Ps Pomo Glob

7/30/2019 Ps Pomo Glob

1/35

Omar Lizardo and Michael Strand 38

P s m sm a Gl bal zaOmar Lizardo and Michael Strand 1

Abstract Interest in postmodernity that has stagnated over the past decade has come to be replaced by a concern with globalization. While the two terms are often considered to be divergent there is a continuity as theoretical discourse transfers from one to the other. In what follows,we rst distill the heuristic models employed by various knowledge-geographical traditions

of social thought in conceptualizing postmodernism. We then transpose these models intorecent debates on globalization. Globalization theory has become the provence of Britishand American theorists because of a contiguity that extends back to a propitious model employed to understand postmodernism. Globalization theory in France and Germany are largely non-existent or tangential for similar reasons that nd opposite tendencies. Te spatial and temporal aspect inherent to both the modern and postmodern indicates that both already present a stance on globalization. Among the key factors predicting the for-tunes of heuristic models is the continuation of classical theoretical concerns in the present situation of globalization. Post-classical tendencies in heuristic models indicate that more cloistered postmodern concerns do not transfer well to globalization. Tose heuristic models that conceive of a postmodernist break are those whose application to present instantiations of globalization is subsequently limited.

1 Introduction

Recent writing on the re ev nce of po t oderni for conte por ry inquiry in oci theory ppe r to h ve rge y converged in re ching the conc u ion of the incre ing w ning of concern with the odern/po t odern pro e tic

nd it gr du rep ce ent y the notion of g o i tion (A row 1997; To -in on 1999). i hift in theoretic focu cou d e interpreted ign th t

the key i ue oci ted with the e ergence of intere t in po t oderni inthe Ang ophone c de yincre ing keptici reg rding the in go of the en ighten ent project, the pro e of epi te ic nd ethic re tivi , there tion etween tr dition for of cu tur y uthorit tive know edge nd

1 Author n e ppe r in ph etic order. Both uthor contri uted equ y to thi r-tic e. Direct corre pondence to O r Li rdo, Dep rt ent of Socio ogy, Univer ity of NotreD e, 810 F nner, South Bend, IN, 46556.


2/35

Postmodernism and Globalization

other u tern w y of eng ging the wor d re no onger concern. u ,r ther th n ign ing the i pending cri i th t ny thought w portended

y the e cu tur hift , the conte por ry wor d h d pted to thi dec inein ecu r f ith on the gr nd cu tur project of We tern odernity (B u n1988, 1992). Po t oderni h thu een t ed nd fe y integr ted intothe current oci order.

If we fo ow thi e d, we wou d e ju ti ed in conc uding th t the po t od-ern no onger ign thre t ut h eco e the in tre ( Zi ek 2003).Under thi interpret tion, ( rket-driven) g o i tion repre ent the in ti-tution nd teri e odi ent of wh t w initi y perceived to i p y

e n inte ectu nd cu tur current. u , concern with g o i tion nd recovery of tho e c ic gure ( uch the M rx of the Co uni t

M nife to) who w g o i tion nd odernity inherent y intertwined(Ber n 2002[1988])rep ce concern with po t oderni in the very e

w y th t concern with the in titution infr tructure rep ce concern withdi e odied cu tur for in the ocio ogy of know edge. It i i port ntto note however, th t thi renewed intere t in thesocial fact of g o i tionh occurred even the u t ntive hunch th t o ething i port nthas already taken place (e.g. o e ort of tr n ition or hift to new epoch orte por ity), hunch th t ni ted po t oderni t theori ing, continue to

inger.i re ding of recent theoretic deve op ent reg rding the t tu of po t-

oderni re dy ign p rticu r w y of conceptu i ing it. i hou dnot e urpri ing, it quick y eco e c e r th t ny judg ent reg rding thecontinuing re ev nce (or ck of uch re ev nce) of po t oderni for conte -por ry oci inquiry ( nd it re tion hip to uch rge- c e oci proce e

g o i tion) require th t we uncover the under ying cultural models th tdi erent epi te ic co unitie dep oy to under t nd it (Str u nd Quinn1997). Surpri ing y, whi e uch h een written on the topic of po t odernity

nd g o i tion, nd even uch of thi iter ture i e f-con ciou y re ex-ive nd rooted in concern with uncovering the under ying tructure th tgener te ocio ogic ( nd other for of) know edge, very itt e h een doneto ex ine the in titution , know edge-po itic nd po itic -geogr phic (Pe 2001) root of conte por ry thinking on g o i tion nd po t oder-nity. i h given the f e i pre ion th t conte por ry conceptu i tionof po t odernity re rge y ho ogeneou (or th t they gree on fund entpoint ) or, even when heterogeneity nd di gree ent re exp icit y cknow -edged, th t they re p rti y independent fro the in titution tructure,


3/35


nd theoretic tr dition , in which inte ectu co unitie th t produce thiknow edge re rooted.

In thi p per we t ke n exp icit po ition on the oci gener tion, in titution-i tion nd intergener tion tr n i ion of under ying heuri tic ode

of ocio-cu tur pheno en . We rgue th t the po t odern pro e tic heen gener y conceived u ing urpri ing y et of under ying ode

of p ti ity nd te por ity (Co in 1998; W cqu nt 1985). e e ode p-pe r to e rooted in po itic nd n tion tr dition of oci thought (Levine1995; Pe 2001). We how th t di erence in under ying conceptu i tion of key e e ent (te por ch nge, pheno eno ogy, p ce) etween the e odeexp in di erent w y in which the pro e tic of po t odernity h eenunder tood nd theori ed we the inference th t re gener ted out

wh t po t odernity e n oth n experience tructure nd indic tor of crohi toric tr jectory (for in t nce reg rding whether po t odernity i

t e in titution i e t te or n un t e detente ch r cteri ed y cri ind uncert inty).

e hifting hege ony of thi conceptu i tion of che e o exp in why di erent w y of conceptu i ing (po t) odernity h ve eentrans- posed nd tr n uted to the under t nding of g o i tion. In wh t fo ow we di tingui h etween four in po itico-geogr phic conceptu tr ditionof the po t odern: (1) A French tr dition th t in ugur te the de te nd

et the ter of di cour e, (2) Ger n tr dition which re ct g in t theiniti French incur ion (3) Briti h tr dition th t tte pt to integr te e e-

ent fro the Ger n nd French tr dition nd (4) rge y utochonou A eric n tr dition th t oth provide the initi ter ino ogic re ource ndth t h of te hifted the ngu ge of the de te tow rd cu ture nd the e -thetic, thu e enti y tr n for ing the po t odern pro e tic into onedo in ted y concern with g o i tion nd cu ture.

2 e French Tr dition

e French tr dition of po t odern oci theory in ugur te the concern withpo t oderni n exp icit theoretic pro e tic. e ign event i thepu ic tion of Je n-Fr ncoi Lyot rd Report on Know edgeTe PostmodernCondition(1984). Lyot rd initi tre t ent w pitched rge- c e epi te-

o ogic critique of v riou inte ectu ove ent oci ted with the En-


4/35


ighten ent project. One of the re on why Lyot rd initi vo receivedo uch ttention h d to do with the f ct th t hi ro d ide inc uded high y

e tee ed t rget occupying the fu -r nge of the know edge-po itic pectru ,fro e ncip tory M rxi , to c ic i er i nd cienti tic po itivi .

A rge- c e inte ectu project th t f hioned the e ve ( nd groundedtheir cu tur egiti cy) et n rr tive were wept o of their pede t .

Lyot rd know edge-po itic we pon were end of po t-Wittgen teni nnd po t-Nit che n con tructivi t epi te o ogy (in which uthorit tive

thought y te were decon tructed o ny ngu ge g e without ni ity to ground their uthority on tr n cendent ti e e princip e ), po t-

po itivi t critic phi o ophy of ciencein which i ue of non- ine rity, co -p exity nd undecid i ity were thought to h ve rep ced deter ini tic ode

ed on univer w nd po t-1968 itu tion i t po itic e ph i ingthe thorough decentering of uthority nd n un hed concern with r dicde ocr tic ( nd qu i-popu i t) icro-po itic Lyot rd w for er e -

er of the utono i t M rxi t groupSocialisme ou Barbarisme in which u tip icity of oc di cour e i privi eged over the hege onic force of ing e cro-di cour e.

2.1 Te Social as the Site of the Postmodern

e social i the pri ry ite of the know edge-geogr phic in ection pro-duced y the French heuri tic ode (Pe 2001). e oci repre ent kindof third i peri i (re tive to the Briti h Econo ic nd the Ger nPo itic ) it i i r y enc p u te the ppro che of econo y nd po ity expre ion of n under ying oci tot ity. In thi en e, odern individu iit e f i the expre ion of peci c for of oci tructur tion nd not re ec-tion of either the individu i ing e ect of the c pit i t econo y or of i erde ocr cy nd the exten ion of citi en hip (Durkhei 1969). Further ore,the utono y of oci f ct refer to or re ity th t i ynony ou withthe oci tot ity (Durkhei 1982). It w indeed critique of the te-ri i t cred in the French ird Repu ic th t Durkhei introduced theque tion of the urviv of the cred in the odern wor d on y if it wou d erecon gured ong ocio ogic ine (in hi ver ion of inter edi ry corpor ti t

odie ).French po t oderni rk continu tion of thi concern with the oci -cred, though now for u ted que tion of how ( nd whether) it c n e


5/35


po tu ted n expre ion of oci order. In thi reg rd, we ight we eeLyot rd rgu ent for the end of et n rr tive ch enge to the po iticexpre ion of the cred coup ed to the odern n tion- t te or po iti-c p rty (repre ent tive p rticu r y of M rxi ), nd the rgu ent for thereintroduction of ore tribal for of oci tructur tion to recon gure the

cred o ewh t ike Durkhei pre cri ed, the e th t i deve oped o tc e r y in the work of M e o i (1996). However, it i B udri rd th t pre entthe o t eriou ch enge to the odern view of the oci nd it coup ing to cred experience.

