Mitchell, Timothy (ed)
2000 Questions of Modernity. Contradictions of Modernity 11. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Notes: 240 p. ISBN 0816631344Reviewed 12 Jul 2001 by:
Irfan Ahmad <ahmad@pscw.uva.nl>
Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsMedium: Written Literature Subject
Keywords:Civilization, Modern
Developing countries - Social conditions
ABSTRACT: Social science has long been dominated by the dualistic categories associated with modernization theory: universal-local, Western-non-Western, tradition-modernity, and metropolis-periphery. Question of Modernity attempts to dethrone such dualism by showing how the local, non-Western were /are deeply implicated in the fashioning of the West or the modern. Covering different themes, eight social scientists investigate making of the modern in relation to South Asia and the Middle East.
In the 1950s and 1960s 'modernization' was the commanding concept in social sciences. No wonder, then, it figured in the titles and subtitles of so many books published during those decades. At the turn of the century, it is more than evident, through a combination of political, social and economic factors on the international scene in the late sixties and seventies, it has lost its salience and vigor and has been replaced by 'modernity'. The replacement is not merely terminological; it is also profoundly conceptual and theoretical. Whereas æmodernizationÆ symbolized immense hope as a process towards a known destiny, then considered universal and almost inevitable, in its liberal and Marxist renditions; the recent debate on æmodernityÆ precisely seeks to call into question that hope and unsettle its self-proclaimed universalism. Of the numerous books recently published bearing the title 'modernity', the book under review is quite remarkable for its theoretical challenge and novelty.Comprising eight chapters, the book opens with the insightful essay -- 'The Stage of Modernity' -- by Mitchell. His essay can be regarded as programmatic in that it seeks to find a distinct, complex approach to understanding the question of modernity by critically engaging historical and contemporary views. Positioning himself between the post-modern and the advocates of an expanded version of modernity/capitalism, he detects flaws in both. He criticizes the former for reproducing what he calls "the binary metaphysics of the modern" (p. xx) and the latter such as Sidney Mintz for fashioning a more global history of the modern that reinforces the claim of universal modernity. In their work, the history of non-Western regions becomes homogenized and, apparently, it can be made sense of only as an appendix to the history of the West.
Mitchell's own emphasis is on the global context of the genealogy of modernity and how the non-West was implicated in the making of the West. He persuasively shows startling flaws in the works of Lyotard, Baudrillard, Harvey, Jameson, and Foucault. According to him, all paid scant, if any, attention to the place of the non-West in defining and shaping the modern, and by extension, the postmodern. In particular, he discusses the absence of the colonial presence in the writings of Foucault. This neglect, however, is not only geographical. Geography, cautions he, is closely tied to the Western notion of time that alone bestows on geography its coherence (p. 7). As an alternative to the theories of making of the modern, he proposes his own:
Any adequate response to this problem must begin from what I would argue is the most powerful aspect of the production of the European-modern, and what at the same time exposes it to the specters of difference and displacement that deny it the originality and coherence that it claims: the way in which the modern is staged as representation. (p. 16).Mitchell elaborates:
To claim that the modern is always staged as representation is not to argue that modernity is concerned more with image-making than reality. It is to argue that the colonial-modern involves creating an effect we recognize as reality, by organizing the world endlessly to represent it.... It refers to forms of social practice in the social architecture and lived experiences of the world what seems an absolute distinction between image ... and reality... (p. 17).Modernity, as recast by Mitchell, is thus not a "stage of history but rather its staging" (p. 23), hence amenable to subversion, and displacement. For societies with colonial experience this staging of representation is most reflected in the production of difference. The difference is manifest in two registers, the one characterized by indeterminacy and ambivalence, and the other by replication. It is this difference that works as a unifying theme for all the essays in this volume.
