. Third,was the meeting andcontinual interaction between these processes, and the new cultural andpoliticalprogramof modernity;hepremisesandmodes of social andpoliticaldiscoursethatwereprevalent n the differentsocietiesand civilizationsas theywere incorporatedinto the new internationalsystems and the continualinteractionof thesesocieties with theseprocesses.Of special importancewerethe internalantinomiesandtensions or contradictionsn the basic culturalandabove all in the politicalprogramof modernity,as it developedinitiallyin theWest - and even in the West in a greatvarietyof ways, and as it becametransformedwith its expansion- and with the internalchanges in Westernsocieties. The fourthset of influenceswere thedynamicsand internal ensionsand contradictions hat developed in conjunctionwith the structural-demo-graphiceconomicandpoliticalchangesattendant n the institutionalization fmodern institutional frameworks;with the expansion of modernity, andbetween these processes and the basic premisesof the cultural and politicalstipulationsof modernity.It was the persistent nteractionbetween these factors and processes thatgeneratedthe dynamic changes in the culturalprogramsdeveloping in dif-ferent societies, and their continual reinterpretations, s well as the majorcomponentsof their institutional ormations,namely the constitutionof theboundariesof theirrespectivecollectivities andthe componentsof collectiveconsciousnessand identity- of whathas been designatedas nationalismorethnicity.Differentconfigurationsof civil society andpublicspheres,and,lastbut not least, differentmodes of new moder political economies began toemerge in these societies.The majoractorsin such processes of reinterpretion nd of formationofnew institutionalpatternswere various political activists, intellectuals, inconjunction above all with distinctive social movements. Such activists,intellectualsand leaders of movements which have been developing in allthese societies promulgated and reinterpretedthe major symbols andcomponentsof the culturalprogramsof modernity,and addressed hemselvesto the antinomiesandcontradictionswithintheseprogramsand betweenthemand institutionalrealities.In all modernsocieties, such movementsarosein relationto the problemsthatdevelopedattendanto the institutionalizationf modernpoliticalregimesand their democratization,of moder collectivities, and the expansion ofcapitalismand new economic and class formations,especially in relationtothe contradictionswhich emergedbetween the premisesof the political andculturalprogramof modernityandthese institutionaldevelopments,with the


11/14

292 Canadianournal f Sociologycontinuousstruggleof other social groupsandforcesfor access to the center.It is above all these movements which promulgated he antinomies andtensions inherent in the culturaland political programsof modernityandwhich attempted o interweave hem with the reconstruction f centers,col-lectivities and institutional ormations.

Whatever hehistorically pecificdetailsof theseagendas, hey highlightedthecontinuous hallengeof thecontradiction etweenencompassing,otalistic,potentially otalitarian vertonesbased eitheron collective, national,religiousand/or Jacobin visions, and the contrastingcommitments to pluralisticpremises.None of the modernpluralistic onstitutionalegimeshas been ableto do entirely away - or possibly expect to do away - with either theJacobincomponent, speciallywithits utopiandimension,withthe orientationto some primordial omponentsof collective identity,or with the claims forthe centralityof religionin the constructionof collective identitiesor in thelegitimizationof the politicalorder.The ubiquityof this challengehas alsohighlightedthe possibilityof crises and breakdownsas inherent n the verynatureof modernity see Eisenstadt1998;Goldthorpe,1971).VIThus within all moder societies one observesa continuousdevelopmentofnovel critical discourses and reinterpretationsf different dimensions ofmodernity andin all of themthe emergenceof differentculturalagendas.All in all, these developmentsattest to the growing diversificationof thevisions andunderstandingf modernity,of the basic culturalagendasof theelites of different societies - far beyond the homogenic and hegemonicvisions of modernitythat were prevalent n the fifties. While the commonstartingpoint of many of societal developmentswas indeed the culturalprogramof modernityas it was constituted n the West, the more recenttransformationsave rise to a multiplicityof cultural ocial formationswhichgo far beyond the alleged homogenizingand hegemonizing aspects of thisoriginalversion.Thusmany, f not all of thecomponentsof the initial culturalvision of modernityhave been challenged n the last decadeor so.These challengesclaimed that the moder era has basicallyended,givingrise to the post-moder one, and were in their turncounter-challengedbythose,likeJiirgenHabermas1987),who claimed hat hevariouspost-moderdevelopments basically constitute either a repetition,in a new form, ofcriticismsof modernitywhichexisted from the verybeginning,or representsyet anothermanifestation f the continualunfoldingof modernity. ndeed,itcan be argued that the very tendency or potential to such radical rein-terpretationsconstitutes an inherent component of the civilization orcivilizationsof modernity.


12/14

Note on Society 293This is even true,though n a veryparadoxicalmannerof themost extreme

anti-moder movementsthatdeveloped in the contemporaryperiod, namelycommunal-religious, specially the fundamentalist nes. Theirbasic structureor phenomenologyof theirvision andaction is in manycrucialandseeminglyperplexingways a moder one, just as has been the case with the totalitarianmovements of the twenties and thirties, and these movements bear withinthemselves the seeds of very intensive and virulentrevolutionarysectarianutopianJacobinism,seeds which can, underappropriateircumstances,cometo full-blown fruition.

