Response to 2nd week discussion and 3rd week reading by S.A.A

        During last class discussion, we engage in analyzing different definitions of modernity from different scholars. Beforehand, while I was doing the reading I noticed that every author defined the term modernity differently and some of them used different words to refer to modernity, that by the end I personally could hardly make a difference between modernity, the West and other economic eras such as capitalism for example.

          One interesting way we defined modernity is through drawing a comparison between the “modern’ v. the pre-modern/traditional times. This classification basically asserted characteristics of technology, health, education or overall “better “(beyond basic) social conditions to modernity. Yet, encompassing new social conditions, Watenpaugh came to define modernity as a life style. A life style adopted by a minority or a certain class in a culture that was not entirely characterized by the list of Huntington.  As a consequence, Watenpaugh’s argument leads to the conclusion that modernity was imported from the West just because the life style was mostly European. As a consequence of this distinct life style, there emerged new interesting relational dynamics between this minority with the West and the politics.

What I found it really interesting last class was Helena’s question, after discussing each author, how Islam fits in this argument. Here comes the emphasis of the idea that Islam and modernity are two separate things as there is no single answer to whether Islam is modern or pre-modern. This approach helps to understand the image of Islam currently understood by the West. Nowadays, we live in a time of modernity (if we define it as ‘the now’) and if we based our definition on Huntington’s list of characteristics of modernity. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” is the great example to understand the reason for which Islam is perceived as an incompatible culture with modernity or the modern world. This Huntington classification of the world into civilizations or single identities, with no concise basis, overlooks the complexities within one ‘civilization’ (as remarked in Said’s response.) The generalization of the “other” with no understanding of its complexity is what leads us to “critical understanding of the bewildering interdependence of our time (Said 2002, 3)” It is this generalization that invades people’s mind with the idea of dichotomy of Islam and modernity.

        Based on Huntington’s thesis of clash of civilization which adds on to Watenpaugh argument, I come to understand modernity as a culture adopted by a group of people who have a life style described with specific social conditions, a culture that is basically open to change.  The definition that I have come to conclude( I do not imply that it is right) is certainly different from what Weber talks modern time in which he mainly sees is as an outcome of Protestantism. This conclusion leads me to further conclude that definition of modernity is subjective and can be changeable over time?! My own definition troubles me in the sense that comparing Islam and modernity is in other words comparing a religion and a culture. Hence, terminology becomes troublesome – are we in an era where religion and culture are very interdependent?  This attempt to fit Islam in the definition of modernity or the Modern world in general does not seem successful thus far. As we are in the beginning of this course, my hopes are to ultimately come up with a definition of modernity in which I will know where Islam, as a religion at least, can be positioned, in an explicit way. 


S.A.A