MODERNIZATION CONCEPT AND SOCIAL IMAGINATION: METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2023.04.056

Keywords:

modernization, social imagination, imaginaries, social epistemology, ideology

Abstract

Since its inception, the theory of modernization has undergone so many transformations that it makes sense to speak of a «modernization discourse» rather than a theory and to consider the concept itself from the point of view of social epistemology in conjunction with social imagination. This paper is devoted to substantiating this approach. The concept of modernization is interesting in this regard because it contains not only hermeneutic but also prescriptive elements: by placing society in a broader historical framework of past, present and future, it creates a normative horizon for self-understanding and social transformation. It allows us to imagine our society as a historical whole, to imagine a social ideal and social development as a path towards it. At the same time, it appeals to the images of the social imagination - the social imaginary, depending on the context. A separate question, therefore, is what semantic load this concept receives when it is adopted by a different socio-cultural and political context. Such research could help to understand the internal logic of political processes in a society and its destiny. The paper consists of three subsections: the first is devoted to an overview of theories of modernization and their transformation under the influence of social epistemology; the second deals with the imagination as an anthropological a priori for considering social imagination; finally, the last subsection, which also serves as a conclusion, justifies why, given the purpose of the study, it is more appropriate to consider the concept of modernization in the context of the social imagination rather than as an ideology. The concept of ideology refers to political bias, to the question of truth and a critique of power discourse. In contrast, the concept of social imagination is politically neutral and refers to a cultural background of politics. It thus circumvents Man nheim’s paradox by being conceptualized as constitutive of a political order.

Author Biography

Svitlana SHCHERBAK

Ukraine, Research Fellow at the Department of Social Philosophy, H.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 4, Triokhsviatytelska St., Kyiv, 01601. Senior Research Fellow, Käte Hamburger Kolleg «Cultures of research», RWTH Aachen University.

References

Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. N.Y.: Crown Publishers.

https://doi.org/10.1355/ae29-2j

Aldea, A.S. (2020). Modality Matters: Imagination as Consciousness of Possibilities and Hus serl's Transcendental-Historical Eidetics. Husserl Studies, 36: 303-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10743-020-09275-6.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-020-09275-6

Alexander, J.C. (1994). «Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo: How Social Theories Have Tried to Understand the "New World" of "Our Time"». Zeitschrift für Soziologie. 23 (3): 167-197.

https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1994-0301

Almond, G., Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400874569

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Arnason, J.P. (2003). Civilizations in dispute: Historical questions and theoretical traditions. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405424

Bauman, S. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Castoriadis, C. (1997/1987). The Imaginary Institution of Society [IIS] (trans. Kathleen Blamey). MIT Press, Cambridge.

Eisenstadt, S.N. (1978). Revolution and the Transformation of Societies: A Comparative Study of Civilizations. Free Press.

Eisenstadt, S.N. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, Winter, Vol. 129 (1): 1-29. https://www. jstor.org/stable/20027613

Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Har vard.

Geertz, C. (1994). Ideology as a Cultural System. In T. Eagleton (Ed.), Ideology (pp. 193-216). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315843469.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315843469

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Gilman, N. (2007). Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America. Bal timo re: Johns Hopkins University Press. Habermas, J. (1984). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity.

Heidegger, M. (1991). Gesamtausgabe, Ln, Bd.25, Phänomenologische Interpretation von Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft: Marburger Vorlesung Wintersemester 1927/28 (Martin Heidegger Gesamtausgabe, Band 25). Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann Verlag.

Harrison, D. (1988). The Sociology of Modernization and Development. Unwin Hyman, London. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203359587.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203359587

Huntington, S.P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Huntington, S.P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72 (3): 22-49. doi:10.2307/ 20045621.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20045621

Inglehart R., Welzel C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Deve lopment Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 1-33). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226276663.003.0001

Knöbl, W. (2017). The Sociological Discourse of Modernization and Modernity. Dans Revue in ternationale de philosophie, 3(281), 311-329. DOI10.3917/rip.281.0311.

https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.281.0311

Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Latham, M.E. (2000). Modernization as Ideology: American Social Science and «Nation Building» in the Kennedy Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.

Lerner, D. (1965). The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York, London

Lipset, S.M. (1959). Political Man: The Social Basis of Politics. London. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Minuit.

McClelland, D. (1991). The Achieving Society. Princeton: N.J. Van Nostrand.

Moore B. (1966). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Boston: Beacon Press.

North D.C., Wallis, J.J., Weingast, B.R. (2013). Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. New-York: Cambridge University Press.

Przeworski, A. (1992). The Neoliberal Fallacy. Journal of Democracy 3(3), 45-59.

https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1992.0044

Rostow, W.W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge.

Schutz, A., Luckmann, T. (1973). The Structures of the Life-World. Translated by Richard M. Zaner and H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.

Shcherbak S. (2018). The Modernization Hypothesis and Neoliberalism (in Russian). The So ciological Review 17 (3), 291-328.

https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2018-3-291-328

Smelser, N.J. (1959). Social Change in the Industrial Revolution. An Application of Theory to the British Cotton Industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schmidt, V.H. (2008). What's wrong with the concept of multiple modernities? Working Paper Series of the Research Network 1989. http://www.cee-socialscience.net1989papersPusanr_WP6.pdf

Taylor, Ch. (2003). Modern Social Imaginaries. Duke University Press.

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11hpgvt

Therborn, G. (1995). European Modernity and Beyond: The Trajectory of European Societies, 1945-2000. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222317

Tipps, D.C. (1973). Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical Perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15 (2): 199-226.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500007039

Thompson, M.L. (2013). Imagination in Kant's Critical Philosophy. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274653

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274653

Wagner, P. (2008). Modernity as Experience and Interpretation: A New Sociology of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Wallerstein, E. (1979). The Capitalist World-Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weatherston, M. (2002). Heidegger's Interpretation of Kant: Categories, Imagination, and Tem porality, Palgrave Macmillan.

Wittrock, B. (2005). Modernity: One, none or many? European origins and modernity as a global condition. In: S.N. Eisenstadt (ed.), Multiple Modernities. New Brunswick, NJ : Trans ac tion Publishers.

World Bank. (2005). Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform. Washington: World Bank.

https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-6043-4

Abstract views: 80

Published

2023-12-21

How to Cite

SHCHERBAK, S. (2023). MODERNIZATION CONCEPT AND SOCIAL IMAGINATION: METHODOLOGICAL NOTES . Filosofska Dumka, (4), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2023.04.056

Issue

Section

TOPIC OF THE ISSUE

Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.