Search

Modernization, in the sociological tradition, was usually understood as increasing differentiation. Theorists as different as Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Parsons all shared the view that modernization meant the opening of new horizons. The publication of Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition transformed the discursive universe: contrary to the tradition of differentiation theoretical sociology the pamphlet interpreted modernization as a process in which the plurality of local cultural traditions was destroyed and their various narratives were rearticulated into a unified modern canon under the repressive meta-narratives of science, progress and the Enlightenment. At first, sociologists were at odds with this new interpretation until Beck, Giddens and Lash brought up the idea of modernity in two phases in their Reflexive Modernization (1994) and related publications. According to them, 'traditional modernity' was based on cultural closures, such as unified class-identities, nationalities and fixed gender-identities, but it was followed by a 'second' or 'reflexive modernity', where several traditions lived side by side, just as the postmodernists claimed. An intense debate emerged. The article asks: did we learn anything from the debate on reflexive modernization and if so, can the learnt lessons be used fruitfully in the study of contemporary society? The answer seems to be negative for the most part. However, the modernization theoretical approach can still be seen as a useful tool for framing research questions and contributing to the diagnosis of the era. This is how it can still provide a point of departure for research, but not deliver all the answers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the idea of modern society which Marx presented in his critique of political economy. According to Marx, modern society is born in the mode of capitalism but will only be actualized in its full wealth when capitalism is thrown over in favor of communism. The problem with Marx's conceptual strategy, however, is that he only discusses man as human species, in this way identifying the human individual with the species being Accordingly, he assumes that all social antagonisms will come to an end if the capital relation is broken and a transfer into communism takes place. In this way, his conception of a modern, non-capitalist society remains an abstract, aesthetically descriptive vision. On the basis of Marx's later works. although overstepping its limits, it is, however, possible to present an experimental construction of a modern, non-capitalist, dual society, where the social synthesis is no longer dominated by the principle of self-valorization of capital, but a 'democratic discussion of needs'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]