Backwardness: Rethinking Modernity, Conceptualizing Change

{"title":"Backwardness: Rethinking Modernity, Conceptualizing Change","authors":"","doi":"10.33675/amst/2023/3/4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modernity is commonly associated with progress and future-direction. But from the early modern period onward, backwardness was an integral part of the modern. As modernity came to be tied up with a Western, and often a particularly (U.S.-)American positionality, backwardness just as persistently served to mark modernity’s others—both within and outside the West. The dynamics of turning toward or looking back at the past are complexly woven into the thinking of modernity and change, yet the critical discourses of modernity tend to balk at acknowledging them as pivotal elements of the modern. While current critiques of global disparity, capitalist accumulation, or anthropogenic climate change advocate concepts such as degrowth, sustainability, or deceleration, nobody promotes backwardness. At the same time, backwardness, together with its concurrent epistemic modes of retrospection and repetition, manifests itself as a steady undercurrent of ambivalence in today’s cultural debates around social change, and the imagery of a return to what came before operates as a staple trope in hermeneutical methodological reflections and phenomenological thought. This forum seeks to critically engage with a paradox that is at the very core of modernity. To foreground the principle of backwardness serves to highlight the messy temporality of the loop, the revision, the recursion, or inversion, and to rethink modernity and conceptualize change in terms of the past—as a manifestation of presences that are \"still there\" rather than newly emergent, and that need to be \"reviewed\" rather than optimized and overcome: remnants, traces, leftovers, unfinished business. We thus go up against teleological narratives of the modern, using backwardness as a tentative signal of recalcitrance to the idea of modernity as relentless optimization and material improvement. Backwardness may serve to indicate alternatives to such teleological narratives of the modern, as it allows the foregrounding of loose ends, blind alleys, failed starts, and buried knowledge together with the affective stances of mourning, shame, or regret which tend to get short thrift in forward-oriented research.","PeriodicalId":80436,"journal":{"name":"Amerikastudien","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Amerikastudien","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33675/amst/2023/3/4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Modernity is commonly associated with progress and future-direction. But from the early modern period onward, backwardness was an integral part of the modern. As modernity came to be tied up with a Western, and often a particularly (U.S.-)American positionality, backwardness just as persistently served to mark modernity’s others—both within and outside the West. The dynamics of turning toward or looking back at the past are complexly woven into the thinking of modernity and change, yet the critical discourses of modernity tend to balk at acknowledging them as pivotal elements of the modern. While current critiques of global disparity, capitalist accumulation, or anthropogenic climate change advocate concepts such as degrowth, sustainability, or deceleration, nobody promotes backwardness. At the same time, backwardness, together with its concurrent epistemic modes of retrospection and repetition, manifests itself as a steady undercurrent of ambivalence in today’s cultural debates around social change, and the imagery of a return to what came before operates as a staple trope in hermeneutical methodological reflections and phenomenological thought. This forum seeks to critically engage with a paradox that is at the very core of modernity. To foreground the principle of backwardness serves to highlight the messy temporality of the loop, the revision, the recursion, or inversion, and to rethink modernity and conceptualize change in terms of the past—as a manifestation of presences that are "still there" rather than newly emergent, and that need to be "reviewed" rather than optimized and overcome: remnants, traces, leftovers, unfinished business. We thus go up against teleological narratives of the modern, using backwardness as a tentative signal of recalcitrance to the idea of modernity as relentless optimization and material improvement. Backwardness may serve to indicate alternatives to such teleological narratives of the modern, as it allows the foregrounding of loose ends, blind alleys, failed starts, and buried knowledge together with the affective stances of mourning, shame, or regret which tend to get short thrift in forward-oriented research.
落后:反思现代性,概念化变革
现代性通常与进步和未来方向联系在一起。但从近代早期开始,落后就成为现代的一个组成部分。当现代性与西方,尤其是(美国)美国的立场联系在一起时,无论是在西方内部还是在西方之外,落后也一直是现代性的标志。转向或回顾过去的动力复杂地交织在现代性和变化的思考中,然而现代性的批判话语往往不愿承认它们是现代性的关键要素。虽然目前对全球差距、资本主义积累或人为气候变化的批评提倡诸如去增长、可持续性或减速等概念,但没有人提倡落后。与此同时,落后及其同时存在的反思和重复的认知模式,在当今围绕社会变革的文化辩论中表现为一种矛盾心理的稳定暗流,而回归到以前的意象作为解释学方法论反思和现象学思想的主要修辞。本次论坛旨在批判性地探讨现代性核心的悖论。突出后发性的原则是为了突出循环、修正、递归或反转的混乱暂时性,并重新思考现代性,将过去的变化概念化——作为“仍然存在”而不是新出现的存在的表现,需要“回顾”而不是优化和克服:残余物、痕迹、残余物、未完成的事业。因此,我们反对现代的目的论叙事,将落后作为一种试探性的信号,以抵制现代性作为无情的优化和物质改进的想法。落后可以作为现代目的论叙事的替代选择,因为它允许在前瞻性研究中出现遗漏、死胡同、失败的开端和埋藏的知识以及哀悼、羞耻或遗憾的情感立场,这些情感立场往往会导致短暂的浪费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信