Moderna in globalizacija

Vprašanje o globalizaciji ostaja konec koncev tesno povezano s plodovito debato o moderni dobi in umetniškem modernizmu ter njunih individualnih zgodovinskih smereh. Na tem mestu moramo priznati, da se politični in kulturni razvoj 90. let 20. stoletja ni pretirano oziral na samozavestne napovedi postmodernistov, da se moderna zaključuje, kaj šele na zmagoslavne trditve o koncu zgodovine (Fukuyama [1992]*). Pomagalo ni niti enačenje moderne in včasih celo modernizma s fašizmom, totalitarizmom in genocidom. Prav nasprotno, moderna je danes (in je bila že lep čas) povsod in diskurz o postmoderni se zdi samo kot epizoda (četudi pomembna) znotraj neke vrste transformacije Zahodne moderne same. Problem ni več nasprotje med moderno in postmoderno, pa čeprav je to neizbežno poenostavljeno nasprotje še vedno osnova večine trenutno priljubljenega proti-modernega mišljenja, ki izhaja iz ozkega razumevanja postkolonialnih metod. Ampak je problem to, kar je Arjun Appadurai** poimenoval moderna-za-vse [modernity-at-large] in kar so nekateri opisali kot alternativne moderne: »[Moderna] ni prišla hitro, ampak počasi, korak za korakom, znotraj longue durée – prebujena s stikom; prinesena s trgovino; uvajali so jo imperiji in nosila je kolonialistični podpis; gnal jo je nacionalizem; in danes jo vse večkrat upravljajo globalni mediji, migracija in kapital« (Gaonkar [1999]***, 1). 

Andreas Huyssen: Modernism at Large. V: Astradur Eysteinsson & Vivian Liska (eds.): Modernism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company 2007; str. 57

_____________________________________________________________________________________

After all, the issue of globalization remains very much tied up with the rich debate about modernity and aesthetic modernism and their respective historical trajectories. And here we need to acknowledge that the political and cultural developments of the 1990s have not been kind to the postmodernists’ confident prediction that modernity was at an end, let alone the even more triumphalist claim that history had ended (Fukuyama [1992]). Nor has the equation of modernity and sometimes even modernism with fascism, totalitarianism, and genocide been very helpful. On the contrary, modernity is now (and has been for some time) everywhere, and the discourse of postmodernity seems only an episode (if a significant one) within a certain transformation of Western modernity itself. The issue is no longer modernity versus postmodernity, even though this inevitably reductive binary still underlies much of the currently popular anti-modernity thinking that emerges from a narrowly understood postcolonial approach. The issue is rather what Arjun Appadurai has identified as modernity-at-large, and what others have described as alternative modernities. As Dilip Gaonkar wrote in a recent special issue of Public Culture on alternative modernities: “It [modernity] has arrived not suddenly but slowly, bit by bit, over the longue durée — awakened by contact; transported through commerce; administered by empires, bearing colonial inscriptions; propelled by nationalism; and now increasingly steered by global media, migration, and capital”(Gaonkar [1999], 1).

____________________________

* Frances Fukuyama. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press. Knjiga je v pdf-ju dosegljiva tukaj.

** Arjun Appadurai. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis, London: Minnesota University Press. Knjiga je v celoti dosegljiva preko aplikacije Google Knjige: tukaj.

*** Dilip Gaonkar (ed.). 1999. On Alternative Modernities. Public Culture. 11.1: 1–18. Knjiga je v celoti dosegljiva preko aplikacije Google Knjige: tukaj.

____________________________

P.S.

Če ve kdo za kak boljši/ustreznejši/uveljavljen prevod izraza "modernity-at-large", naj mi, prosim, javi. Tudi za kakšne druge popravke tistih, ki ste vešči angleščine, se priporočam. Pa hvala za branje oziroma spremljanje.