Sign in or 

|
mmcarval |
Habermas
Apr 25 2007, 5:52 PM EDT
Each of the theorists we have read for this week seems to have their own definition of what modernity is versus what postmodernity is, which I find to be very confusing. In his essay “Modernity versus Postmodernity”, Habermas uses the word “modernity” and multiple variations of it numerous times, but I did not really understand what his definition was. According to Habermas, what is modernity? Does he think modernism is a good thing, or does he prefer postmodernism? What is the difference between modernism and postmodernism?
Throughout the essay, there appear to be different types of modernity, such as classical, cultural, and aesthetic. Do all of these mean different things, or are they just different ways of saying the same thing? If they are different, does Habermas prefer one type of modernity over another? On page 6 of his essay, Habermas talks about Daniel Bell, who “argues that the crises of the developed societies of the West are to be traced back to a split between culture and society. Modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the life-world is infected by modernism.” What does Bell mean when he refers to the split between culture and society? Is he making a point about the lack of ethnic diversity in society or am I misreading that quote completely? Does Bell view modernist culture as a bad thing? Referring to modernity as an “infection” of society would suggest that he is against it, but I could not tell just from this quote. Reading this reminded me of a scene from the end of “The Matrix” when Agent Smith is talking to Morpheus (sorry, I could not resist). Agent Smith refers to the human race as a disease, as the cancer of the earth, and they (the agents) are the cure. Is this what Bell is trying to say about modernity? Is modernity the cancer of society? What is the cure? - Monica M. Carvalho Do you find this valuable? |