Partha ChatterjeeÆs 'Two Poets and Death: On Civil and Political Society in the non-Christian World' is thought provoking and extraordinarily lucid. By introducing the concept of 'political society', distinct from both civil society and the state, he underlines the need to move beyond Hegel who failed to capture the reality of the non-Christian world. 'Political society', says he, refers to the domain of mediation between the state and the population that unlike Tagore, does not necessarily share the bourgeois, Western principles of the civil society. ChatterjeeÆs concept of political society, yet to be acknowledged by political scientists, is thus full of promise. However, one wonders if the same does not hold true for the 'Christian' world as well.
Dipesh Chakrabarty, Lila Abu-Lughod, and Stefania Pandolfo, deal with the making of the modern self in Bengal, Egypt and Morocco, respectively. Using different materials, all three show the tension and ambiguity that animate the construction of self and subjectivity in post-colonial universe and their difference from the West. Likewise Das Veena discusses the same theme in the interrelationship between time and modern, gendered subject in Indian cinema. Gyan Prakash too dwells on the construction of modern Indian subject in relation to medicine and colonial governmentality.
'The Sovereignty of History: Culture and Modernity in the Cinema of Satyajit Ray' by Nicholas B. Dirks presents an interesting reading of RayÆs filmsùJalsaghar and Shatranj ke Khiladi. According to Dirks, Ray's films were marked by a historical ambivalence. In contrast to many radical intellectuals of his time, he did not reject the pre-colonial political past out rightly. As a matter of fact, says Dirks, both these films seem to appreciate the erstwhile rulers for their enlightened patronage to art and culture even as they indulged in mindless consumption. RayÆs celebration of the past, argues he, went hand in hand with his suspicion of modernity. DirkÆs otherwise fascinating paper is, however, punctuated with some grossly unbalanced judgments; for example, his description of the indulgence of the Nawabs and Zamindars as "transgressive rebellion against the colonial/capitalist regime"(p. 162).
Having presented the summary of the volume, it would be in order to make some critical comments about it. First, there is no definite coherence between the introduction by Mitchell and the essays that follow it. Second, Mitchell's theory of modernity is deeply problematic. While I am broadly in agreement with his criticism of Sidney Mintz, Foucault, and others, I think his alternative theory of modernity is rather abstract and overlooks political economy as a major factor in the constitution of modern social system. In Mitchell's recast theory of modernity, the "world-as-picture" characterized by "representation", there is no place for real, material forces or due recognition of class. Is not even representation entangled in the dynamics of class and status?
Third, Mitchell emphasizes, as do all contributors in the volume, "difference" as one of the significant features in the defining and shaping of the modern in the colonial and post-colonial societies. It would be interesting to mention in this context that this "difference" is not a major point of concern for the lower castes in the colonial India. A case in point could be the anti-Brahmin movement led by Periyar in colonial South India. Can one gainfully speak of modernity without taking into account caste and class?
Fourth, methodologically most essays are quite weak. The conclusions that contributors have reached are not sufficiently backed by adequate data. For instance, Lila Abu-Loghad weaves her narrative on the story of just one individual. One may ask how representative is it of the Egyptian society at large? This shortcoming affects Pandolfo's essay as well and in a similar vein, how reliable are Dirks' and Das' readings of the films? Finally, of seven essays (excluding the 'introduction'), five deal with subjectivity in its different forms. Is subjectivity, then, the only question of modernity? Are not, for instance, social movements also important questions of modernity?
The above criticism notwithstanding, the book offers a superb study of the debate around modernity and raises thought provoking questions. It is a must reading for all those interested in unraveling the complexity of culture, society, history and politics in the non-Western world.
To cite this review, the American Anthropological Association recommends the following style:
Ahmad, Irfan
2001 Review of Questions of Modernity. Anthropology Review Database. July 12. Electronic document, http://wings.buffalo.edu/ARD/cgi/showme.cgi?keycode=1473, accessed February 10, 2010.© Anthropology Review Database
(available online: http://wings.buffalo.edu/ARD/)