2.2 Postmodernism as the End of the Social

e work of B udri rd erve the pri ry ex p e of how concern withthe oci (it potenti vi i ity the ource of e ncip tion or it ike-

y end n i p oded ) oth the ource nd the ite of the po t oderni critic for the heuri tic ode th t e n te fro the French tr dition.For B udri rd the En ighten ent ytho ogy of the r tion , nd ny view of hi toric te eo ogy rooted in their co ective ctivity, i exp oded inthe po itic o i i tion de on tr ted not for productive ctivitie ike -

u ing contro of the t te or vio ent y conte ting the owner hip tructure of c pit i , ut r ther for the pect c e nd the reve ry evident in, for in t nce,

upport for Wor d Cup tch (B udri rd 1983: 12).e ( p thetic) e ck de nition on y if ocio ogy continue to think

th t they o i i e over vio tion to the contr ct th t tr dition ocio -ogy (p rticu r y M rx) rgue underpin the uti it ri n oci exch nge of u e-v ue nd thu the oci order. B udri rd nd p r e etween the i ent jority o i i tion for the cu ture pect c e nd the goni ticpot tch of N tive North A eric n (th t B t i e ch pioned) ec u e othindic te the cred ch r cter xed to ctivitie of w tefu ne (i.e. the c-cur ed h re). t oci cienti t re urpri ed y thi indic te preci e y thetrunc ted for of oci re tion th t i intrin ic to the odern productivi tp r dig of oci tructur tion nd irrored y odern (M rxi n) ocio-

ogic conception which expe tho e (in p rticu r, the de d) fro the cyc eof oci exch nge who do not po e u e-v ue.

u , whi e other po itico-geogr phic tr dition ee the po t odern re id-ing within econo ic exch nge oc ted t the eve of civi ociety (in p rticu rin the Briti h tr dition we wi ee e ow), in the French tr dition it i the


6/35


ore gener (non-econo ic) i of oci exch nge (going ck to M u ocio ogy of the gift) th t i degr ded under po t odern condition , nd which

o con titute the on y hope for it tr n cendence. B udri rd thu identi-e r dic i ed for of (non-econo ic, non-in tru ent ) exch nge the

expre ion of po t odern oci , which he y re evident in tho e con-te por ry o i i tion for w tefu (or udic) ctivitie ong the i ent

joritie , which de troy we th in te d of ccu u ting it nd thu extendthe cyc e of oci exch nge to ctivitie of y o ic exch nge ike eduction(in te d of org ). Po itic terrori c n e n y ed in the e nner, it t nd y o ic return to exch nge y the t te nd neutr i e it u-thority y neg ting it i ity to prevent the exten ion of counter-gift. Hence,Terrori i n ct th t re tore n irreduci e p rticu rity in the idd e of gener i ed exch nge y te . A p rticu ritie ( pecie , individu , cu ture

which tod y ch enge the e t i h ent of g o circu tion directed y oneing e power t ke their revenge with their de th through thi terrori t tr n -

for tion of the itu tion (B udri rd 2001: 135).e end of the oci i there y re d the end of the odern oci

(B udri rd 1983). i i p rticu r y true B udri rd repudi te tr ditionocio ogy po e ing the uthorit tive view of the oci it t nd r ther

in the h dow of the i ent joritie citing devi tion fro wh t oderninte ectu egi ted to the e ut ti on y di i y ti c tion. re in focu ed on the que tion of the cred n expre ion of the oci (de ned y exch nge), ut r dic i e the i of the odern oci y r dic -i ing pect of Durkhei i n ocio ogy (in p rticu r, nd fo owing B t i e,the eft cred [Ri ey 2005]) to refute predo in te y M rxi n conception,

nd there y extend the oc tion of the cred. A we how e ow, thi connec-tion etween the cred nd the oci re in pro e for uch Frenchthinking on the po t odern, even if expre ed epi te o ogic concern overthe oci y ho ogeni ing e ect of do in nt know edge.

3 e Ger n Tr dition

e Ger n po itico-geogr phic tr dition of conceiving the po t odern ione who e in ection re t qu re y on the que tion of the political . e Briti h

nd the Ger n tr dition h re concern with p rticu r in rie oc ted tthe eve of the oci in of r the di cur ive tructure of oth oper te ccord-


7/35


ing to t te v . econo y dichoto y. But where Brit in in ect it theoreti-c product through the en of theeconomy , it i thestate which i pri ry inthe Ger nic tr dition. Speci c y, the ethic t te c i dou e prior-ity over the individu nd over econo ic ction, it i individu who reviewed con tituted y nd [thu ] u ordin ted to the t t co unity,fro the Ger n point of view (Pe 2001: 45).

ere re key point of divergence etween thi view of the po t odernnd the French heuri tic ode reviewed ove. Whi e the French tr dition

focu e on po t odernepistemology ( conceived in the tr dition K n-ti n nner i per on pre uppo ition for v id know edge), the Ger ntr dition focu e on providing n ccount of theexperiential ( nd thu u -

jective) i of odernity. Whi e the French tr dition ee the po t odern deco po ition nd i p o ion oc ted t the eve of the oci nd the

e nd conceive of n nti- odern t nce not di continuou withthe e ncip tory project of the r dic eft ( nd thu derive either po itive[or neg tive in the c e of B udri rd] po itic progr fro th t i ) theGer n tr dition conceive of t nce vi - -vi odernity, (even tho e notexp icit y po itic uch tho e ed on epi te o ogy or e thetic ) con-ce ing ( nd i p ying) peci c y po itic projecteven tho e who exp ic-it y renounce po itic project c n e un ked in f ct propo ing one indi gui e.

e Ger n tr dition, in contr t to the French, reject the notion th t po t-oderni i r dic epoch hift co p ete y heterogeneou in re tion toodernity; it i o di tinctive in rejecting the notion th t odernity gr nd

n rr tive re nece ri y po itic y retrogre ive. Fin y, Ger n thinker donot ide y the r dic epi te o ogic re tivi of their French counter-p rt (which we w ove i n inevit e con equence of tr n po ing theDurkhei -M u ocio ogy of know edge ode y w y of Fouc u tto thei ue of hi toric ch nge in epi te o ogic ty e ). But the key ch r cteri ticth t ke the Ger n t ke on po t oderni di tinct fro the originFrench incur ion into the u ject concern the initi theoretic ove: Ger-

n theori t H er eing the c ic ex p e egin y conceptu i -ing odernity ( nd deriv tive y po t odernity) peci c fr e of indor subjective t nce tow rd the oci nd n tur wor d .

e e re the re on why French po t oderni i interpreted y Ger ntheori t h r oring n e ective nity with neo-con erv tive po iticproject (H er 1987). It i c e r th t wh t get re d neo-con erv tivefro within the Ger n tr dition i the r dic anti-statismof French po t-


8/35


oderni . e Ger n tr dition, in it focu on po itic , ee odernity inherent y tied to the future of the t te, nd thu nti- oderni i i e-di te y perceived ju t nother for of regre ive nti- t ti . u , wherethe French view ee repre ion, nd ( tent) tot it ri ni (the gr nd n r-r tive of the odern project in titution i ed nd e odied in t teproject [Meyer et 1997]), the Ger n tr dition ee the ( o eti e re-pre ed, de yed nd p rti y u verted ut ti vi e) eed of e ncip tion

nd i er tionthrough (not y co p ete y ndoning) the po itic . u ,H er (1987) i c e r in noting ( po ition he vi y critici ed y Frenchinte ectu uch De co e ) th t Hege i the r t inte ectu to exp icit y rticu te odern con ciou ne in hi exp icit view of the hi toricproce . Modernity nd po t odernity re thu , in ddition to eing peci ccu tur nd ocio- tructur re itie , rooted in peci c fr e of ind.No ccount of odernity therefore i co p ete without de cri ing wh t thi

peci c u jective orient tion con i t of nd how it i u t ined within tho ein titution ch r cteri tic of the odern order.

3.1 (Post)modernism as a Political Factor

But if we return to the que tion of the po itic it re te to thi tter, theque tion th t ri e out the u equent Ger n di cu ion of po t odern-i egin to co e into focu . We er dvice on how to chieve e ningfuexi tence in odern ociety id out in hi c ic ecture Science Voc tion nd Po itic Voc tionindic te th t he doe not re ort to thekind of tot critique of odernity (Antonio 2000) th t i for the re i -tion of co p ete di o ution nd tr n cendence of conte por ry in titution .Hi reco end tion of v ue to e re i ed ong speci c v ue- phere indi-c te kind of ro ntic- i er cco od tioni (Koch 2001). But it w othe re urrection of ch ri th t he found ong the po i i itie e erging fro the pre ent circu t nce of Ger n odernity, nd indeed, o ething

ike th t tendency w re i ed in J nu ry 1933 nd the cu in tion of the ri eto power of N i . It ee cruci , in thi reg rd, th t when We er wrote

peci c y out ch ri , he wrote out it for of authority . It wthe political th t rked the o t powerfu expre ion of e ningfu ction

nd oci cre tivity, nd indeed, the o t ike y outco e of convu ive re c-tion g in t the odern in i ity (p rticu r y fter Wor d W r 1) to e ureup to work d y exi tence (We er 1946: 149).


9/35


e key i ue in thi re pect i th t the po itic repre ent for of in ti-tution o jecti c tion in odernity th t inot ien ting ( oppo ed to the

rket or cience which were conceived h ving n inherent o jectifying ogic). For the tr jectory of Ger n thinking out po t odernity, Ger ny,

fro thi per pective, h d po t odern o ent, nd it h ppened with there urrection of po itic ch ri etween 1933 nd 1945. Whi e f ci it e f i not nece ry outco e of odernity, it p ce ch ri tic expre ionof the po itic i of intere t here. For the tr dition of right Hege i ni inGer ny, the t te u t e pre erved g in t the function i per tive of civi

ociety (Avineri 1972) . Whi e M rx wou d critique thi po ition for of rei c tion nd i p ced con tr int (i.e. the ctu w not r tion ), theright Hege i n found the Pru i n t te to e the re expre ion of u t n-tive ethic tot ity nd n o ute un oved end in it e f (Hege in Avineri1972: 181). Any tte pt to u ordin te the t te to i per tive (i.e eg it ri n-i ) th t e erge fro civi ociety di o ve it ethic i p ic tion y h nding the over to the force of in tru ent ity nd it p ur i tic intere t .

For C r Sch itt nd the con erv tive revo ution rie critic of Wei rGer ny, it w preci e y thi potenti ity of the t te th t w to e h rne edin vio ent re ction g in t odernity, even they vehe ent y denied uch

n exerci e to e the r tion expre ion of hi toric y unfo ding proce(hence Sch itt t te ent: on J nu ry 30, 1933 one c n y th t Hege died[Sch itt in Wo in 1992: 424]). In Sch itt oft-cited phr e: the Sovereigni he who decide over the t te of exception (1985: 5). In thi c p city fordeci ion nd the i ity to in titute n exception the po itic one i e to

re k through ourgeoi nor ity nd it cru t of ech ni th t h e-co e torpid y repetition nd ow the power of re ife to eep through(Sch itt 1985: 15). If Sch itt critique of odern Ger ny center on thepo itic , it o re ect the in uence of i i r kind of Niet che n vit ith t i p cted We er nd Si e per pective on the ien tion of odern

u jectivity. Modern ourgeoi in titution f i in their i ity to co nd en e of e ning nd purpo e for tho e who e ction cre te nd u t in the .

In of r they ho ogeni e the popu tion to t nony ou ro e ike worker,f ther nd citi en, they i it te g in t the intoxic ting en e of purpo efound on y in the experience of confront tion etween friend nd ene y.If, for Sch itt, odernity e nt oci ho ogeneity, econo ic in tru en-t ity nd, ove , the o t dignity of the t te (Wo in 1992: 441), then renewed expre ion of po itic ch ri w the on y o ution for re i ing new postmoderner .


