History, beyond modernity,
nation-states and civilizations
History is described by Dirks as a conscious sign of evolution and a sign of modernity which is directly related to the political organization of the nation-state.
Interestingly enough, Dirks also points out to the strong existent relationship between modernity and colonialism and how both have shaped our concepts of culture and history. This shaping is extensive to the point that even Nationalism (among other discourses) despite their attempts to challenge colonial rule, it is based and often accepts the premises of “modernity” on which colonialism is based.
This relationship between history, modernity, and politics, becomes clear in several of the other readings for this week, particularly in Foucault’s, Huntington’s and Said’s.
Foucault’s critique of philosophy and critical thought relates to our rationale, its limitations, dangers and historical effects. Furthermore, Foucault’s main motivation is the respect of differences. These differences are based in historical/social influences that despite its critique of modernity, still takes into account the foundation of modernity as base for their critique, hence fulfilling Dirk’s premise of how even critical discourses of modernity still have colonialist foundations.
History is described by Dirks as a conscious sign of evolution and a sign of modernity which is directly related to the political organization of the nation-state.
Interestingly enough, Dirks also points out to the strong existent relationship between modernity and colonialism and how both have shaped our concepts of culture and history. This shaping is extensive to the point that even Nationalism (among other discourses) despite their attempts to challenge colonial rule, it is based and often accepts the premises of “modernity” on which colonialism is based.
This relationship between history, modernity, and politics, becomes clear in several of the other readings for this week, particularly in Foucault’s, Huntington’s and Said’s.
Foucault’s critique of philosophy and critical thought relates to our rationale, its limitations, dangers and historical effects. Furthermore, Foucault’s main motivation is the respect of differences. These differences are based in historical/social influences that despite its critique of modernity, still takes into account the foundation of modernity as base for their critique, hence fulfilling Dirk’s premise of how even critical discourses of modernity still have colonialist foundations.
Stepping away from this theoretical
framework and witnessing and example of how these concepts and interactions would
tie in practice, we have both Huntington’s Clash of civilizations and Said’s
response to it.
Huntington’s piece argues for the clash of civilizations to be the next rising order to determine politics and thus, world history. Civilizations for Huntington might include several nation states that would follow the modernity/colonialist standards as they are based solely on how they differ from what Huntington labels as “Western civilization”. In these regards, Huntington, also seems to consider Islam a civilization, which needless to say seems to be inconsistent with several of his concepts as he ties the importance of them to phenomena like economic regionalism.
Huntington’s classification of civilization is not only inaccurate (to the point of being offensive), but also ineffective living the globalized era that we live in in which nation-states trade across oceans and non-state actors such as NGOs, militant groups and even online societies play such a dramatic role in the shaping of world history.
Said shares a critical vision of Huntington as he states:
“ How finally inadequate are the labels, generalizations and cultural assertions. At some level, for instance, primitive passions and sophisticated know-how converge in ways that give the lie to a fortified boundary not only between "West" and "Islam" but also between past and present, us and them, to say nothing of the very concepts of identity and nationality about which there is unending disagreement and debate. A unilateral decision made to draw lines in the sand, to undertake crusades, to oppose their evil with our good, to extirpate terrorism and, in Paul Wolfowitz's nihilistic vocabulary, to end nations entirely, doesn't make the supposed entities any easier to see; rather, it speaks to how much simpler it is to make bellicose statements for the purpose of mobilizing collective passions than to reflect, examine, sort out what it is we are dealing with in reality, the interconnectedness of innumerable lives, "ours" as well as "theirs."
This statement by Said is a great summary of the interaction of History/Modernity-Colonialism discourse and how critical thought engages with it. Once this interaction has occurred, it would be worth considering and possibly challenging Dirk’s concept of history as an expression of modernity/colonialism as history is being taken away from the hands of the victors and post-colonial societies are becoming empowered to challenge such definitions concepts in search of a new meaning out of what could be the ashes of modernity discourse.
Post-colonial thinkers empower themselves by embracing the labels imposed by the above and using them to create new thought opportunities.
15900
Huntington’s piece argues for the clash of civilizations to be the next rising order to determine politics and thus, world history. Civilizations for Huntington might include several nation states that would follow the modernity/colonialist standards as they are based solely on how they differ from what Huntington labels as “Western civilization”. In these regards, Huntington, also seems to consider Islam a civilization, which needless to say seems to be inconsistent with several of his concepts as he ties the importance of them to phenomena like economic regionalism.
Huntington’s classification of civilization is not only inaccurate (to the point of being offensive), but also ineffective living the globalized era that we live in in which nation-states trade across oceans and non-state actors such as NGOs, militant groups and even online societies play such a dramatic role in the shaping of world history.
Said shares a critical vision of Huntington as he states:
“ How finally inadequate are the labels, generalizations and cultural assertions. At some level, for instance, primitive passions and sophisticated know-how converge in ways that give the lie to a fortified boundary not only between "West" and "Islam" but also between past and present, us and them, to say nothing of the very concepts of identity and nationality about which there is unending disagreement and debate. A unilateral decision made to draw lines in the sand, to undertake crusades, to oppose their evil with our good, to extirpate terrorism and, in Paul Wolfowitz's nihilistic vocabulary, to end nations entirely, doesn't make the supposed entities any easier to see; rather, it speaks to how much simpler it is to make bellicose statements for the purpose of mobilizing collective passions than to reflect, examine, sort out what it is we are dealing with in reality, the interconnectedness of innumerable lives, "ours" as well as "theirs."
This statement by Said is a great summary of the interaction of History/Modernity-Colonialism discourse and how critical thought engages with it. Once this interaction has occurred, it would be worth considering and possibly challenging Dirk’s concept of history as an expression of modernity/colonialism as history is being taken away from the hands of the victors and post-colonial societies are becoming empowered to challenge such definitions concepts in search of a new meaning out of what could be the ashes of modernity discourse.
Post-colonial thinkers empower themselves by embracing the labels imposed by the above and using them to create new thought opportunities.
15900
No comments:
Post a Comment