Posts Tagged ‘Defining Terms’

Posted on December 22, 2009 - by David

Is ‘Postmodernity’ a Reality?

It seems that any time I come across the word ‘postmodern’ in my reading, I wind up stopping for a minute to try to figure out what it actually means. I guess I’ve been conditioned to react this way ever since I began studying with Liah Greenfeld and the word ‘modern’ took on some real significance for me. Still, (out of laziness), I always wound up shrugging the question off without trying to answer it.

Yesterday, I finally went to the dictionary in hopes of finding some commonly agreed upon definitions.

From Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: ¹mod·ern

Pronunciation: \ˈmä-dərn, ÷ˈmä-d(ə-)rən\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Late Latin modernus, from Latin modo just now, from modus measure — more at mete

Date: 1585

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time
2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date
3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language
4 : of or relating to modernism : modernist

Main Entry: post·mod·ern

Pronunciation: \ˌpōs(t)-ˈmä-dərn, ÷-ˈmä-d(ə-)rən\

Function: adjective

Date: 1925

1 : of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one <postmodern times> <a postmodern metropolis>
2 a : of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature) b : of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language <postmodern feminism>

Main Entry: mod·ern·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈmä-dər-ˌni-zəm\

Function: noun

Date: 1737

1 : a practice, usage, or expression peculiar to modern times
2 often capitalized : a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements
3 : modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression

From Oxford College Dictionary, 2^nd Ed:

modern history- n. history up to the present day, from some arbitrary point taken to represent the end of the middle ages

postmodernism- n. a late 20^th century style in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism.

The two main causes of confusion are revealed in these definitions. First, there are no distinctive characteristics, and no clear time frame given to tell us what modernity is or when it takes place. Webster’s ambiguously refers to a “relevant remote past,” and the Oxford College Dictionary gives us “some arbitrary point taken to represent the end of the middle ages.” Another definition makes it more or less a synonym for ‘contemporary.’ Also, the definitions contain no distinction between contemporary societies that are modern and those that are not (i.e traditional societies).

Modernism and postmodernism refer to artistic movements and philosophies. The two definitions of postmodernism refer to it as “a reaction to modernism” and “a departure from modernism.” The question then becomes, if postmodernism is in fact a coherent movement or philosophy, does it correspond to an actual change in culture such that we should consider the period we are living in now as distinct from modernity? Is ‘postmodernity’ a reality?

Liah Greenfeld, in a chapter titled ‘Is Modernity Possible without Nationalism?’ in Michel Seymour’s book, The Fate of the Nation State, addresses the problem of modernity’s various meaningless or contradictory definitions. According to Greenfeld, modernity is a quality or characteristic of certain societies- what she calls “a species of society” (39). In general, modern societies have three distinctive features: an open class structure, “the impersonal and abstract, or state, form of government,” and an economy oriented to sustained growth (39) These features are not fully developed in all modern societies, but in all cases, she claims, their development is made possible by nationalism- a fundamentally secular and humanistic consciousness based on the principles of popular sovereignty and egalitarianism.

Now this definition of modernity is certainly not universally accepted, but it is nevertheless a definition which means something. [Rather than get into a more detailed description of different types of nationalism and modern societies, I encourage you to read the chapter in this free google books preview (p.38-50), as well as her essay, ‘Nationalism and the Mind’]. If we consider the term ‘postmodernity’ in light of Greenfeld’s definition, it would have to mean a fundamental change in the organization and consciousness of society. From everything I see, this has not happened.

I am not claiming to have said all there is to say about the modern vs. postmodern question, and I am not dismissing all postmodern theory out of hand. What I am saying is that it is important to have some definition of modernity, Greenfeld gives us this, and if we accept it, then the phenomena which some have characterized as postmodern can be considered as either new or modified developments in culture that are still consistent with nationalism and modernity.

Posted on December 17, 2009 - by David

Egoistic vs. Anomic Suicide: What Did Durkheim Say?