10/35


For H er , uch go i i guided in of r it re ect n extre e forof right Hege i ni in which individu i v ued on y e er of thedigni ed t te (1987). Whi e the pro e of odernity extend we - eyondthe expre ion of the po itic in p rticu r, to concern the individu u ject

phi o ophic t rting pointit i indeed with the po itic th t H er critique of odernity u ti te y re t . He critique the per pective of pr xiphi o ophy derived fro M rx nd tte pt to reorient critic theory on the

i of for of re on th t i not in tru ent . He nd thi tern tive forof re on in the co unic tive co petence intrin ic to inter u jective ocire tion . Like M rx, H er invert the Hege i n per pective y focu ing on the productionof ethic tot ity, not i p y the recognition of it pre ente odi ent. However, hi co unic tive rep ce ent of the in tru ent ity he oc te in M rx e d hi to introduce the notion of the pu ic phere inp ce of civi ociety (econo y) the e odi ent of the odern equ ity of

u ject . And it i here th t he renew the critic per pective, founded now on the di cur ive potenti of de ocr cy th t e erge when the univerc p citie po e ed equ y y u ject re rede ned in ter of co unic -tive ction.

3.2 Modernity as an Un nished Project

It n tur y fo ow th t the o ution to the pro e of odernity i th t thereh not eenenough odernity: odernity i n un ni hed project nd thet k of progre ive po itic i to n y ring it to con u tion (H er1981). We er gr nd conc u ion out ociet r tion i tion t ted

with gre t P tho in the f ou conc uding p r gr ph of Te Protestant Ethic ,nd deve oped y the critique of the one-di en ion ociety nd in tru-ent re on in the Fr nkfurt choo unt the high y iv ent content

of oci nd cu tur odernity (H er 1987: 338). Fro H er per-pective, the pro e of odernity ight we re te to n e tr nge ent e-

tween in titution nd individu (the f ou di erenti tion of y te froifewor d), ut thi i not re ection of the in titution the e ve . R ther, it

i tter of theinterchange etween tho e ociet nd cu tur for nd theco unic tive infr tructure of everyd y ife.

A ong the chieve ent of odernity i the f ct th t the ifewor d c nctive y o d tho e in titution to t it own i ge. i e peci y pp ie to

the co ective ction potenti repre ented y t te directed y the i per -


11/35


tive of n inter u jective y e f-con tituted know edge of ociety (H er1987: 360). e di t nce th t ociet r tion i tion (i.e. o jective cu ture)

ight we h ve re i ed re ect on y the ent contri ution of co unic -tive re on fro their further deve op ent, which ugge t the co oni tionof the ifewor d y the i per tive of the y te th t inhi it their exten ioninto e ective for , nd not w intrin ic to the y te it e f. i i true withreg rd to the in tru ent re on nd oney nd priv ti extended frothe c pit i t econo y; ut H er p rticu r y nd the exten ion of thei per tive of power the inhi iting f ctor for the expre ion of the critic

e f-re ection of the ifewor d n expre ion of po t odernity, oth itre te to de-di erenti tion etween pu ic nd priv te nd the exten ionof d ini tr tive power. H er i thu not iv ent in hi e entof po t odernity: it i indeed thememory of n overextended po ity, nd itvio ent exerci e of power in re i t nce to oderni tion, th t nd hi pri ry

oci tion with the e ning of the ter .It fo ow th t wh t H er notice o t out the Young Con erv tive

c p of po t oderni t ppe ring in Fr nce in the te 1970 nd e r y 1980i their c re e u e of the notion of power nd their re i nce on power the

ing e, niche n tern tive to the do in nce of odern c pit i ndin tru ent re on (H er 1981: 13). In the c e of Fouc u t in p rticu r,

we c n ppreci te the i po i i ity of ju tifying the r itr ry p rti n hipof critici , which extend fro ee ing y n ive view of the exerci e of power, the o t defective pect of the gene ogic ppro ch to know -edge (H er 1987: 276). Such ppro che re po t oderni t ec u e they

ppe r ere re ection , intheory,of notion of the po itic th t w re -i ed in practice y the N i regi e of the 1930 nd 1940 . i critici of the po t odern i re erved for tho e view th t t c tegory H er hinherited fro Ger n po itic hi tory.

e conte por ry Ger n new right rge y rk continu tion of theSch itti n view of the po itic , on y now in ected ore y Heidegger th nHege , nd with ore cco od tioni t t nce on the que tion of c pit -i (Antonio 2000: 5859; D h 1996). For H er nd tho e who dopthi ore eft Hege i n view of the po itic , it i co opo it n w nd theexp n ion of tr n n tion pu ic phere th t i of pri ry concern in

wor d of g o i tion (Fr er 2007). In thi reg rd, it ee th tmodernity has returned to conte por ry Ger ny, though it i in recognition of prior post-modernity th t theori ing continue : either in ( t e t p rti ) r tion of

wh t e erged o ution for the i of odernity th t h ve on y inten i ed,


12/35


or the continu tion of the odern project in gre ter cogni nce of prevent-ing the return to wh t po t odern er once e nt nd cou d e n g in.

Fro oth eft nd right per pective , the Ger n view of po t odernii one th t i in ected through the know edge-geogr phic en (Pe 2001)of the po itic . Whi e thi re ect ong herit ge of po itico-centric thinking in Ger ny (Levine 1995), the 20th-century po itic hi tory of Ger ny pre -ent the n tive theory with token c e of postmodernity in action. No otherknow edge-geogr phic tr dition c n y the e out their own thinking on the po t odern, which y indeed e why tho e on the Ger n eft ndright ee e iguou in their e ent of wh t po t oderni repre-

ent .

4 e Briti h Tr dition

e Briti h tr dition i qu it tive y di tinct fro oth the (ide -typic )French nd Ger n tr dition th t we h ve di cu ed ove. It te por ity (in pite of o e irt tion with French epoch i ) i c o er in ty e nd

en i i ity to the gr du i t c p. Mo t Briti h theorie reject the r dicc i de y the French po t oderni t th t we h ve entered n er o r di-c y heterogeneou fro wh t c e efore th t the ( oderni t) c ic c n-not e u ed conceptu re ource (Gidden 1990). In te d, Briti h theori t

cknow edge th t whi e there i ot th t i new in (po t) odernity, ot of it i o con tituted y inten i c tion nd r dic i tion of trend th t c n

e found in previou hi toric period . i erve hi toric p tforfro which to critici e r dic epoch i t c i (S v ge 2009; Gidden 1991).In ddition, Briti h theori t h ve re cted to the initi incur ion of writingon po t odernity fro Fr nce nd not did H er y tte pting toprovide po itic -pheno eno ogic gene ogy of the po t odern ( nd thure cue wh t i po itic y progre ive within it) y tte pting to oc te thecu tur current identi ed y po t odern theori t within the context of re-cent ch nge in the ocio- tructur org ni tion of the econo y, with L h

nd Urry Te End of Organized Capitalism(1987) erving c nonic odein thi re pect.

i e n th t contr -Lyot rd, po t odernity c nnot e conceptu i ed o e ort of udden condition or even un t e t te of cri i . In f ct, Briti h

theori t reject the French privi eging of epi te o ogic con ider tion over


13/35


tr dition in titution n y i tr tegy with which to theori e the i -ue of po t odernity (Gidden 1990: 13). A Ke ner write , [t]he po t in

po t odern o igni e , however, dependence on nd continuity with th t which it fo ow , e ding o e to conceptu i e the po t odern ere ninten i c tion of the oder, hyper odernity or new f ce of o-dernity (1991: 258). In te d, po t odernity eco e nor i ed the p-propri te cu tur nd tructur condition ch r cteri tic of (hyper) odern

ocietie (B u n 1992). i open up conceptu p ce to ctu y deve op on de ( nd epi te o ogic y oder te)sociology of the postmodernwhichre k with the r dic keptic c i (centered on it o e ion with there kdown of epi te o ogic order ) of the French tr dition reg rding the

vi i ity of thi venture. In deve oping thi ocio ogy of the (po t) odern,the Briti h continue the Briti h tr ditIon of theori ing through the econo y(Pe 2001; Levine 1995). A we wi ee, the centr concept nd et phore p oyed y the Briti h view of the tr jectory of odernity re dr wn rge y fro n econo ic i .

4.1 Re exivity and Choice

e Briti h focu on gr du i nd continuity fr e concept in in ry ter (i.e. tr dition/ odernity or odernity/ econd, te, iquid, or re exive

odernity) to de on tr te the e ergence of o ething new in the di erenceevident etween how ch r cteri tic of ociety u ed to e nd how it i now.For ex p e, ction in tr dition ocietie w rked y e f-evidence ndcert inty; in odern nd, in p rticu r, te odern ocieitie it i rked y re exivity nd choice. A Gidden write : e re exivity of odern oci ifecon i t in the f ct th t oci pr ctice re con t nt y ex ined nd refor edin ight of inco ing infor tion out tho e very pr ctice , thu con titutive y

tering their ch r cter (Gidden 1990: 38). Modern ctor con t nt y onitortheir ction in ter of pro i itie , tern tive nd con equence . Actionc nnot e ju ti ed i p icit y y tr ditionre on h ve to e given in t king

cour e of ction ( nd not to ju tify re king tr dition). Additon y, with the w ning of tr dition co e the con ciou ne of choice.

On the eve of the e f, fund ent co ponent of d y-to-d y ctivity ii p y th t of choice in condition of high odernity, we not on y fo ow ife ty e , ut in n i port nt en e we re forced to do owe h ve no choiceut to choo e (Gidden 1991: 8081). Fro thi per pective, tr dition exi ted


14/35


in y fr ework th t de the choice for u . A the ho d of tr dition we ken in po t-tr dition ocietie , ine of ction which were not previou y con tituted choice co e to e fr ed ( nd experienced) uch. Who to

rry, wh t to we r, wh t to e t, wh t profe ion to t ke up, etc. eco e rou-tine ource of nxiety nd uncert inty for the po t-tr dition u ject. Whi ein tr dition ocietie there exi t et of ( o t y re igiou ) expert nd u-thoritie th t e i in te dou t nd uncert inty in ter of providing exp icitguide ine when it co e to king the e ife deci ion , the po t-tr dition

t ndpoint invo ve re kdown of t e nd unit ry co ective order of ethodic dou ting of know edge nd uthoritie , nd i p ie turn to

the individu r ther th n co ective order nece ri y the on y gency re pon i e for it e f (S ter 2005: 179). With thi co e rejection of tr di-tion nd di erent t nce tow rd the ow of ti e, where y ooking tow rdthe p t i dev ued in f vor of con t nt t nce of nticip tion tow rd never-ch nging future.

