Search

The paradigm of late modernity and postmodernity, characterized by the sheer living manifestation of the limit, assumes the conscience of the indissoluble, by annulling any hypothesis, interrogation or problematization. The fracturing of the self coincides with the fracturing of knowledge, as an effective dialectic movement, or, in other words, as a state of continuity of the thinking, specific to the human being. The knowledge-seeking relation to the world through exclusion, that is featured by late modernity and postmodernism is manifested, in an extreme(marginal) form, by the de-presentisation of the immanent and the transcendent and by imposing the simulation as a global process of creation of representations through communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The realities of the modern world are marked by rapid changes, which bring dissonance to the process of social development and human existence, depriving him of clearly defined guidelines and priorities. The sociocultural context of the epoch, based on changing, liquid versions of modernity, presents a series of challenges to a person and the social institutions, including education, he has created. Education is responsible not only for finding adequate answers to the civilization challenges of the epoch, but also for outlining the further directions of its development. The methodological ideas of the concept of nomadism allow to consider education as a complex sociocultural formation, which is in the state of constant change and is marked by openness, not linearity, the ability to acquire new outlines and characteristics. The understanding of education, which is transformative and humanistic in nature, pluralistic in content, which responds to sociocultural changes flexibly and proactively and updates the forms of training organization has been presented. It is stated that the development of education should be based on the priority of the new knowledge creation instead of the ready information consumption, should focus on the ability to consider problems comprehensively and contextually and to outline new ones in familiar to a person situations, should be carried out by engaging in educational activities of the personal experience and life practices of learning subjects, to promote their ability to self-education and self-transformation in order to realize their own life potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last decades have seen a growing trend towards researching intimacy. A considerable amount of literature has been published based on the reflexive transformation of intimacy framework. This paper starts from the premise that, recently, more and more scholars have criticized the idea that detraditionalization and individualization led to the transformation of intimacy during reflexive modernity (late modernity). Critics question the ability of late modernity concepts to offer a cross-cultural and nuanced image of contemporary particularities of private life and intimate relations. The purpose of this study is to show the current state of knowledge in the social sciences on individualization thesis and detraditionalization thesis, the main theoretical criticisms of the two theses and conceptual alternatives to them. To achieve these goals, we conducted an interpretive synthesis of 16 articles from international literature, published between 1999-2014, in the thematic area of social changes brought by late modernity into the domain of private life and intimacy. In the Introduction section, we briefly present the two theses as reflected in the two of the most cited books on these themes: The Transformations of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies (Giddens, 1992) and The Normal Chaos of Love (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). In the body of the paper, we synthesize the arguments sustaining the criticism of the two theses and show some conceptual alternatives to these criticisms, as stated in the literature. In the concluding section, we resume the main arguments to open directions for future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]