Whateverthe ultimateverdict aboutthese developments,therecan be nodoubt that they all entailed the unfoldingof the civilizations of modernity,even if many of these movementsand trendsentail a radicaltransformationof some of the initial premises of Westernmodernityand above all of themodes of structurationof social activities and institutional arenas thatcharacterizedhe first "bourgeois" andparadoxicallyalso the laterCommu-nist) moder societies.

VIIThus, while the spread or expansion of modernityhas indeed taken placethroughoutmost of the world, it did not give rise to merely one civilization,one patternof ideological and institutionalresponse, but to at least severalbasic variants- and to continualrefracting hereof.In orderto understandthese different patterns,it is necessary to take into account the patternofhistoricalexperienceof these civilizations.The importanceof the historicalexperienceof the variouscivilizations inshapingthe concretecontoursof the modern

societies whichdevelopedin thehistoricalspaces of these civilizationsdoes not mean, as SamualHuntington(1996) seems to imply in his influentialThe Clashof Civilizations hattheseprocessesgive rise to severalclosed civilizationswhich basicallyconstituteacontinuationof the historical ones. It is not only the case, as Huntingtoncorrectly ndicates,that modernizationdoes not automaticallymplyWestern-ization;what is more importants thatin the contemporaryworld we are ableto observe a crystallizationof continually nteractingmoderncivilizations inwhich even the inclusiveparticularisticendenciesare constructedn typicallymodernways, therebyattemptingo appropriatemodernityontheirown terms,and articulate - in different historical settings - the antinomies andcontradictions of modernity. Within all societies we note continuouslydeveloped critical questions and reinterpretationsf differentdimensionsofmodernity and n allof themoneis abletoobservedifferentculturalagendas.All this atteststo the growingdiversificationof the visions andunderstandingof modernity,of the basic culturalagendas of different sectors of modern


13/14

294 CanadianJournalof Sociologysocieties - far beyondthe homogenicandhegemonicvision of modernityonce imagined n the 1950s.The fundamentalist andthe new communal-national- movements constitutebut one of the new developments n theunfoldingof thepotentialitiesand antinomiesof modernity. t is possiblethatthese developmentmay indeedgive rise also to highlychargedconfrontationstances- especiallywith the West - but these stances arepromulgatedncontinually changing modern idioms and they may entail a continualtransformationf these indicationsand of the culturalprograms f modernity.While such diversityhas certainlyundermined he once existing hegemo-nies, the same diversitywas closely connected- perhapsparadoxicallywith thedevelopmentof newmultiplecommonreferencepointsand networks- with a globalizationof culturalnetworksand channelsof communicationfarbeyondwhatexisted before. At the same time the variouscomponentsofmodern ife and culturewererefractedand reconstructedn ways which wentbeyond the confines of any institutionalboundaries,especially those of thenation-state giving rise to the multiple patternof globalization,and ofcultural diversificationas examinedby such scholarsas ArjunAppendurai(1996), Ulf Hannerz 1996), andRolandRobertson 1992). It is the combina-tion of the growing diversity n the continuousreinterpretationf modernityand thedevelopmentof multipleglobaltrendsandmutualreferencepointsthatis characteristic f the contemporaryworld.

ReferencesAppendurai,A.1996 Modernityat Large: CulturalDimensionsof Globalization.Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress.Durkheim,E.1973 On Moralityand Society:SelectedWritings.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Eisenstadt,S.N.1998 Fundamentalism, evolutions ndModernity.Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress.1996 Modemizaton:Protest and Change.EnglewoodCliffs, PrenticeHall.1977 "Convergenceand divergencein moder and modernizingsocieties,"InternationalJournalof MiddleEast Studies,8(1): 1-27.1973 Tradition,Changeand Modernity.New York,JohnWiley and Sons.Fukuyama,F.

1992 The End of Historyand the LastMan. New York:The Free Press.Goldthorpe,J.H1971 "Theoriesof industrial ociety:Reflectionson the recrudescence n historicismandthe futureof futurology,"ArchivesEuropeennesde sociologie 12: 263-288.Habermas,J.1987 ThePhilosophicalDiscourseof Modernity.Cambridge:MIT Press.Hannerz,U.1996 TransnationalConnections:Culture,People, Places. London:Routledge.


14/14

Note on Society 295Huntington,.P.1996 The Clashof Civilizationsand the Futureof the West.New York:Simon & Schuster.E. Kamenka, . (ed.)1983 The Portable Karl Marx. New York:Viking Press.Robertson, .

1992 Globalization:Social Theoryand Global Culture.London:Sage.Shils, E.1975 "Primordial,ersonal,acred ndcivil ies." nE.Shils,CenterndPeriphery:ssaysinMacrosociology.,p. 111-126.Chicago:Universityf ChicagoPress.Sombart,W.

[1906]1979WhyIs ThereNo Socialism in the UnitedStates? New York: ME Sharpe.Weber,M.1978a Die Protestantische Ethik: Kritiken und Antikritiken. Giitersloh: Gitersloher

Verlagshaus.1968a Politik als Beruf.Berlin: Dunkerand Humblot.1968b On Charisma and Institution Building: Selected Papers. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Documents

1999 Multiple Modernities