A Beck (1992) how , re exivity nd choice re not on y ch r cteri tic of ction y po t-tr dition u ject , it o pp ie to (po t)indu tri ociety

who e. For Beck, re exivity on thi c e ppe r n pect of wh t herefer to the return of uncert inty (1992: 215). Whi e indu tri i tion pro-vided the ode for odern ociet org ni tion, the e ergent ri k ocietyi ch r cteri ed y uncert inty over th t ode in growing recognition of itco ter d ge nd u ti teunsustainability . i provoke gener oof con dence in the future nd re exivity in the en e of ociety udden y

eco ing the e nd pro e for it e f (Beck 1994: 8). Beck give en efor thi in the fo owing p ge:

Perceiving nd under t nding the itu tion nd the deve op ent h eene enti y di torted ec u e the extern nd the intern , the rr nged nd

ctu ro e-p ying,systematically diverge. In ny re , we re ti cting out the p y ccording to the cript of indu tri ociety, though we c n no

onger p y the ro e it pre cri e in the ctu condition under which weife, nd we ct the out for our e ve nd other though we know th t

everything ctu y run quite di erent y (1992: 232233).

Wh t Beck pre ent here i g i p e of (new y re exive) ociety undergo-ing o ething ike rge- c ehysteresis e ect.e indu tri ode h eenrendered o o ete nd d ngerou y it prior en ct ent, yet we f ce the p r -doxic po ition th t, even knowing the d nger, we continue to i p e ent it.Mo t of , we do thi ec u e of the inexor e nd con titutive weight theindu tri ode exerci e on our pre ent ( nd re u t nt tr ined inc p city


15/35


to i gine n tern tive). e gr du i t conception of oci ch nge he p-p ie here i not di i i r to the one evo ution ry theori t e p oy to under-

t nd the extinction of pecie who e p t d pt tion to prior environ ent(i.e. indu tri i tion) work g in t the in urviving pre ent environ entch nge . A B u n o erve , e o t poign nt yet the e t n wer eque tion of our ti e of iquid odernity i not Wh t i to e done? utWho i going to do it? (2000: 133). Con ider, in thi reg rd, Gidden o er-v tion th t the f i y nd the n tion- t te re now he in titution ec u ethey have become inadequate to the t k they re c ed upon to perfor (2003: 37; e ph i dded). Both t te ent pe k of the con equence of te

odern re exivity, uch Beck ugge t of ri k ociety. ey i p y thegr du i t e ergence of re exivity the re u t of n ccu u tion of ch ngecontri uting to growing divergence etween n entity nd it environ ent.

4.2 Modernity propo Economy

In the Briti h view, ri k i concept tight y intertwined with the tr jectory of odernity. But the rgu ent i not th t ife h eco e intrin ic y ny ore

ri ky under odernity th n in tr dition ocietie . e di erence co e eitherin growing consciousness of ri k (Gidden 1990) or oci tructur tion th tincre ing y focu e on the n ge ent of ri k (Beck 1992). ere i nothing

n ogou to the odern en e of ch nce nd pro i ity in tr dition ociet-ie , who e wor dview re in coherent nd e f-evident. In te odernity,ri k rep ce the notion of fortuna,or the predeter ined order e t i hed y tr dition i t co o ogie . erefore with re exivity, ri k ppe r centrc tegory in odern ocietie , or tho e c ught etween the (re exive) hornof n o e ion with know edge ut n ence of e f-con dence (B u n2000).

In re exive ocietie there i trong nity etween ri k nd re pon i i ity(Gidden 1999). Re exivity fo ter the recognition th t e ect c n indeed co e

ck toa ect their c u e , i.e. indu tri i tion produce environ ent degr -d tion th t der i future indu tri i tion. With the otor of ociety perceivedto e the ctor the e ve , re pon i i ity i there y p ced on the ctor to kethe right choice . Ri k enter fro the recognition th t we c n choo e wrong y,th t there i nothing ordered out the future other th n wh t we put therethrough equence of choice . Re exive con ciou ne , de on tr ted y therecognition of the con equence of oth co ective nd individu ction (i.e.


16/35


oking nd c ncer, highw y tr ve nd de d y ccident , indu tri i tionnd environ ent de truction, econo ic rece ion nd jo o e ), pre ent

the pro e of reordering ociety to n ge ri k (Beck 1992). In other word , with re pon i i ity co e future-orient tion, nd ction in the pre ent ire exive y ordered in cogni nce of wh t i ike y to h ppen in the future, thi i reve ed y tr ct y te of know edge.

Gidden (1990: 92) rgue th t the perception of ri k i fue ed y the needfor onto ogic ecurity th t i on y produced through tru t in the continuity of e f-identity nd the con t ncy of our oci nd teri urrounding . ii wh t i at stake in our con ciou ne of ri k, nd to ke choice th t inot ju ti ed dequ te to pre erving onto ogic ecurity i n d i ion of

o , even efore the con equence . Here we ee th t in the centr notion of ri k nd choice the Briti h tr dition dr w on ic idio tr n po ed frothe econo y. e n ge ent of ri k ction ordered in recognition of the

ike ihood of future con equence nd it o t o viou nife t tion in thepro ifer tion ( nd re urrection) of rket in tru ent dedic ted to hedging

g in t ri kfro in ur nce to future contr ct . Futher ore, rket repro y the e t ex p e of co ective ction produced y individu choice.Indeed, rket re often de ned ( nd ch pioned) on the i of the view th t they repre ent orderwithout tructure, or order th t ri e n tur y frothe oper tion of the e ech ni th t Gidden nd Beck identify: ri k,re pon i i ity, future-orient tion nd re exivity.

Me nwhi e, for the notion of re exivityfocu ed it i on the reproductionof the integrity of e f-org ni tion ( ike the e f) through re exive onitor-ingthe econo y i o the o t o viou pp ic tion. Gidden dr w froPopper to re ch the conc u ion th t uncert inty i tied c o e y to re exiv-ity (1990: 39). Popper, in turn, rrived t thi notion y pp ying econo ic

et phor to cience. For in t nce, conc u ion in cience hou d e re chedin the e w y price for in rket: through the exerci e of utudou t. Re exivity i de on tr ted nowhere etter th n in the r t in tinct of dou t nd the u equent need for ju ti c tion. Here too the ppe i fr ed

n tur order oppo ed to r itr ry tructure. A Popper under tood, theecono y reve thi proce o t c e r y, nd o, ike Gidden to n under-

t nding of odernity, he tr n po ed it to o er pre cription for the pr cticeof cience (Bry nt 2002).

Of cour e, it ight e th t the hi toric undercurrent to the tory of teodernity i the literal exp n ion of rket in everyd y ife, nd not nece r-

i y the ccur cy of (origin y) econo ic et phor . Neverthe e in B u n


17/35


(2000) we nd iquidity extended gener i ed et phor, u ed to exp ineverything fro the texture of everyd y ife to the oti ity nd ightne of the econo y. e gener et phor pit he vy ver u iquid odernity,or the di erence etween the t ge of the odern project th t di o ved feud

tructure ut ree edded ociety in r tion tructure , nd the t ge of o-dernity th t in turn lique es tho e r tion tructure ut without u equentree edding. In iquid odernity, the o t de ir e ( nd r tion ) pr ctice

re tho e th t tch the t te of gener iquidity, i.e. tho e without integrity in the en e of o idifying into for th t per i t . In thi t ge, it i the in t nt

nd in t nt n eity th t re the ppropri te for of eng ge ent, ut on y oth t further ove ent i nt hindered y per i tence ( y, depo ited in p ce)th t re u t fro p t eng ge ent which i now forced eyond the o ent.

In thi c e, iquidity refer to rket iquidity, or the i edi te y con-verti e et th t i v ued for the i ity to ow etween ( nd ke) rket .B u n nd the princip contr diction of iquid odernity to e the y wn-ing g p etween the right of e f- ertion nd the c p city to contro the oci

etting which render uch e f- ertion fe i e or unre i tic (2000: 38). Inthi unfore eendependency ie the contr diction of oth iquid per on nd

iquid et . It i the f te of iquid to e oth i teri nd yet teri i -e (in the en e of king rket, king purch e, king deci ion

or king choice) in the e re th. e i teri i there y feti hi ed y i recogni ing it under ying teri o jecti c tion . If the duty of ocio ogy

i to reve tho e dependencie they pert in to per on , thi i not o indif-ferent to the perfor nce of n nci r ting gencie , who e t k i i i r y tode-feti hi e the n nci unit nd oc te it dependencie . Even whi e B u n(2000: 74) d it th t iquid odernity rk the di u ion of hopping the pr xeo orphic under t nding of ction, hi econo ic et phor extend

we - eyond thi ( iter ) o erv tion.

4.3 Moralizing Gradually

A noted ove, wh t we witne ong the Briti h i gr du i t, not ep-och , ode of oci ch nge. i ode evoke evo ution ry io ogy where,

i i r y, the centr pro e tic revo ve round the que tion of survival . ego i ore to exp in pre ence or exi tence of o ething in current forth n it i to oc te the c u e of o e peci c in t nce of ch nge. e odeidenti e ch nge ut, un ike the French, doe not nd it redo ent of re k.


18/35


Further ore, even it focu e on gency ( nd re pon i i ity), the Briti h view of new ( rchitectonic) e ergence fro odernity i p ie n inevit i ity (i.e. Gidden poign nt phr e: odernity i juggern ut). Like the Ger n ,the Briti h re erve critic grounding for odernity, ut un ike the Ger-

n th t critique i directed t wh t new po i i itie ie open for the pre ent(there y d itting odernity inevit ity, or th t odernity i ore th n

t te of ind). But the Briti h re k with the M rxi t concerning how th tcritic c p city i to e re i edcert in y not in con u ting ong- w ited( oderni t) go in the (po t) odern, ike c revo uton or the project of

odernity. R ther, the Briti h or i e the ch nge, dr wing on tendency etched deep y in the hi tory of Briti h oci thought (Ku r 2001: 44).

More th n ny other po itico-geogr phic tr dition, the Briti h tte pt tofurni h not on y n under t nding of the n ture of the ch nge under w y, utpr ctic (not nihi i tic) w y to d pt to tho e ch nge nd o ution for con-tro ing the . ink of Beck co opo it n po ity nd defen e of u po i-tic , B u n or ocio ogy nd focu on oci di gno i (de-feti hi ing),

nd n y Gidden v ried nd extended po itic nd pu ic eng ge ent ure y the token c e. Cert in y thi re ect the Briti h conception of ocio ogy

too of re exivity. It ight o e deriv tive of the econo ic ode ndthe critic c p city exerci ed (fro thi per pective) y infor ing choice .

5 e A eric n Tr dition

To ex ine the hi tory of (po t) oderni in the United St te reve theunique itu tion in which the oderni t e thetic w e t i hed thein titution rt (Huy en 1984). It w upported y the po itic e t -

i h ent nd ch pioned y cu tur con erv tive , nd thu the ntithe ito the v ntg rdi th t c o e y cco p nied oderni di u ion in Eu-rope. In thi en e, the post- odern ove ent w reg rded the A eric nver ion of the v ntg rde when it eg n to t ke h pe in the 1960 . epo t odern ugge ted new direction nd new vi t to young rti t ndcritic f cing oderni re ction ry cu tur po itic (Fo ter 1993: 3), ndthi i preci e y why urre i t ike Duch p nd e r ier continent v nt-g rde ike D d were ch pioned rti tic forerunner to the new ove-

ent, f vored over ore recent innov tion e erging fro the n tive highoderni .


