{"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.