A couple of people have raised good questions about modernism and
postmodernism in Africa, in relation to an earlier post I made. I
think it would help if I made clear the definition of modernity that
I am working from. My intuition is that it is a mistake to
characterize Africa as modernist in this sense, except as that
modernism was imported from elsewhere.
I've got a canned lecture, which started as a reflection on Italo
Calvino's *Mr. Palomar*, in which I try to describe modernity (and
then present Palomar as the person poised on the far edge of
modernity, trying to make sense of it). Some of my depiction is
cribbed from David Harvey's book on postmodernity (title eludes me
right now), and Lyotard's *The Postmodern Condition*. So, this is
modernity from the postmodern critique:
1. Modernity is the world of optimism toward human capabilities,
toward the ability of the knower and the integrity of the known.
This is manifest in an overall narrative that makes sense of
everything -- the "metanarrative".
2. The metanarrative is not regarded as just a story, but as
really true. The result is that it legitimates some knowledge,
beliefs, and practices, and marginalizes others.
3. The use of this metanarrative is to master or control the
world, which amounts to the progressive lessening of lack of
knowledge and physical discomfort, as defined by the
metanarrative. Efficiency is the key virtue here.
4. This is seen as a positive break with the past. Reason regards
itself as superior, either because it has overcome the past
(Enlightenment science), or because it has perfected the past
(Hegel).
5. One feature of this break is a reconfiguration of the nature of
value. Before the modern age, there were two kinds of values --
instrumental values (those which were values only because they led
to something else more valuable -- money, for example), and
terminal values (the values at the end of the chain of inference
-- happiness for Aristotle, ataraxia for the Skeptics).
Instrumental values were artificial (creations of instrumental
reason); terminal values were natural. The first could be
discussed, the second not. In the modern age, both are amenable
to discussion. There is no "natural" way to live, except as
defined by the metanarrative.
6. Classically, there was a close relationship between theory and
practice. There were, of course, moral norms, but these grew out
of lived experience. There were abstract aspects to systems, but
they were rooted in a concrete history of dialogue. [I know,
Plato is a problem here. All I can say right now is that I think
there is more than one Plato, and we can take this up some other
time]
In the modern world, the gap between the universal nature of
theory and practice becomes much wider. Modernity attempts to
"rationalize" everything. One other poster pointed to the
critiques of modernity that you find everywhere from the
existentialists to Charlie Chaplin (Modern Times), that the
rationalization of human life leads to alienation.
7. This modernism has its manifestations in every area of life.
Art reflects reality (either as the physically given or the
ideally given); social policy institutionalizes social hierarchy
(dominant vs. marginalized); buildings maximize utility and
control access; etc.
8. Finally, the metanarrative brings forth the promise of
universal emancipation. If we only work the metanarrative out
properly, and if only everyone follows it, all will be well.
These are condensed to the following:
1. The metanarrative totalizes reality (explains everything)
2. It is based on the rational self (instead of tradition)
3. It is the principle of legitimation.
4. It is abstract
5. It is emancipatory.
Given this summary, I try to show how some versions of science,
marxism, liberal society, and religion have modernist manifestations.
Back to Africa: one person mentioned that we can't come up with a
definition of the postmodern, and I agree. That's why it is more
useful to think of it in terms of moving past modernism -- not
denying it, not ignoring it, but using it against itself.
If all this is true (and it needn't be -- feel free to critique), the
question remains: can we use the modern/postmodern distinction about
Africa, or must we find another way to think through African history
and thought?
[Sorry to those who saw another version of this on H-IDEAS]