July 23, 2005

modernism in politics

Let me make a stab at something. A modernist in politics would work within the Enlightenment tradition, and so presuppose an independent moral/political subject that is capable of constructing and justifying ethics and politics from a standpoint that is outside of all social roles and historical traditions.

They would also want to distinquish truth from power, authority from domination, justicer from hegemony and to preserve an objective trans-pluralistic standpoint from which to judge theory and practice.

Thus modernism in politics has its source and roots in the Enlightenment's political vision of achieving liberation from our self-imposed immaturity (to put in Kantian terms), of attaining social progress and jsutice by means of rational inquiry, public communication and the fostering of moral responsibility.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at July 23, 2005 07:33 PM | TrackBack
Comments

A modernist would take the concepts of hegemony, power, domination and split their good bits from their bad bits and run with the good bits. Yeah? (How's that for an over simplification :-) )

How could they gain/develop political power to support their viewpoint without resorting to power politics, domination and hegemony.

It reminds me of the idea that philosophers don't make good kings. Philosophers = smart, intelligent, well thought out. Kings = ruthless, hard, maintain consistency in kingdom through domination.

Two different skill sets which are mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Pax on July 24, 2005 09:39 AM

A modernist would construct an ethical position from within a cultural context.

Cultural context is one of the determinants of morality. Culture gives rise to morality. We are not born outside of our culture. Two cultures can come to different ethical positions and both be valid. Modernism is a mode of thought not a prescription for values. There is an English modernist and a German modernist. They do not have to agree about cultural or moral values. They merely need to accord in their intellectual modus operandi.

I think your characterisation of modernism is more aptly one about cultural imperialism.

Posted by: wbb on July 25, 2005 12:43 AM

Thanks. I see that now.

Posted by: Pax on July 25, 2005 07:41 PM

modernists like to keep reason and power separate rather than tangle them up so they are intertwined.

Posted by: Gary Sauer-Thompson on July 25, 2005 11:55 PM

Pick the non-philosopher. :-) I think I'm trying to work through work crap while trying to understand philosophy - and I think the concepts are mixing themselves into each other.

---
I think I get modernism. I also think I get the relationship between modernists and power. See below:

The modernists would use rational inquiry, public communication and the fostering of moral responsibility to work together to create structures to slow down, prevent, constrain less rational elements of politics - for example, they would create a UN to slow down empire-based imperialism - and to create social progress and justice - for example, by improving laws, access to courts.

For them, power would be a tool which would be wielded like a surgeon's scapel. Used wisely and with care.

--

1) Am I getting closer?
2) Is there still a place for rational inquiry, public communication and the fostering of moral responsibility in a highly commericialised world where perception is more persuasive than reality? How?

Posted by: Pax on July 26, 2005 10:39 AM
Post a comment