19/35


According y, the A eric n ove ent wou d eco e the r t di tinct y po t odern rti tic ove ent to e erge on either ide of the At ntic. Athe in titution i ed for of rt in A eric w the v ntg rde e ewhere, it

w out ide the dichoto ie of the odern th t the po t odern wou d re i eit rec citr nt i pu e: for in t nce, in the co p e of high nd ow cu turfor , v ntg rde nd kit ch, tr ction v . repre ent tion, pre ent v . p t,etc. (Huy en 1984: 48). Hence, the n tion itu tion in the US e nt th tthe po t odern wou d e erge n e thetic ove ent who e ch r cter in-dic ted th t the ter ino ogy it producedpo t odernwou d ret in the

en e of iconoclasmth t re ected thi initi itu tion, even when it w tr n -po ed to p ce where it w nt i edi te y c e r wh t the po t odern cou d

e iconoc tic g in t. Indeed, J e on write fro per pective th t iy p thetic to the v riou pre onition th t thing re (r dic y) ch nging,ut he neverthe e o er poetic g i p e of wh t n ct of no in tion ike

the e ergence of co pe ing neo ogi ike po t oderni ctu y doe :For the n e it e fpo t oderni h cry t i ed ho t of hitherto

independent deve op ent which, thu n ed, prove to h ve cont ined thething it e f in e ryo nd now tep forw rd rich y to docu ent it u tip egene ogie . It thu turn out th t it i not on y in ove, cr ty i nd ot ny th t the urpre e ct of no in tion wie d teri i p ct nd, ike ighten-ing triking fro the uper tructure ck to the e, fu e it un ike y teriinto g e ing u p or v urf ce. e ppe to experience, otherwi e odou tfu nd untru tworthy now recover cert in uthority wh t, inretro pect, the new n e owed you to think you fe t, ec u e you now h ve

o ething to c it th t other peop e ee to cknow edge y the e ve u ing the word (1991: xiii).

u , whi e trong inte ectu tie h ve hi toric y exi ted etween Brit innd the United St te , nd re in deep in di cip ine ike phi o ophy nd

econo ic , nd whi e French theory exert trong e ect on the hu nitiend Ger n thinking re in found tion to po itic cience nd ocio ogy,

we rgue th t it i not the econo ic, the oci , nor the po itic th t prev iin A eric n di cour e on the po t odern; r ther, it i theaesthetic .

5.1 Looking through an Aesthetic Glass, Sharply

In J e on e in pp ic tion of the ter (1991[1984]), it i the econo y th t i peered t through n e thetic en . Not to y th t the econo y i


20/35


e thetici ed in J e on viewthough the di u ion of cu ture, to theecono y, the t te nd eyond, i cert in y n pect of po t oderni tion

ccording to J e on ut r ther th t trend in the econo y re under toody tr n po ing c tegorie u ed initi y to ch r cteri e trend in the rt . u ,

we nd oci tion dr wn etween the e thetic nd the econo ic in the forof wh t J e on de ign te e thetic y pto th t expre p rticu r t geof c pit i which i now nife ted tho e rti tic o ject who e ch r cter-i tic re ect the re pon i i ity p ced on the to cognitive y p ut tionin oci p ce th t exceed our power of co prehen ion (1991[1984]: 37).

In perh p the o t co pe ing ex p e, J e on (2000[1997]) u e Ar-righi n y i of Te Long wentieth Century (1994) to out ine p r e trend inc pit i t po itic econo y nd the hi tory of e thetic : indu tri -i peri -

n nci i to re i - oderni -po t oderni . Ju t i e i i o t ndthe fr g ent eco e ore expre ive in cu tur o ject , o too h c pit -i re i ed de-territori i tion in oc tion nd proce with the n nciunit now the pri ry engine of pro t. For J e on, the e thetic de ne theter of the hi toric proce , nd tho e ter re u equent y introduced

ong ide the hi tory of c pit i to penetr te the core of i i r trend thereth t otherwi e re in incon picuou .

u , it i the triu ph of the co odity-for in the i peri i t t ge of c pit i th t i under toodas if it were co our nd for [freeing] the -

e ve fro their for er vehic e nd [co ing] to ive independent exi tence e d of perception nd rti tic r w teri (J e on 2000[1997]:

266). We c n under t nd the g o hyper p ce of te c pit ias if it werethe Bon venture Hote nd we were n ive touri t (J e on 1991[1984]: 3845). e di erence etween indu tri nd n nci ode of production c n

e under toodas if it were the di tinction etween v n Gogh nd W rho , oretween the oderni t connot tion of work nd teri tr n for tion nd

the po t oderni t connot tion of p y nd id ene th t rti tic igni er , inthe e two period , tend to u e (J e on 1991[1984]: 10).

Mo t i port nt y, in tr n po ition th t evoke the iconoc tic originof the A eric n po t odern, we f ce the i per tive to grow new org n

nd exp nd our en oriu nd our ody to new yet uni gin e, perh pu ti te y i po i e, di en ion when tte pting to co e to grip withthe con t nt revo ution of g o i ed n nci c pit i . Indeed, it ias if we were confronting the ruptured di en ion of po t odern rchitecture nd thech enge they pre ent to our perceptu h it for ed in th t o der kind of

p ce the p ce of high oderni (J e on 1991[1984]: 3839). In


21/35


of the e c e , the econo ic tenor u e e ning deriv tive of the re -tion pre ent in the e thetic re which re then tr n po ed, vehic e , tofu e thi teri together to de on tr te p r e e ningfu for . u ,for tho e po t odern v t r found in the te c pit i t econo y, it i theiriconoc th t i the o t pp rent. J e on u e the e thetic in preci e y the w y he y it hou d e u ed: to enh nce our under t nding of the tr jec-tory of c pit i .

If J e on re ie on one-to-one re tion hip etween the econo y ndthe e thetic, H rvey (1990) tri ngu te nd introduce third ter into thire tion hip, rguing th t it i our perception of ti e nd p ce peci c y,ti e- p ce co pre ionth t edi te etween po t odern cu ture nd

po t-Fordi t regi e of exi e ccu u tion in c pit i . e cri i of repre ent tion t the found tion of po t odern cu ture i not unprecedentedin the hi tory of rt. Two other period h ve witne ed i i r cri e : r t,

urrounding the revo ution of 1848which g ve ri e to oderni ndecond, t the turn of the 20th centurywhich re u ted in urge in od-

erni ch r cteri ed y n e ph i on u tip e per pective nd e rch fornew yth (H rvey 1990: 2831).

Whi e igni c nt hift in the ccu u tion proce of c pit i re co -on to three period , they o t nd ucce ive w ve of ti e- p ce

co pre ion gener ted y the pre ure of c pit ccu u tion with it per-petu e rch to nnihi te p ce through ti e nd reduce turnover ti e (H r-vey 1990: 306307). In thi en e, the exi e c pit i t econo y nnihi te

p ce through ti e vi the tr ction of oney to ic unit , the exp n ionof co unic tion techno ogy nd the te ring down of rrier th t g ven tion order eg pre ence. Moreover, the production/con u ptionturnover r te i ped up with the pp ic tion of f hion e thetic to oreco oditie . e co odi c tion of ervice exp nd the nu er nd kindof co oditie , nd co puteri ed tr ding nd inve t ent techno ogy reduceturnover ti e nd nnihi te p ti di tinction .

e re u t of the e tr n for tion , on the experienti eve , i the ccentu -tion of vo ti ity, the growing i port nce of i ge nd n incre ed tt ch-

ent to oc p ce th t re u t in oci fr g ent tion (H rvey 1990). We ree to di cern thi ec u e i i r ch r cteri tic punctu te conte por ry rt

o ject . For in t nce, H rvey know th t ti e- p ce co pre ion nd ex-i e ccu u tion re u t in growing re i nce on i ge (p rticu r y for e f-identity) ec u e he c n re d thi in R u chen ergPersimmion,e peci y

when co p red with Rue en Venus at her toilet . He know th t tt ch ent


22/35


to oc p ce (o itting re pon i i ity for urrounding re ) i growing e-c u e the uco ic triu of the IBM ui ding on M di on Avenue o vi i y contr t with the po uted, ui t-up city on the out ide; or with B ti oreH r or P ce: ei ure p ce et in the id t of oderni t tte pt t ur nrenew . Indeed, the power of the e thetic extend even further when H rvey notice th t o t of the po t oderni t e thetic innov tion occurredbefore the tr n for tion of the econo y. Wh t doe thi ugge t? M rx h the

n wer: We erect our tructure in i gin tion efore we erect it in re ity;or, Whi e cri e in the experience of p ce nd ti e, in the n nci y te ,or in the econo y t rge, y for nece ry condition for cu tur ndpo itic ch nge, the u cient condition ie ore deep y e edded in theintern i ed di ectic of thought nd know edge production (H rvey 1990:345). For H rvey, the po t odern e theticanticipates the econo ic, po itic

nd experienti ch nge to co e nd ke it own intervention into thinew rchitectonic e ergence (1990: 15).

u , if J e on tr n po e the e thetic to the econo y as if the econo y were the e thetic, H rvey rgue th t the e theticis the economy , nd theecono y i the perception of ti e nd p ce. ere i no tte pt to under-

t nd the one y under t nding the other three re c o e y i ric ted. By under t nding the e thetic, you c n under t nd the . For oth ccountof the po t odern, the focu re t with the e thetic, nd whi e they re in

keptic of it critic po i i itie , they in i t th t the po t odern i , ikeoderni , ut di erent kind of re i (J e on 1991[1984]: 49; H rvey

1990: 114115). To forget thi i to forget it p ce ent in hi tory, nd oto forget the critic intervention it c n ke y deve oping repre ent tionof pre ent c pit i th t recover the en e of co ective ction th t i o t

when repre ent tion f i nd confu ion per i t out oci tructure. ei port nt point i th t oderni h out ived it po itic uti ity when thekind of c pit i it cou d repre ent h v ni hed. Po t oderni doe , in thi

en e, repre ent the po i i ity of new vi t nd new direction in cu turpo itic it need on y to e educ ted of the t k.

