Topic
The Modern Project
About: The Modern Project is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 37 publications have been published within this topic receiving 409 citations.
Papers
1 Jan 1999
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify some of the most interesting challenges postmodernism creates for thinking about organisations studies and management, and discuss the fundamental tenets of this approach and the main criticisms made of it.
Abstract: Writing about organisations from a postmodern perspective has proliferated in the last ten years (for example Calas 1987; Barratt & Strauss 1989; Hassard & Parker 1994; Boje, Gephart & Thatchenkery 1996), as has criticism of applying postmodern thinking to organisation studies (Tsoukas 1992). This paper attempts to identify, for the person not familiar with the literature on postmodernism, the fundamental tenets of this approach and the main criticisms made of it. The paper also describes some of the most interesting challenges postmodernism creates for thinking about organisations studies and management. Modernism and Postmodernism The project of modernity came into being in the 18th century. Based on a Newtonian, mechanistic view of (homogeneous) time and space, Enlightenment thinkers developed a notion of there being universal laws and morality and an objective science. This science would offer freedom from scarcity and natural calamity. Progress made in social organisation and rational thought would release people from oppression and ignorance. "The universal and eternal qualities of humanity could be discovered and revealed" (Harvey 1989, p 12). Modernism produced doctrines of equality, liberty and universal reason. It was intrinsically optimistic. Reason and science would produce a better world. Cooper and Burrell (1988) identifies two current versions of modernism, critical modernism and systemic modernism. Critical modernism focuses on the ability of reason and rationalism to liberate individuals and groups (Cooper & Burrell 1988). Systematic modernism (which Cooper & Burrell believe is currently dominant) focuses on the system itself and how through logic and reason, the system and thus human experience can be improved (Cooper & Burrell 1988). But others would argue that within the Enlightenment project, and especially within systemic modernism, lurked the seeds of its own downfall. In the name of human emancipation, nature was to be dominated, and "the lust to dominate nature entailed the domination of human beings, and that could only lead, in the end, to a nightmare condition of self domination" (Harvey 1989) . Also, the enlightenment project (and therefore modernism) were seen as liberating only for the dominant group, white western males (Calas & Smircich 1991; Flax 1987; Yeatman 1991). Some philosophers believe that in the name of human emancipation we must abandon the Enlightenment project while others argue that it has been perverted in various ways and can still work, especially if we return to the tenets of critical modernism (Harvey 1989). "What position we take depends upon how we explain the 'dark' side of our recent history and the degree to which we attribute it to the defect of Enlightenment reason rather than to a lack of its proper application (Harvey 1989, p 14). By the beginning of the twentieth century, Enlightenment reason was being seriously questioned, notably by Nietzche (Harvey 1989). Jenks dates the symbolic end of modernism in architecture to 3.32 pm on 15 July 1972 when the Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St Louis (an exemplar of modern architecture) was dynamited because it was considered uninhabitable. Cooper (1988) describes the modern/postmodern debate as being part of a periodic bout of the human sciences self-doubt and selfanalysis. The rise of postmodernism began in the 1960's but began to seriously influence thinking about culture, economics, philosophy and architecture in the early 1970's (Harvey 1989; Clegg 1990). Postmodernism defies definition. In fact to attempt to define it is to transgress many of its basic tenets. Writers do agree however, that postmodernism represents some kind of reaction to, or departure from, modernism (Barratt & Straus 1989; Burrell 1988; Callinicos 1989; Cooper 1989; Cooper & Burrell 1988; Flax 1987; Harvey 1989; Kritzman 1988; Martin 1990; Parker 1992b; Yeatman 1991). Yeatman (1991 p 6) also identifies the dependency of postmodernism on modernism. Without modernism, postmodernism would never have come into existence. Basic Tenets of Postmodernism Postmodernism encompasses a post-disciplinary (as opposed to multi-disciplinary) stance, crossing over many of the traditional boundaries of modernist social science (Yeatman 1991). Postmodern approaches are now being used to examine many social, political, cultural and economic issues. Yeatman (1991) credits the movements of marginalised people (women, people of colour, people with disabilities) with bringing postmodernism into the arena of social analysis. These movements opened up postmodern critical theorising because they could not be contained as one singular and rational subject. Postmodernism allows a critical look at modernism and calls into question some of the fundamental premises of the project of modernism. The displacement of reason Postmodernists begin by rejecting the central positioning of reason in modern knowledge construction. "Postmodernists refuse to give reason universal and transcendent status (Yeatman 1991, p 3). This does not mean that they do not believe that