In a previous post, I commented on the confusion caused by the lack of clear distinction between Durkheim’s concepts of egoistic and anomic suicide. In an effort to come up with evidence to make this argument, I spent several more hours poring over my notes on Suicide than I had originally intended. I feel a bit lazy doing this, but I believe it’s worth letting these quotes speak for themselves.

“Both [egoistic and anomic suicide] spring from society’s insufficient presence in individuals. But the sphere of its absence is not the same in both cases. In egoistic suicide it is deficient in truly collective activity, thus depriving the latter of object and meaning. In anomic suicide, society’s influence is lacking in the basically individual passions, thus leaving them without a check-rein. In spite of their relationship, therefore, the two types are independent of each other. We may offer society everything social in us, and still be unable to control our desires; one may live in an anomic state without being egoistic, and vice versa. These two sorts of suicide therefore do not draw their chief recruits from the same social environments; one has its principal field among intellectual careers, the world of thought – the other, the industrial or commercial world.” (258)

“Suicides of both types suffer from what has been called the disease of the infinite. But the disease does not assume the same form in both cases. In one, reflective intelligence is affected and immoderately overnourished; in the other, emotion is over-excited and freed from all restraint. In one, thought, by dint of falling back upon itself, has no object left; in the other, passion, no longer recognizing bounds, has no goal left. The former is lost in the infinity of dreams, the second in the infinity of desires.” (287)

“They [types of suicide ] are very often combined with one another, giving rise to composite varieties; characteristic of several types will be united in a single suicide.” (287)

“We know that they [egoism and anomy] are usually merely two different aspects of one social state; thus it is not surprising that they should be found in the same individual. It is, indeed, almost inevitable that the egoist should have some tendency to non-regulation; for, since he is detached from society, it has not sufficient hold upon him to regulate him.” (288)

“The obstacle, for example, against which the victim of insatiate desires dashes may cause him to fall back upon himself and seek an outlet for disappointed passions in an inner life. Finding there nothing to which he can attach himself, however, the melancholy inspired by this thought can only drive him to new self-escape, thus increasing his uneasiness and discontent. Thus are produced mixed suicides where depression alternates with agitation, dream with action, transports of desire with reflective sadness.” (288)

Durkheim seems to be saying, “They’re the same, but they’re also different.” He basically states that the two types have the same cause, and in the end of the book proposes one solution, (corporations or occupational groups), for both:

“But not only egoistic suicide would be combatted in this way. Anomic suicide, closely related to it, might be dealt with by the same treatment.” (382)

“In both cases the remedy is therefore the same.”

So, are these two types really variations of one type, and is there any value in attempting to distinguish between them?

I’ll try to answer this question when I consider Greenfeld’s concept of anomie and look at its manifestations in American society.

Posted on December 3, 2009 - by David

Anomie: What Did Durkheim Say?

In this essay published in Southern Rural Sociology, Phyllis Puffer argues that most introductory sociology textbooks incorrectly define Durkheim’s concept of anomie and anomic suicide. The most common incorrect definition of anomie, she maintains, is something along the lines of “normlessness.” What Durkheim actually said, Puffer claims, is that “anomie is lack of regulation of the economy.” (Puffer 205) More generally, anomie means a lack of regulation, and she highlights Durkheim’s example of conjugal anomy – the lack of regulation (experienced only by men) caused by divorce .

While Puffer criticizes the commonly given definitions of anomie for ignoring the economic element, I believe she attributes a much narrower definition of anomie (by referring strictly to economic conditions) than Durkheim actually gives in Suicide.