5.2 Diremptions of the Aesthetic-Sacred: Pomo as further Nihilism

It i n tur th t iconoc nd oth upporter nd detr ctor . And if H r-vey nd J e on ppe r critic r tivi t of the po t odern e thetic,it i D nie Be (1996[1976]) who repre ent the con erv tive opponent. Be


23/35


ke c e r e r y on th t if he i con erv tive in nything, it i on y cu turehere in i er in po itic nd oci i t in econo ic (1996[1976]: xi-xii).But hi con erv ti i often found to h ve i p ic tion eyond cu ture Be rgue th t whi e the po t odern i n e thetic pheno enon, it i in-dic tive of hi toric igr tion fro rt to ife. Tus what is methodological in Jameson and Harvey becomes historical in Bell . Po t oderni e erged inthe 1960 kind of f rcic rever ion to the ide of n rrow c dre of

oderni t rti t in the 1920 , on y now tte pting to chieve in ife ty e wh tefore re ined ch r cteri tic on y of rt (1996[1976]: 79). e po t oderne thetic doe not h ve to e tr n po ed y the n y t to under t nd p tternnd trend in other do in ; the e thetic h re dy igr ted there to h pe

the in it own i ge.For Be , po t oderni i iconoc tic ut on y in the en e th t, in e d ftere d, it turn wh t eg n eriou ende vor [into] kit ch (1996[1976]:

300). u , Phi ip John on kit che the oderni t ty e he once ch pionedthrough the Chippend e ty e with which he orn ent the roken pedi entof the AT&T Bui ding. Lyot rd kit che the M rxi of Socialisme ou Barba-risme y denying the pre ence of gr nd-n rr tive nd king the o t criticconte t tho e of ngu ge-g e . In oth in t nce , the eriou ne of theiniti ende vor i ridicu ed when the di erent po t oderni c ric ture th t

eriou ne y d ring their for er oderni t co p triot to t kethis eriou y.But the po t odern ch enge to odern eriou ne i ere y n exten ion

of the de cr i ing tendencie inherent to oderni it e f: po t oderni ithe exh u tion of oderni nd the exh u tion of cu ture (Be 1996[1976]:314). Be i con erv tive in pre- oderni t ort of w y in th t hi fund ent

ode of cu ture re in re igion (1996[1976]: xxix). It i the tr n gre ive-ne of oderni nd c pit i th t Be rgue u ti te y dd up to theconte por ry i p e in which the oderni t cu ture we h ve contr dict with our work d y exi tence of incre ing y r tion i ed ( nd tr n gre ive)c pit i . But thi contr diction doe not e n critic c p city, on y furthernihi i without recour e to the cred eyond the tediu of the unre tr ined

e f. We h ve indeed re ched re king point with po t oderni , whichn ge to prof ne even the ound rie th t g ve oderni odicu of

eriou ne . For Be ( nd the con erv tive wing of the Cu ture W r who e) the po t odern thu rk kind of uperch rged oderni t de -cr i tion in which the peri of oderni eco e on y ore fore oding.


24/35


6 Po t oderni ( ) in A eric

By thi ccount, A eric in ect it know edge of (po t odern) ch ngethrough recour e to the e thetic, who e itu tionin titution i ed odern-i in the 1960 e nt th t the po t odern hou d u equent y connote

kind of iconoc . e que tion th t re in concern on y how to identify wh t th t iconoc cou d e n. A Huy en rgue , po t oderni n

rti tic ove ent eg n in the United St te nd w on y u equent y t kenup e ewhere (1984: 1819). It initi oci tion with the v nt-g rde e nth t it et rge y po itive reception in A eric , preci e y ec u e it indic tedthe kind of new vi t nd new direction th t tho e eeking re i t nce toin titution pire too.

If the po t odern de it e f fe t o t nywhere in A eric it w in thec de y, which in the 1960 w in titution i ed in di cip in ry pr ctice ndtructure, nd confronting enor ou ch nge to the de ogr phic nd po-itic texture of the univer ity it e f. e po t odern thu u ed ign

i port nce for i p ying the ort of iconoc nd v ntg rdi th t thegener tion entering thi ch nging context were ooking for. Indeed, thi wp rticu r y true for tho e entering the hu nitie where the view e ergedth t writer ike B rthe , Fouc u t, Kri tev nd Derrid were re y te

oderni t rti t who h d t ken to phi o ophy r ther th n cu pture or thenove (E g eton 2003: 67). In thi nner, po t oderni ed hu nitiecre ted cu tur tudie in the United St te (Gr ci did e ewhere) in the1970 .

Perh p thi fr ework even exp in the di erenti di u ion of the po t-odern etween A eric n ocio ogy nd nthropo ogy. When po t odern-

i c e ck to the St te tr n ted nd oci i ed in French for , thefor er h d e of n in titution i ed core th n did the tter; thu the condi-tion were ripe for po t odern iconoc to e wide y-received in nthropo -ogy whi e re ining peripher to ocio ogy (DAndr de 2000). Co p re, forin t nce, the di p rity in di cip in ry in uence of uch entrepreneur of thepo t odern the re tive y rgin Steven Seid n in ocio ogy (1991) ndthe wi d y ucce fu M rcu nd C i ord in nthropo ogy (1986). In the ec e , it i the e thetic e ning of the po t odern th t i tr n po ed todi erent phere . e di erenti reception ppe r to re ect the o viou ne( nd qu ity) of it opponent. Whi e the A eric n po t odern i oci ted

rg ey with c non of po t- tructur i t text i ported French theory,their iconoc i ti deriv tive of the orgin A eric n ( e thetic) context,


25/35


if now tr n ted ck in ter th t oci cienti t nd iter ry theori t c nrecogni e.

e A eric n po t odern t ke h pe tr n po e ( nd not inherent y po itic , which di tingui he it fro the Ger n) fr e for oci ove entth t nd opponent u ing ho o ogou po ition wherever it i pp ied. Itco gu te di u e nti-in titution tendencie nd thu we witne the pro-fu ion of po t oderni (Fo ter 1993; Wi terdink 2002; Mirch nd ni 2005).I port nt y, the po t odern i there y conceived kind of introductionof di erence on top of wh t i pre uppo ed to e rge y contiguou or identice piric p ttern. If there i po t odern re k, it icreated nd not inevi-t e. And thu we nd, for di erent re on , tendency to think in te por y continuou ter which p r e the Briti h tr dition. A we wi ee, for the ere on oth tr dition nd it ore propitiou th n either the Ger n or theFrench to tr n fer their concern over po t odernity to g o i tion.

6.1 Enter the Global: wither Postmodernity?

e Soci , the Po itic , e Econo ic nd the Ae thetic; if the e re the fourregi ter within the which the po t odern w ger h een worked out y inte ectu tr t ( nd ccording to o e n y t rought it e f intopre-dict eexh u tion) oc ted in four di tinct ( ut o ctive y inter ctive

nd utu y co ing ing) po itico-geogr phic tr dition of oci theory,it eco e c e r th t the oci theoretic en h hifted tow rd the i ueof g o i tion the e en e re not ndoned. In te d, there i schematic transposition(Bourdieu 1990) of the heuri tic che e oci ted with the e

w y of t ck ing the odern/po t odern tr n ition w y to conceptu-i e the n ture of the g o i tion proce . We rgue th t thi yie d the

four di en ion th t v riou theori t of one tripe or nother h ve tte ptedto r i e the o t fund ent pect of g o i tion conte por ry pheno enon. e re tive di erenti in hege ony of o e di en ion overother in the conte por ry inte ectu cene e erge fro the f ct, th t not

of the e en e re equ y u efu in providing dequ te conceptu i tionof the g o i tion proce .

u , we c n think of g o i tion n i ue h ving to do o t y with thedeve op ent of global community (the oci the ite of g o i tion)

nd the ch enge nd pro pect th t ie therein. In thi re pect, Durkheiree erge neg ected ut incre ing y re ev nt theori t of g o i tion (In-


26/35


g i nd Ro ert on 2008). We c n o think of g o i tion proce th ti pri ri y concerned with the i ue of the ch nging ro e of the t te nd thee ergence po i i ity of for of govern nce th t n y ch enge the We t-ph i n fr ework th t e erged fro the Europe n inter t te y te : thi ii ue of political globalization(the po itic the ite of g o i tion). I -

ue of g o citi en hip, the e ergence of c i - king i ed t g oin titution thu cquire renewed urgency. A tern tive y, we c n conceive of the g o i tion proce pri ri y n econo ic pheone enon, h ving todo in y with the i ue of incre ing y co p ex we of econo ic interde-pendence cro n tion who e order eco e per e e to ow of good ,per on (in the for of nu nd know edge worker ), nd n nci ow

nd tr n ction (S en 1998); thi i the pro e tic of economic globaliza-tion (or the econo y the ite of g o i tion). Fin y, we c n think of g o i tion h ving in y to do with the incre ing ow of i ge ndcu tur good , nd the e ergence of cu tur indu trie of g o c e ( r tHo ywood, nd now Bo ywood, Hong Kong ction nd Nigeri nFi ong with Mexic n, Br i i n nd Vene ue n Te enove ). But noton y cu ture eco e g o , ut o tho e y o ic good th t re-ceive in titution recognition con ecr ted rt cquire g o c e (Cr ne2002). i i che e which conceive of cultural globalization the inpro e tic nd which thu eethe aesthetic (which in typic po t odernf hion now enco p e oth rt nd cu ture) the ite of the g o(H nner 1996; App dur i 1990).

We thu join tho e who e ieve th t it no onger ke en e to di tingui hetween po t oderni nd g o i tion separate dyn ic or do in

in oci theory; the now do in nt ode th t h ve eco e in titution i ednd re routine y u ed y oci cienti t in order to conceive of tho e trend

previou y c i ed under po t oderni do o y w y of conceptu i ing g o i tion the in titution e odi ent of the cu tur current th t were

r t i o ted under the nner of po t odernity. But cur ory in pectionof the g o i tion iter ture reve ( iter ture do in ted y concern withcu ture nd econo y), thi repre ent igni c nt ut e do noticedinte ectu hift in recent oci theory: the triu ph of oth the Briti h nd

A eric n po itico-geogr phic ode w y of pping the current pro -e tic one re ted to g o i tion, over the o der French (B udri ridi nnd Lyot rdi n) nd Ger n (H er i n) conceptu i tion (with wh t-

ever th t i v ge e in the e ccount h ving een incorpor ted into thenow triu ph nt econo ic nd e thetic conceptu i tion ) th t w the


27/35


hift oci ted either with phi o ophy or ro d conceptu y te or tter for po itic theory.

We e ieve thi exp in the re tive p ucity of contri ution co ing froFr nce nd feeding into the current g o i tion de te. We o dduce th tthi i the re on why g o i tion i pri ri y conceptu i ed neconomic

ndcultural (re d e thetic) pheno enon ( nd in o t tre t ent the cu turi een inherent y tied to the econo ic). i o ccount for why theorieof po itic g o i tion nd theorie of ociet g o i tion h ve either yeto e fu y deve oped or g ehind in gener ppe (un e po itic g o ition eco e n i ue tied to po itic of c pit i of cour e). Nothing exe -p i e thi dyn ic etter th n the French inte ectu re pon e to the i ue of g o i tion, which i not e for eing o p rochi (Fr nco-centric nxiety vi - -vi A eric n hege ony) nd o re tive y fee e t conceptu eve (e.g.g o i tion mondialisation) e peci y if we contr t it with the ter - etting e r y contri ution of the French theori t of po t odernity. In our view, thii tied to the f ct th t the French ode choice of the oci the ite of the o t re ev nt under ing proce e , e h very we with tho e fe ture of the g o i tion pro e tic th t ppe r o t re ev nt for the conte por ry

itu tion. u , whi e it i po i e to e i y r tt e-o the (now in titution -i ed in oci theory text ook ) French theori t of po t odernity the c t-egory of (in uenti or even innov tive) French theori t of g o i tionre in rge y e pty. e e c n e id in reg rd to the (r ther nguid)Ger n re pon e, which ppe r to e (predict y) concerned o t y with the political consequences of g o i tion (i ue of co opo it ni nd g ociti en hip).

