Modernidad: ¿Son diferentes los tiempos modernos?

Q4 Arts and Humanities
L. Hunt
{"title":"Modernidad: ¿Son diferentes los tiempos modernos?","authors":"L. Hunt","doi":"10.35305/PROHISTORIA.VI.1189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"espanolEn anos recientes, la “modernidad” ha sido objeto de considerable debate entre los historiadores. Este articulo evalua algunos de esos debates y argumenta que la modernidad es un concepto problematico porque implica una completa ruptura con los modos de vida tradicionales. El articulo realiza un estudio de terminos clave apoyado en Ngrams de Google, que indican que modernidad, tiempos modernos y tradicional –en ingles y en otros idiomas– tienen una historia propia. Un breve analisis de la transicion desde la auto-orientacion al equilibrio hacia la auto-orientacion a la estimulacion demuestra que la modernidad no es necesaria para el analisis historico. English“Modernity” has recently been the subject of considerable discussion among historians. This article reviews some of the debates and argues that modernity is a problematic concept because it implies a complete rupture with “traditional” ways of life. Studies of key terms are undertaken with the aid of Google Ngrams. These show that “modernity,” “modern times,” and “traditional” –in English and other languages– have a history of their own. A brief analysis of the shift from a self oriented toward equilibrium to a self oriented toward stimulation demonstrates that modernity is not necessary to historical analysis.","PeriodicalId":21160,"journal":{"name":"Prohistoria","volume":" ","pages":"5-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prohistoria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35305/PROHISTORIA.VI.1189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

espanolEn anos recientes, la “modernidad” ha sido objeto de considerable debate entre los historiadores. Este articulo evalua algunos de esos debates y argumenta que la modernidad es un concepto problematico porque implica una completa ruptura con los modos de vida tradicionales. El articulo realiza un estudio de terminos clave apoyado en Ngrams de Google, que indican que modernidad, tiempos modernos y tradicional –en ingles y en otros idiomas– tienen una historia propia. Un breve analisis de la transicion desde la auto-orientacion al equilibrio hacia la auto-orientacion a la estimulacion demuestra que la modernidad no es necesaria para el analisis historico. English“Modernity” has recently been the subject of considerable discussion among historians. This article reviews some of the debates and argues that modernity is a problematic concept because it implies a complete rupture with “traditional” ways of life. Studies of key terms are undertaken with the aid of Google Ngrams. These show that “modernity,” “modern times,” and “traditional” –in English and other languages– have a history of their own. A brief analysis of the shift from a self oriented toward equilibrium to a self oriented toward stimulation demonstrates that modernity is not necessary to historical analysis.
现代性:现代有什么不同吗?
近年来,西班牙历史学家对“现代性”进行了相当大的辩论。本文评估了其中一些辩论,并认为现代性是一个有问题的概念,因为它意味着与传统生活方式的彻底决裂。这篇文章对谷歌NGRAMS支持的关键术语进行了研究,这些术语表明,现代、现代和传统(英语和其他语言)有自己的历史。对从自我导向到平衡到自我导向到刺激的过渡的简要分析表明,历史分析不需要现代性。英语“现代性”最近一直是历史学家之间相当大讨论的主题。这篇文章回顾了一些辩论,并认为现代化是一个有问题的概念,因为它意味着与“传统”生活方式的彻底决裂。在谷歌NGRAMS的帮助下对关键条款进行了研究。这些表明,“现代”、“现代”和“传统”——用英语和其他语言——有自己的历史。对从自我导向向平衡向自我导向向刺激转变的简要分析表明,现代性不是历史分析所必需的。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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