Radical break and continuity claims both fail without a temporal-analytic definition of modernity

Evidence

The perception of a “break” in the development of modern society in the transition to the twenty-first century is shared, however, by an array of authors who follow the discourse of neither globalization nor postmodernity and for this reason use concepts like “second modernity,” “late modernity,” or “reflexive modernization” to characterize the new element. At the same time, these three concepts signal the assumption that what is new does not move outside the social-developmental framework of modernity but rather indicates simply a new phase or stage of development within the social paradigm of modernity. — Hartmut Rosa, Social Acceleration, 558

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Distinguishes ‘second modernity’/‘reflexive modernization’ from globalization/postmodernity discourses by their shared assumption of continuity within the modern paradigm.
  • XREF: connects to: Contemporary transformations are modernity’s self-radicalization, not its ending — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 127; Three mechanisms drive modernity’s dynamism and process of time-space distanciation — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 131; Modernity and modernization concepts may be inadequate to explain modern experience — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 146 (+4 more)

Broader Connections