In te d, g o i tiontheory h eco e the province of the Briti h nd A eric n thinker of r dic or teodernity, M rxi n n y t of the dy-n ic nd vici itude of u tin tion c pit i t cu ture we nthro-po ogic , intern tion re tion nd cu tur theori t who were never re y en ored of the Eurocentri ( nd n ve -g ing qu ity) of the po t odern-i t requie for We tern ode of knowing in the r t p ce (e.g. H nner1996; Ro ert on 2001; Fried n 1994). In ddition to thi ore nu nced

nthropo ogic en i i ity, the in ocio ogic the e of the ore recentine of Briti h theory on iquid or r dic odernity (focu ed on the ocind in titution con equence of the tr n ition to co p ete rket edi -

tion in the context of the dec ine of tr dition ooring ) h ve proven to ee i y (perh p too uch o) tr n fer e (without uch odi c tion) to thepro e tic of the encounter of tr dition ocietie out ide of the Europe n


28/35


We t with We tern cu tur for nd nor they tte pt to integr tethe e ve into neo- i er rket regi e . u , whi e the the e of g o -i tion de ing with how the cu ture of the wor d co e to e thre tened

y We tern product nd in uence i of e enti y nthropo ogic origin, thedr of detr dition i tion, choice nd re exivity ut thi ti e rep yedout ide of We tern p ce con i t of n incorpor tion of c ic ocio ogi-c the e . In ddition, the political theori tion of g o i tion ring ck

ho t of i ue (c pit i , co odi c tion, c con ciou ne , p ce ndterritori ity, ethnic identity, nd re igion) which were thought to h ve een

wept into the du t in of hi tory or eco e p rt of the i u ted hyppere -ity of the G o North (Ro ert on 1992).

e hift tow rd the pro e tic opened up y the g o h o roughtinto que tion key tenet of the French w ve of po t oderni t theory: the

eged ck of re ev nce of the oderni t c ic of oci theory. In te d, g o i tion h co e to rep ce po t oderni the in pro e -

tic the c ic in p rticu r M rx, We er, Durkhei nd Si e h veco e ck with venge nce (e.g. Ber n 2002[1988]; Ro ert on 1992, 2001;H nn er 1996; Ing i nd Ro ert on 2008; Fri y nd Fe ther tone 1997; Po t-one 1998). ere i i p e re on for thi : the pro e tic opened up y thec ic continue to e re ev nt ( nd cquire renewed re ev nce), not on y e-c u e the in pro e nd i ue confronting ocietie of the G o Northc n ti e u efu y viewed u ing tr dition po t oderni t en e , ut o

ec u e the oderni ( nd d re we y oderni tion) dr continue toe rep yed (in hi toric y nd contextu y peci c v ri nt ) cro the G o

Ecu ene with triking regu rity (H nner 1996; Ro ert on 1992). u , theM rxi n concern with the co odi c tion of or, the We eri n concern with the po itic e of power, uthority nd the incre ing y tenou ho d onthe onopo y of vio ence exerci ed y the t te, nd the Durkhe i n i ueof the i of o id rity within di erence cquire renewed urgency within g o inter ction c e. It i thu the po t odern theori t of nihi i , in-co e ur i ity nd i u tion th t ee decre ing y re ev nt fro pr cti-c nd theoretic t ndpoint under the g o condition.

In thi re pect, return of (very tr dition ) M rxi t po itic centered on cnd production i di tinctive of thi new w ve of g o i tion theory (S en

1998; J e on 2000). e Force of L or (Si ver 2003) re in ive nd we ( nd re po i y re urgent) in g o i ing wor d. Fro thi per pectivepo t oderni t theori t were educed into re ding inexor e trend (e.g.the deco po ition of c n y i nd c trugg e) into wh t were i p y


29/35


trough when viewed fro onger ti e- c e or when tr n po ed into oregeogr phic y exp n ive context . u , g o i tion t ke over the very

e e piric nd po itic turf previou y occupied y po t oderni , nihi -i nd re tivi t icro-po itic of inco en ur e ngu ge g e t ke

ck e t. A concern with g o i tion gr du y cquire the pre tige nd dr w

the ttention previou y onopo i ed y the now ( pp rent y exh u ted)Nit che n-Sch itti n turn tow rd (the w y contr dictory notion of) po t odern po itic . A recent u ry con ider tion of the g o i tionpro e tic how (e.g. To in on 1999; Ro ert on 1992, 2001; Rit er 2003),the ic inte ectu referent of the g o i tion de teg o i tion conceived pri ri y cu tur (re d e thetic) or econo ic pheno enonor ore ccur te y, hy rid econo icand cu tur pheno enon (J e on1998; Ro ert on 2001)f vor the conceptu coordin te th t h ve een de-ve oped in Eng nd nd the United St te within the context of the po t-

oderni de te in the t three dec de .i e nt th t inte ectu producer within the Ang o xon oci theory

production e d where tr tegic y p ced nd their Ger n nd Frenchrethren di dv nt geou y po itionedwhen the wind of ch nged dropped

g o i tion on their p . i owed Ang o xon theori t of the e thetic -econo y nexu to e i y reconvert the theoretic c pit th t h d een previ-ou y honed in the tt e to under t nd po t oderni into ophi tic ted en-trie into the g o i tion pro e tic. Given th t Ang o xon oci theory h een ch r cteri ed know edge production y te rked y the chronici port tion nd do e tic tion of French nd Ger n ide ( t e t ince

tructur i nd po t- tructur i wept the c de y during the 1960 nd1970 ), thi triu ph of the Briti h nd A eric n re pon e nd reworking of po t odern oci theory over their e r y inte ectu predece or ( nd the ck of continent re pon e t the e eve of ophi tic tion nd itiou ) y

rk igni c nt ( ut e do cknow edged) tr n for tion in the re tivet nding of the v riou po itico-geogr phic y itu ted know edge-productione d . When it co e to the vexing i ue of epi te o ogy nd te por ity (or

periodi tion) th t in ugur ted the po t odern pro e tic, it h thu e-co e incre ing y c e r th t the origin te por ode th t expre ed thedivide etween odernity nd po t odernity r dic re kf vored inthe initi French incur ionwere re i nt on p ti conceptu i tion of the G o North o ehow r dic y di tinct fro the g o South the


30/35


origin conceptu i tion of odernity r dic re k fro the tr di-tion Europe n (or ediev ) p t were exce ive y re i nt on know edge-geogr phic p rtition th t ep r ted Europe fro co oni nd non-We tern

p ce . In order to conceptu i e the odern ( nd the po t odern) con ciou -ne , the p ti heterogeneity th t ep r ted Europe fro the re t ( nd withinEurope: the etropo i fro the rur hinter nd) w tr n po ed forof te por con ciou ne pp ied to conceive of odernity ignifying nepoch oth di tinctive fro wh t c e efore nd erving the pre ude to future hi tory.

i ugge t th t the g o i tion pro e tic w never re y ep r tefro the po t odern pro e tic ince po t oderni n epoch hift(in the te por order) i grounded in the p ti heterogeneity produced

y uneven deve op ent for it conceptu i tion (H rvey 1990). A e f-con ciou concern with theori ing the origin nd i p ct of g o i tion hdeve oped in oci theory, there h thu deve oped he thy keptici of the(hi toric nd cu tur ) exception i of the po t odern condition. G o-

i tion theori t for in t nce, c i th t Po t oderni ( nd po t od-erni t w y of thinking) c n now e found in cu ture out ide of the We t,

nd in hi toric period out ide of odernity. Fro the g o i t per pectivepo t oderni t re tivity itself becomes relativized ju t nother extre e po -

i i ity within the heterogeneou identity p ce opened up y g o c pit i(Fried n 1994). Further ore, the pro e tic of po t odernity i reve ed

never re y ep r te fro th t o der pro e tic of oderni tion; thereh d to e n fter to odernity e peci y in the w ke of the c tching up tothe We t th t w evident in the o-c ed deve oping wor d during the po t-

w r period (Ro ert on 1992).t the i ue of po t odernity w never re y ep r e fro the i ue

of g o i tion, nd the ttend nt u jective nd cu tur con equence th tgo with the co pre ion nd ti e- p ce di t nti tion experienced in g o i ing ecune e, i e t exe p i ed y con idering the tructure of thede te urrounding one of the o t g v ni ing i ue of the po t odernity pro e tic: Lyot rd (1984) c i th t the ign (de nition ) ch r cteri ticof po t odernity w the end of (p u i i ity of nd n ive f ith in) gr ndn rrr tive . A Ro ert on (1992: 179) h rgued, thi v cuou epi te o ogi-c c i (in it unqu i ed for ), c n e given o e u t nce y ooking

t the co pre ion of p ce th t re u t fro g o i tion exerting n in-herent relativizing e ect . In Peter Berger (1968) ter , g o i tion e d tothe under ining of the p u i i ity tructure th t protect ethnocentric or


31/35


onocu tur gr nd n rr tive through the i p e ech ni of expo ureto other (equ y de erving of the tit e of gr nd) n rr tive : [i]f one of the

jor fe ture of g o i tion i the co pre ion of the wor d, one of it incon equence i n ex cer tion of co i ion etween civi i tion , ociety ndco un n rr tive (Ro ert on 1992: 149).

It i in thi re pect i port nt to rec th t one of B udri rd (1983) key o jection to the productivi t p r dig repre ented y M rxi t theory nd

i er econo ic ike w preci e y it ethnocentric ( nd Eurocentric) uni-ver i tion of o ething th t cou d e t e under tood peci c y We t-ern phi o ophic nthropo ogy ( point th t h een recent y deve oped ndechoed y the nthropo ogi t M r h S h in ). u , it i c e r th t key co ponent of the po t odern con ciou ne re ide in the (initi y hock-ing) confront tion of rge- c e We tern cu tur order with tern tive w yof conceiving of the n ture of n nd ociety ( predict e outco e of theg o i tion proce ); whether thi encounter i hi toric or nthropo ogic i e i port nt. We h ten to dd however, th t the pp rent rep ce entof po t oderni y g o i tion, nd the ttend nt ri e in hege ony of An-g o xon conceptu i tion over continent one , ign not dec ine in theconte por ry re ev nce or i port nce of the et of i ue initi y opened up

y po t oderni t oci theory (the e re in ive nd we , nd ti f r froeing ti f ctori y re o ved), ut in te dthe decline in hegemony of one par-

ticular (and once dominant) mode of conceiving the process of postmodernization.e origin French ode , which popu ri ed the initi ( nd now t ken-

for-gr nted) ter ino ogy, ti e con ciou ne , phi o ophic cuity nd peri-odi ing ition of the odernity-po t odernity de te in the oci cienc-e ( ut o et peci c w y of conceiving of the cro-te por ity of po t-

odernity r dic , di continuou tr n for tion), h een ch enged onv riou front y erie tern tive conceptu i tion ore r y rooted inc ic nd po tc ic oci theory, e peci y tho e origin ting fro t

ore in titution y ro u t wing of po t-We eri n nd po t-M rxi n theory.e Ang o-A eric n ode e enti y do e tic te the unwie dy po t od-

erni produced within the French tr dition nd p ve the w y for n incorpo-r tion of o t of the key concern of the e theori t through the conduit of theg o i tion de te. An in titution concern with the oci f ct of g o i -tion ch enge tr dition po t odern theory y re oving the p ti e of the contr t th t undergirded the odernity/tr dition in ry. Ho ogeneity

t the p ti eve produce n in i ity to conceive of conte por neity r dic re k fro the p t, which exp in why there i reticence to conceive


32/35


of the po t odern ignifying r dic re k fro the odern the tter w conceived fro tr dition in c ic theory, nd why M rxi n n y iof po t odernity the cu tur ogic of (g o ) c pit i c n ero-in on the

ck of n exp icit te por con ciou ne ( nd in f ct ce e r tion of p tichend no t gi [J e on 1991[1984]) in the po t odern en i i ity.

