Modernity as a discourse: from history to Philosophy
(Part-II)
Evolution of Modernity and post-Modernity
Călinescu, M., & Călinescu, M. (1987). Five faces of modernity: Modernism, avant-garde, decadence, kitsch, postmodernism. Durham: Duke University Press
Comparing Moderns to ancients
In the historical discourse, the concept of ancient refers to the writings of Pagans and Christians. Basically, it was the fault lines, which gave moderns the feelings that they were entitled to transfer their scientific superiority over antiquity into the artistic one. In this regard, the moderns have subjected antiquity and its followers to the variety of criticism which can be divided into the following three categories:
1. The argument of Reason
The French neo-classicism was certainly subservient to antiquity. Basically, the classical rules have been developed throughout the seventeenth century as an attempt to rationalize the indiscriminate renaissance. In addition, it was the formulation of the rules of beauty, which was the expression of the triumph of rationality over authority in Poetics. Likewise, it is the reason, which accuse the existing traditions and it is knowledge that cannot flourish without reason.
2. The argument of taste
In the seventeenth century, the whole western civilization refined itself from the strings of Medieval Ages. Basically, it was the culture and more, which has achieved the area of great civility. According to ancient writer Perrault’s Kings and great heroes had never used any brutal language in offense. In this regard, the neo-classicism developed by the moderns was more awkward and old because the ancients were more expert in using the method of aesthetics, which was flexible and comprehensible. In neo-classicism, there is orthodoxy because the facts are more radically converted—similarly, the arguments brought forth by Perrault to demonstrate the superiority of modern over the ancient is purely neo-classical. However, there were no practical connotations to declare the moderns as superior over the ancients. In addition, there has been this kind of relegation throughout the intellectual history.
On the other hand, throughout the course of 17th and 18th century, the most single-minded progressive doctrinaires had no doubts about the absolute validity of their values system and value judgment. According to the progressives, the advancement of learning, the development of civilization and the enlightening influence of reason had contributed to a better, more effective understanding of those perennial and universal values, which were no less real in older times but only less clearly discerned. Perhaps, in this way the moderns have shown their superiority over the ancients.
3. The Religious Argument
The whole idea of modernity is also related to theology because the whole concept of theology revolves around the principle authority. Although, the religious minded classicists of the seventeenth and eighteenth century were against the modernism or enlightenment but the fact cannot be denied that they were resourceful too. In addition, the ‘Romanticism’ movement boomed after the evolution of concept of being ‘modern’ and perhaps, this movement was the result of the connection between the Christianity and Modernity.
Evolution: from Gothic to Romantic to Modern
Since the eighteenth century the fierce debate between the ancients and moderns has generated countless broadly historical and eventually typological anti-theses e.g. classic/modern, classic/Gothic, and classic/romantic etc.—genius of antiquity/genius of modernity. Basically, the romantics were obsessed with the aesthetic approach in which they accept beauty as a pure historical category. Moreover, the one who approaches Gothic with classical criteria will be unable to disorder in it anything except irregularity and ugliness. Later in the nineteenth century, the word ‘romanticism’ became a synonym for ‘modern’ in broad acception, designated all the aesthetically relevant aspects of the Christian civilization, seen as a distinct period in the world history. In addition, Romanticism was expressed as the genius of Christianity—during this period, it was narrow-minded neo-classical prejudice, which stood against romanticism. Basically, romanticism was not about the specific style rather it was all about the contemporary life. According to Stendhal:
“Romanticism is the art of presenting to people, the literary works which in view of the present day state of their customs and beliefs, affords them the utmost possible pleasure”.
It was Carl Von Goethe, who made first distinction between taste and fashion—taste is the ability of pleasing today—taste is a fashion.
The Paradox of Aesthetic Modernity
According to Stendhal; ‘Romanticism is the recent and contemporary expression of beauty’. Likewise, according to Baudelaire ‘Romanticism is a modern art and it is very different from the past’. Baudelaire also remarked that there is an obvious contradiction between romanticism and its principle adherents. In this regard, for Baudelaire, modernity is nothing but the present in its presentness.
On the other hand, the whole discourse of Romanticism and modernity was taken into account in the literary history. According to Paul de Man ‘history is a generative process… as temporary hierarchy that resembles the parental structure in which the past is like ancestor, begetting in a moment of undedicated presence, a future capable of repeating in its own turn the same generative process’.
The religious dichotomies
God/Satan, Heaven/hell, Soul/body, Supernatural virtue and natural sinfulness, eternity/time—the whole context of human existence is based on these contradictory dichotomies—between God and Satan. According to Milton ‘the most perfect type of masculine beauty is Satan’. Likewise, according to Baudelaire ‘the aesthetics of modernity is the aesthetics of imagination’. The aristocratic creed in time of egalitarianism, his exaltation of individualism and his religion of art extended to a cult of the artificiality, which has developed a bitter hostility towards prevailing middle class civilizations, in which the only unchallenged standards are utilitarianism and mercantilism. Baudelaire criticize the notion that America is the reminiscent of the de Tocquevill’s analysis of American democracy’—with regards to the idea of the dictatorship of majority and its effects on the development of Arts. Therefore, according to Baudelaire view ‘America as a paradigm of bourgeoisie modernity’. In the latter context, America is nothing but the triumph of that which is both most natural and worst in man (self-interest, aggressiveness, hard instinct). In contrast, the democracy in America not only rely on the notion of rule of the majority rather the on the rule of minority.
Modernity, the death of God and the ‘utopia’
It was modernity that is most farthest from religion but it does not makes the modern man and free thinkers as unbelievers? Because the association between modern and secular view of the world has become automatic—now is there any relationship between modernity and religion?. In the first phase, there was no separation between modernus (Coined after hodernus) and religion, if we put this in a historical perspective. But in the second phase, starting with renaissance and extending through the enlightenment, is characterized by separation between Christianity (religion) and modernity.
The whole discourse of secularism and enlightenment modernity was associated with the philosophy of reason and progress. Likewise, the whole medieval civilization was revived through the Gothic traditions and with dry intellectualism of aesthetics and neo-classicism. The philosophy of beauty (aesthetics) is now replaced by a fatalistic historicism, which stresses the total idea of total discontinuity between the cultural cycles. During the 17th and 18th century, the whole notion of modernity derived from the dying notion of Christianity. According to Octavio Paz, in his recent book on modern poetry entitled ‘Children of mine’—in which he exclusively claims that the whole idea of modernity is a western concept and therefore, it cannot be dissociated from Christianity because it could appear only in this conception of irreversible time; and it could only appear as a criticism of Christian eternity.
On the other hand, the third phase is associated with the notion of ‘God is dead or how could a God die, who never existed’—thus, the death of God is a romantic theme and it is not philosophical but religious as far as religion is concerned. Thus, finally this gave birth to the fourth phase, which re-affirms the death of God—In this phase, the separation between modernity and Christianity becomes clear—in this regard, it gives birth to the new quest for religion.
