The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But more recently, I've been pondering something more basic than the technology itself and that is: what is it for something or someone to be 'modern'? Is it simply a comparison of old and new, of bad and better, or is there more to this?
Traditional meant that business was conducted according to social custom. Modern meant it was conducted according to "rational" ideas of "efficiency".
Modern meant that legal disputes were settled on the basis of written law impartially administered. Traditional meant that disputes were settled according to local custom and social hierarchy.
Modern meant that position was determined by merit. Traditional meant that position was determined by birth.
Modern meant that laws and practices were universal in nature. Traditional meant that they were local and particular.
etc.
Obviously this was an idealization of both categories. The extent to which the modern conception was an idealization was brought to the fore by the post-modernists, who were only too happy to demonstrate how modernist conceptions were in fact class based constructs. Etc.
The above description is a pair of cliches, one from 1965 and the other from 1997 or so. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Of course history shows that our attempts at control almost end differently than expected. As an engineer, I see this time and time again: the failure of something modern, something that should do it all; Deepwater Horizon being but a recent example. Naturally, after something like this happens, the issue of the hows and whys of the failure always come into question. What's not addressed, and ultimately what I'd like to do here, albeit perhaps somewhat simplistically, is look a little into the issue of control.
I believe that what distinguishes the form of control that exists now in the USA from that exercised by the Pharaohs is the transformation of the relationship between the economy and the society in which it operates from one in which the economy is an aspect of society and serves the society into one in which the economy and the presumptive rules by which it works are ripped from their social context and privileged over all other social rules to the extent that the society comes to serve the perceived needs of the economy. See Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Much of the postmodern critique (inasmuch as it did not descend into solipsism) served as a deconstruction of the less than perfectly justified perceptions of control.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 36 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Oui - Sep 3023 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 283 comments
by Oui - Sep 2715 comments
by Oui - Sep 2620 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 243 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1336 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 1210 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Oui - Sep 1216 comments