Reference

Antonio, Ro ert. 2000. After Po t oderni : Re ction ry Tri i . American Jour-nal of Sociology 106: 4087

Avineri, Sch o o. 1972.Hegels Teory of the Modern State . C ridge: C ridgeUniver ity Pre .

B udri rd, Je n. 2001. e Spirit of Terrori .elos 134142.B udri rd, Je n. 1983. In the Sh dow of the Si ent M joritie . New York: Se iotext(e).B u n, Zyg unt. 1988. I ere Po t odern Socio ogy?Teory, Culture and

Society 5: 217237.B u n, Zyg unt. 1992.Intimations of Postmodernity . London: Rout edge.B u n, Zyg unt. 2000. Liquid Modernity . C ridge: Po ity Pre .

Ber n, M r h . 2002[1988]. A t I So id Me t into Air: M rx, Moderni ndModerni tion. Pp. 91152 in Adventures in Marxism. New York: Ver o.Beck, U rich. 1992.Risk Society: owards a New Modernity . London: S ge.Beck, U rich. 1994. e Reinvention of Po itic : Tow rd eory of Re exive Mod-

erni tion inRe exive Modernization: Politics, radition and Aesthetics in the Mod-ern Social Order . St nford, CA: St nford Univer ity Pre .

Beck, U rich. 2000. e Co opo it n Per pective: Socio ogy of the Second Age of Modernity. British Journal of Sociology 51: 79105

Be , D nie . 1996[1976].Te Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: B icBook .

Berger, Peter. 1968.B och, M urice. 1986. Fro Cognition to Ideo ogy. Pp. 2148 inPower and Knowledge:

Anthroplogical and Sociological Perspectives.Edin urgh: Scotti h Ac de ic Pre .Bourdieu, Pierre.Logic of Practice . St nford, CA: St nford Univer ity Pre .Bry nt, Chri topher. 2002. George Soror eory of Re exivity: A Co p ri on with

the eorie of Gidden nd Beck nd Con ider tion of it Pr ctic V ue.Economy and Society 31: 112131.

C i ord, J e nd George M rcu (ed .). 1986.Writing Culture: Te Poetics and Politics of Ethnography . Berke ey: Univer ity of C iforni Pre .

Co in , R nd . 1998.Te Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Teory of Intellectual Change . C ridge, MA: H rv rd Univer ity Pre .Cr ne, Di n . 2002.Global Culture: Media, Arts, Policy and Globalization. London:

Rout edge.


33/35


DAndr de, Roy. 2000. e S d Story of Anthropo ogy, 19501999.Cross-Cultural Research34: 219232.

D h , Gor n. 1996. Wi e Other God F i Ag in? On the Po i e Return of theCon erv tive Revo ution.Teory, Culture and Society 13: 2550.

Durkhei , E i e. 1969[1898]. Individu i nd the Inte ectu .Political Studies 17:1930.

Durkhei , E i e. 1982.Te Rules of the Sociological Method . New York: e Free PreE g eton, Terry. 2003. After eory. New York: B ic Book .Fo ter, H . 1993. Po t oderni in P r x.October 63: 320.Fouc u t, Miche . 1984. Niet che, Gene ogy, Hi tory. Pp. 76101 inTe Foucault

Reader , edited y P u R inow. London: Penguin Book .Fouc u t, Miche . 1991. Gover ent ity. Pp. 87105 inTe Foucault E ect: Studies

in Governmentality , edited y Gr h Burche , Co in Gordon nd Peter Mi er.

Chic go: Univer ity of Chic go Pre .Fouc u t, Miche . 1994[1970].Te Order of Tings: An Archaeology of the Human Sci-

ences . New York: Vint ge.Fr er, N ncy. 1997. Tr n n tion i ing the Pu ic Sphere: On the Legiti cy nd Ef-

c cy of Pu ic Opinion in Po t-We tph i n Wor d.Teory, Culture and Society 24: 730.

Fri y, D vid P trick nd Mike Fe ther tone (Ed .) 1998.Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings . London: S ge Pu ic tion .

Fried n 1994.Cultural Identity and Global Process . London: S ge.Gidden , Anthony. 1999. Ri k nd Re pon i i ity. e Modern Law Review 62: 110.Gidden , Anthony. 1990.Te Consequences of Modernity . St nford, CA: St nford Uni-

ver ity Pre .Gidden , Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern

Age . St nford, CA: St nford Univer ity Pre .Gidden , Anthony. 2003. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our

Lives. Rout edge: New York.H er , Jurgen. Georg Si e on Phi o ophy nd Cu ture.Critical Inquiry 22:

403414.H er , Jurgen. 1987.Te Philosphical Discourse of Modernity . C ridge: MIT

Pre .H er , Jurgen. 1981. Modernity v . Po t odernityNew German Critique 22:

314.H rvey, D vid. 1990.Te Condition of Postmodernity . London: B ckwe .Huy en, Andre . 1984. M pping the Po t odern.New German Critique , No. 33:

552.Ing i , D vid nd Ro nd Ro ert on. 2008. e E e ent ry For of G o ity:

Durkhei nd the E ergence nd N ture of G o Life. Journal of Classical Sociology 8: 525

J e on, Fredric. 1981.Te Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act . Ith c : Corne Univer ity Pre .

J e on, Fredric. 1991[1984]. Po t oderni ; or, the Cu tur Logic of L te C pit -


34/35


i Pp. 155 inPostmodernism; or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durh ,NC: Duke Univer ity Pre .

J e on, Fredric. 1999. e eoretic He it tion: Benj in Socio ogic Predece -or.Critical Inquiry 25: 267288.

J e on, Fredric. 2000[1997]. Cu ture nd Fin nce C pit Pp. 255275 inTe James-on Reader . Edited y Mich e H rdt nd K thi Week . Oxford: B ckwe .

J e on, Fredric. 2000. G o i tion nd Str tegy.New Left Review Ju y/Au-gu t:4968.

Ke ner, Doug . 1991. e Po t odern Turn. Pp. 255286 in G. Rit er (Ed.)Fron-tiers of Social Teory: Te New Syntheses . New York: Co u i Univer ity Pre .

Ku r, Kri h n. 2001. Socio ogy nd the Eng i hne of Eng i h Soci eory.So-ciological Teory 19: 4164.

Levine, Don d. 1995.Visions of the Sociological radition

. Chic go: Univer ity of Chi-c go Pre .

M e o i, Miche . 1996.Te ime of the ribes.New ury P rk: S ge.Meyer, John, John Bo i, George o , nd Fr nci co R ire . 1997. Wor d Society

nd N tion-St te. American Journal of Sociology 103: 144181.Mirch nd ni, Rekh . 2005. Po t oderni nd Socio ogy: Fro the Epi te o ogic

to the E piric .Sociological Teory 23: 86115.Pe , Dick. 2001. ree Sp ce of Soci eory: Tow rd Po itic Geogr phy of

Know edge.Canadian Journal of Sociology 26: 3156.Po tone, Moi he. 1998. Rethinking M rx (in po t-M rxi t Wor d). Pp. 4580 in

Ch r e C ic (Ed.)Reclaiming the Sociological Classics . M den: B ckwe .Ri ey, A ex nder T. 2005. Reneg de Durkhei i ni nd the Tr n gre ive Left S -

cred. Pp. 274 301 inTe Cambridge Companion to Durkheim, edited y Je rey C. A ex nder nd Phi ip S ith. C ridge: C ridge Univer ity Pre .

Rit er, George. 2003. Rethinking G o i tion: G oc i tion/Gro i tion ndSo ething/Nothing. Sociological Teory 21:193209.

Ro ert on, Ro nd. 1992.Globalization: Social Teory and Global Culture . London:S ge.

Ro ert on, Ro nd. 2001. G o i tion eory 2000+: M jor Pro e tic . Pp.458471 inHandbook of Social Teory., edited y G. Rit er nd B. S rt. London:S ge.

Rorty, Rich rd. 1984. H er nd Lyot rd on Po t-Modernity.Praxis Interna-tional 1: 3244.

Ro e, Niko . 1990.Governing the Soul: Te Shaping of the Private Self . London: Rout-edge.

S v ge, Mike. 2009. Ag in t Epoch i : An An y i of the Conception of Ch ngein Briti h Socio ogy.Cultural Sociology 3: 217238.

S en, S ki . 1998.Globalization and its Discontents.New York: e New Pre .Sch u , W rren. 1996. Levy-Bruh , Durkhei , nd the Po itivi t Root of the Soci-

o ogy of Know edge. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 32:424440.Sch itt, C r . 1985. Po itic eo ogy. C ridge: MIT Pre .Seid n, Steven. 1991. e End of Socio ogic eory: e Po t odern Hope.


35/35


Sociological Teory 9: 131146.Si ver, Bever y. 2003.Forces of Labor: Workers Movements and Globalization since 1870.

New York: C ridge Univer ity Pre .

Si e , Georg. 1997 . e Metropo i nd the Ment Life. Pp. 174187 inSimmel on Culture , edited y D vid Fri y nd Mike Fe ther tone. London: S ge.

Si e , Georg. 1997 . e Concept nd Tr gedy of Cu ture. Pp. 5575 inSimmel onCulture , edited y D vid Fri y nd Mike Fe ther tone. London: S ge.

Str u , C udi nd N o i Quinn. 1997. A Cognitive Teory of Cultural Meaning .C ridge: C ridge Univer ity Pre .

To in on, M rk. 1999.Globalization and Culture . Chic go: Univer ity of Chic goPre .

W cqu nt, Loic. 1985. Heuri tic Mode in M rxi n eory.Social Forces 64: 1745. We er, M x. 1946. Science Voc tion. Pp. 129159 inFrom Max Weber: Essays in

Sociology , edited y H n Gerth nd C. Wright Mi . New York: Oxford Univer ity Pre .

Wi terdink, Nico. 2002. e Sociogene i of Po t oderni . Europe n Journ of Socio ogy 43: 190

Ps Pomo Glob

Documents

Transcript of Ps Pomo Glob