a 'truth' (or truths) cannot be arrived at, but that these need to be continually negotiated (Yeatman 1991). Postmodernism disputes the pre-eminent place given to rationalism by the modernity project. Postmodernists assert that, in fact, all rational acts are remedial (a response to an event) and that all acts can, in retrospect be explained rationally although, at the time of the act, it was not rationally planned (Cooper & Burrell 1988). Thus, the dominance of reason, as practiced in modernism is based on a fallacy. The rejection of meta-narratives and grand theories Following on from the displacement of reason, postmodernists would argue that if there is no universal rationality or reason then there can be no grand theories, no metanarratives (Harvey 1989; Yeatman 1991; Palmer in Clegg & Palmer 1996). Postmodernism rejects the possibility of one history or one truth and as such legitimises the experience of those (such as people of colour) who under the modern project were obliterated from the dominant meta-narratives "...whose secret terroristic function was to ground and legitimate the illusion of a universal human history" (Harvey 1989, p 9, quoting Eagleton). In displacing the theories, postmodernism also displaces the theorists. It rejects the notion of the expert as the 'holder of the truth' and opens up the possibility of all persons being knowers (Chodorow 1989; Eisenstein 1984; Elshtain 1981; Flax 1987; Fonow & Cook 1991; Stanley 1990). "Postmodernism is a medicine, a specific cure for certain kinds of intellectual arrogance" (Yeatman, 1991, p 17, quoting Connell). The decentring of human beings Similar to the way Gaileo replaced the earth with the sun as the centre of our system, (and perhaps with a similar level of profundity) postmodernism once again challenges the notion that human beings are at the centre of the world. Whereas the modernist project is based on the implicit assumption that a rational, 'understandable' world exists and is waiting to be known by humans, postmodernism insists that it is human beings who put themselves at the centre and from this position see an ordered world because to not see one would be too anxiety producing (Cooper & Burrell 1988). "Postmodernism therefore decentres the human agent from its self-elevated position of narcissistic 'rationality' and shows it to be essentially an observer-community of the world, their interpretations having no absolute or universal status" (Cooper & Burrell 1988, p 94). Discontinuity, fragmentation and chaos As mentioned earlier, postmodernism totally rejects any notion of the world as a rational, ordered and 'knowable' place. Postmodernism harks back to the deep chaos in modern life and its intractability before rational thought and treats chaos, disorder, lack of closure and indeterminacy in positive ways. Lyotard has defined postmodern discourse as "the search for instabilities" (Cooper & Burrell,1988, p 98). By questioning the existence of any type of certainty, postmodernism can be seen to threaten all that appears to hold our organisations together, value systems, authority, tradition. But it also opens a possibility "...of a democratic politics of voice and representation, where the ideal state is not the overcoming of domination once and for all but the ongoing imaginative and creative forms of positive resistance to various types of domination" (Yeatman 1991, p 8).
41 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show the centrality of the concept of progress in social theory, in relation to the theorization and understanding of modernity; it also raises the question whether in times where Eurocentrism, logocentrism and indeed almost every claim of supremacy are rightly viewed with suspicion, it is possible to think of the modernity without relying on some interpretation of the notion of progress.
Abstract: This paper aims to show the centrality the concept of progress occupies explicitly and implicitly in social theory, in relation to the theorization and understanding of modernity; it also raises the question whether in times where Eurocentrism, logocentrism and indeed almost every claim of supremacy are rightly viewed with suspicion, it is possible to think of modernity without relying on some interpretation of the notion of progress. Arguably, the theme of progress, together with the complementary notion of decline, can be considered as a key-component of discourses concerning modernity and has played a major role in the shaping of social theory. Comte and Durkheim relied in different ways in the idea of progress and the same holds for Marxist accounts of social change. Even later sociological theories address modernity from the perspective of progress, Parsons being exemplary in this respect. Moreover, theoretical discourses adopting a critical or even hostile attitude against the modern project often question the idea of progress and are woven around the representation of modernity in terms of decline and regression into unreason, as e.g. Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enightment. Arguably, the imagery of progress informs the distinction between society and community, which is also hidden behind Habermas’s more recent theorization of societies in terms of systems and lifeworlds. Finally, the question regarding the possibility of partially disentangling the theorization of modernity from the idea of progress, is pursued via a critical assessment of Eisenstadt's multiple modernities and Wagner's theorization of modernity in terms of responses given to basic problematiques.