While Durkheim does clearly refer to swings in the economy in his discussion of anomic suicide, it seems that for anomie to be contributing to rising rates of suicide, it must have become endemic in that society. Puffer refers to the Great Depression and other economic crises, but Durkheim’s analysis identifies steadily increasing annual rates of suicide, and he contends that in “the sphere of trade and industry- it [anomie] is actually in a chronic state.” (Durkheim 254)

I would argue that lack of regulation of the economy is the reflection, rather than the cause, of anomie as it is experienced by the individual. Durkheim’s own work appears to confirm this. In the chapter on anomic suicide, Durkheim describes the cultural condition of individuals in an anomic society:

“The limits are unknown between the possible and the impossible, what is just and what is unjust, legitimate claims and hopes and those which are immoderate. Consequently there is no restraint upon aspirations.” (Durkheim 253)

While Puffer emphasizes the problems individuals face when their economic status changes abruptly (i.e not knowing how to regulate spending and live at their new level), Durkheim’s explanation of the crisis the individual experiences after an economic disturbance is more complex:

“Above all, since this race for an unattainable goal can give no other pleasure but that of the race itself, if it is one, once it is interrupted the participants are left empty-handed.” (Durkheim 253)

“The longing for infinity is daily represented as a mark of moral distinction, whereas it can only appear within unregulated consciences which elevate to a rule the lack of rule from which they suffer. The doctrine of the most ruthless and swift progress has become an article of faith.” (Durkheim 257)

In Durkheim’s description, then, it seems that unregulated ambition (resulting from a change in cultural values) leads to a lack of regulation in the economy, and it is the lack of regulation of ambition, (which is not neccesarily ambition for pure financial gain), from which the individual suffers. Puffer criticizes the textbook definitions for their emphasis on the individual’s feelings, claiming that “Durkheim spent little time and space on describing the feelings individuals experience,” but my reading of Suicide leads me to strongly disagree. Furthermore, she generalizes, “Durkheim concluded that the economy must be controlled and both books together [Suicide and The Division of Labor in Society] form a critique of pure laissez-faire capitalism” (Puffer 205). Actually, what Durkheim concludes is that occupational groups may offer a solution to the problem of anomic (and, importantly, egoistic) suicide by providing a social structure near enough to the individual to make him feel sufficiently integrated and to aid him in directing his ambition properly. Durkheim believed that these groups, (corporations), would in turn help to regulate the economy.

Puffer states that the majority of suicides seem to be the egoistic type, and this is the kind she teaches to her Intro to Sociology students. While she suggests that the confusion in the textbook definitions of anomic suicide may result from mixing Durkheim’s term with the ideas of other sociologists who used the word ‘anomie’ to denote something else, I believe the problem results at least in part from Durkheim’s failure to demonstrate a sufficient difference between egoistic and anomic suicide.

In an upcoming post on this topic, I’ll try to show how these two types of suicide fall into the same category, using Greenfeld’s refined definition of anomie.

Posted on December 2, 2009 - by David

Brain=Mind=?

One of the main problems with discussion of this topic is the ambiguity of certain terms. A little reading (books, blogs, etc.) quickly reveals the confusion. The other day, I found this blog post, though a little old it’s worth checking out.  What struck me was the first sentence of an abstract of the paper the post references:

“Our brains and minds are shaped by our experiences, which mainly occur in the context of the culture in which we develop and live.”
(more…)

Posted on December 1, 2009 - by David

Greenfeld’s Nationalism and the Mind

Boston University professor Liah Greenfeld in her essay Nationalism and the Mind gives an overview of her theory of modern culture and the mind.

The fundamental points…

• Humanity is distinguished from the other animal species by the symbolic (cultural)… instead of genetic… transmission of its ways of life across generations. (p.1)
• “Nationalism is a fundamentally secular and humanistic consciousness based on the principles of popular sovereignty and egalitarianism.”(p.4)
• Nationalism is the modern culture (p.4)
• “Modern societies… because of their very secularism, openness, and the elevation of the individual, are necessarily anomic,” making anomie “the fundamental structural problem of modernity.”(p.13-14)
• Anomie (a product of nationalism, the modern culture) “inhibits the formation and normal functioning of the human mind.”(p.15)
• “…culture creates the human mind. The mind is also a symbolic and a mental process: it is supported by biological brain mechanisms, but is generated by culture outside the brain.”(p.16)
• She essentially states that by impairing the formation and normal functioning of the human mind, modern culture causes mental illness.

These ideas are certainly controversial, not widely held, and may seem preposterous to some. Please read the essay for yourself and see what you think.