July 23, 2005
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.
|
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.