36 citations
TL;DR: This paper explored the destructive side of modernity through a case study from Ethiopia and used archaeology to engage with a landscape where modernity has brought immense devastation and has eventually failed, and used this case study to show that modernity is a productive process, in that it gives rise to new things - be they good or bad.
Abstract: Modernity is central to the concept of archaeology. It is not only part and parcel of the modern project, but it also throws light on the constitution of modernity itself. Although archaeologists usually reveal the higher degrees of oppression and alienation brought by the modern world, they consider that modernity is, in the first place, a productive process, in that it gives rise to new things - be they good or bad. They also tend to consider it successful in an evolutionary sense: wherever it appears, modernity wins at the expense of other rationalities, social forms, material cultures and economies, imposing its reason. This is true in most cases, but it is not necessarily so. This article explores the destructive side of modernity through a case study from Ethiopia. For this purpose, I will use archaeology to engage with a landscape where modernity has brought immense devastation and has eventually failed.
36 citations
TL;DR: This article reviewed the arguments of Adorno and Heidegger, with an emphasis on both their similarities and their differences, and pointed out that these arguments seem to have lost their contextual force; this, however, is far from being the case.
Abstract: Theories or ideas, no matter how lofty, are not immune from historical circumstance: the latter often discloses what otherwise is left unsaid. Far from being an assortment of random data, history from this angle remains a great taskmaster—by teaching us about the complex ambivalences and unintended consequences of rational designs. The ideas of “modernity” and “enlightenment” are a prominent case in point. No one can doubt the loftiness and even intrinsic nobility of these labels. Basically, modernity (as understood in the West) was meant to inaugurate a new age of human freedom and self-determination, as contrasted with previous eras marked by political, clerical, and intellectual tutelage. In turn, enlightenment—in Kant’s memorable phrase—was meant to awaken humankind from the “slumber of self-induced immaturity” and ignorance, thereby paving the way for the undiluted reign of scientific knowledge and moral self-legislation. As history teachers, these and related ideas did indeed generate some of the desired results—but often in unforeseen ways and straddled with dubious or less noble implications. Like a deep shadow, these implications accompanied from the beginning the modern spreading of “light.” At the very onset of the new age, Francis Bacon proclaimed the equation of knowledge with power—thereby vindicating the prospect of human mastery over nature (as well as over less knowledgeable people). In the domain of politics and ethics, the modern maxim of freedom exacerbated a formula which Aristotle already had used against non-Greeks: “meet it is that barbarous peoples should be governed by the Greeks.”1 The merits and demerits of modernity have been widely discussed in recent decades from a variety of angles (anti-modern, modernist, postmodern)—but often in a purely academic vein. Here again, historical circumstance demands its due. It was during the past (twentieth) century that some of most disturbing and hideous connotations of the modern project of unlimited mastery came out into the open, and it was in response to these implications—manifest in fascism and Stalinist communism—that some of the most penetrating analyses of this project were formulated. In view of the hundredth anniversary of Theodor Adorno’s birth (1903), it is fitting that close attention should be given again to his critical work—particularly to the magisterial Dialectic of Enlightenment (written in collaboration with Max Horkheimer) and the magnum opus of his later years, Negative Dialectics. Roughly in the same historical context, another leading German thinker—Martin Heidegger—launched an equally devastating attack on the totalizing machinations of modern technology and modern politics (in writings which only recently have became available). The following pages start out by reviewing the arguments of these two thinkers, with an emphasis on both their similarities and their differences. With the demise of fascism and Stalinist communism, these arguments seem to have lost their contextual force; this, however, is far from being the case. Under the aegis of globalization, the totalizing ambitions of Western modernity are revealed today on a planetary scale: in the opposition between the hegemonic “North” and the dominated “South.” Speaking no longer from the European “center” of modernity but from the nonWestern periphery—and drawing freely on the insights of Adorno and Heidegger—the Latin America Enrique Dussel has formulated a new critique of the modern project, a critique which— without denying its liberating potential—takes aim at the prospect of global mastery as the “underside of modernity.”
20 citations
TL;DR: A persistent struggle within liberal thought is how to recognise cultural particularity within an ethical system in which toleration does not become indifference as mentioned in this paper, which is a persistent struggle in liberal thought.
Abstract: A persistent struggle within liberal thought is how to recognise cultural particularity within an ethical system in which toleration does not become indifference. The liberal internationalism espou...
19 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 5 |
| 2015 | 4 |
| 2014 | 1 |
| 2013 | 1 |