By now, you’ve probably heard people throw
out the words modern, post-modern, or other
variations of modern.
But what do these terms mean?
How are they applied?
Are they good or bad?
And perhaps most importantly, do any of them
apply to us?
Are we modern?
The word “Modern” has a couple of connotations.
The first is the most common, and one most
people are familiar with.
Living in a modern world, or era, simply means
that we live today, in the world.
In most cases, it doesn’t reference any
way of thinking.
But it does have some baggage.
Since you’re a person that lives in the
modern era, you may be expected to look, think,
and behave in a certain way.
You live in the modern world, so you should
act like it!
This underlying meaning, this baggage, is
attributed to a second, more nuanced definition
of “modern.”
Modernity is a certain time period, yes, but
it’s also associated with certain values.
Modernism attempts to go beyond the limits
of mundane, materialistic values to a more
refined, elegant way of thinking, behaving,
learning, and expressing oneself.
Modern art, modern thinking, ideas of self-awareness
and progress, these are all considered a part
of modernism.
They’re what make us better.
And who wouldn’t want to improve?
Let’s be modern, right?
This framework is usually said to have risen
out of the 18th century Enlightenment Era,
where science and philosophy sparked several
lines of thinking—including the concept
of the universal aesthetic with Kant and Hegel,
which says that we can agree to universal
standards of beauty.
We also have Rene Descartes and his mind-body
dualism.
The Enlightenment is also associated with
Adam Smith in economics, mathematician Sir
Isaac Newton, philosophers John Locke and
Thomas Hobbes, Robert Boyle, who is considered
the first chemist, and many other thinkers
like Boyle that we credit to this day for
creating or advancing the academic fields
we see in modern universities.
The spirit of modernity is alive in these
different disciplines; but modernism is also
the faith that we collectively developed in
these different departments and institutions
to actually do what we believed they could:
From creating objectively wonderful art to
solving some of the world’s biggest problems.
So: Psychologists advance theories about the
mind, behavior, and learning.
Economists should, hopefully, advance our
understanding about economies, both local
and global.
This modern logic was also applied to the
post-WW2 reconstruction of Europe, when countries
like Germany, France, and the UK were in shambles.
Many world organizations, like the World Bank,
arose during this time in order to help rebuild
Europe, and then they directed their attention
to try to “develop” the rest of the underdeveloped
world.
This belief in a linear, uniform development
is exactly what being modern is all about.
But along with modernity, we also have at
least three other categories of “modern.”
The first is:
Pre-modernism.
The supposed Pre-moderns are usually painted
as non-Western people whose cultures have
historically, anthropologically, been painted
as uncivilized and completely different from
our own.
Their perceptions of time are said to be “different,”
which usually just means disorganized and
not as efficient, or, “as good” as ours.
Instead of having separate disciplines like
we do, pre-moderns just mix everything together.
There’s no separation of Church and State.
No separation of politics and science.
They’re painted as living in pristine nature,
and their society is less sophisticated than
our own.
Anti-moderns, on the other hand, are actually
moderns, through and through.
Except, they struggle against the unending
progress of modernity.
Anti-moderns want to “turn back the clock,”
to return to a better past.
The phrase, “Make America Great Again”
implies that America was once great, isn’t
anymore, and we must return to it.
But this Anti-modernism accepts the “progress”
narrative that modernism constructs, and imagines
that the past, before progress occurred, was
better, even though the past most likely wasn’t
what they imagine it was.
Philosopher Bruno Latour defines modernity
as how we think about “progress,” especially
the different categories that we use to create
that progress.
For example, in the US, we say that it’s
imperative that we separate science, politics,
and religion, so we have this idea of a separation
between Church and State; we also think that
science needs to not be tainted by politics.
Science is supposed to be all about truth
and objectivity, right?
There certainly are merits to wanting to have
an objective science!
But what’s relevant here is that, by separating
science, politics, religion, and everything
else, we actually end up creating a series
of paradoxes that logically result in post-modernist
thought.
A post-modernity became necessary because
modernism is fundamentally flawed—though
not without benefits.
Modernist thinkers have argued for a series
of propositions that are both useful and fundamentally
flawed in some very key ways.
Latour uses Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and
Robert Boyle’s vacuum pump as examples of
this.
Some scientists like Boyle might say that
“Nature is infinitely powerful!”
Nature is seen as larger than us and we can
study it through rigorous, empirical data
collection and analysis.
We can observe nature and construct a series
of facts, hypotheses, and theories based on
these observations.
We can’t change these facts, no matter how
much we would like to.
For instance, are we severely limited by what
our genes enable us to do?
If we’re genetically predisposed to cancer
or some other debilitating disease like ALS,
which it seems like some people are, we’re
at nature’s mercy.
By the same token, we might argue that “Society
is completely our construction!”
Of course, it is, because nature is the real
objective world that we can observe, yet it
controls us.
Society is our answer to a transcendent nature!
On the other hand, others like Hobbes might
argue that “Society is beyond any one of
us!”
Systems are in place for the greater good;
and we can’t do anything about society’s
laws, nor should we.
We are also completely free from nature and
have unlimited possibilities ahead of us!
Think about it, we’ve removed ourselves
from the food chain, we’ve created a world
that works for us.
It’s okay that we get rid of a commitment
to any other ideological systems like religion,
cause at the end of the day, even science
is at the mercy of this delicate system that,
without society, there would be no science.
After all, “Nature is artificially constructed
in a laboratory!”
We don’t study nature itself and we never
have.
With these two perspectives, we’re left
with the facts that: (1) We can’t do anything
about nature’s laws, yet we’re completely
free from them, with limitless possibilities.
And (2) We are individuals, free to live in
a free society, yet limited by the requirement
that we obey laws.
The arguments are subtle, but also profound
here.
They contradict one another, but they also
really don’t.
Modernism paints us as being outside of nature,
yet we erected a science that shows how we’re
at its mercy.
Similarly, modernism persists to tell us that
the only thing separating us from the animals
are our laws, yet we’re also individuals
free to do as we please.
The root problem here isn’t inherently that
these different perspectives contradict one
another.
It’s that we only ever represent one of
them at any given time.
Modernity really just means taking a stance
based on a purified yet specialized perspective.
These contradictions are precisely what led
to the post-modern era:
Post-modernism rejects much of what modernism
proposes.
It recognizes these contradictions, but, in
its most extreme form, post-modernism rejects
modernism by arguing that science is, by definition
tainted by politics, leaving us to question:
can good, objective science really exist?
While it questions modernism, in many ways,
like anti-moderns, post-modernism, according
to Latour, believes in modernism even more
than modernism itself!
Post-modernism can itself be a bit of a paradox.
But what EXACTLY are these modern contradictions
that led to these different kinds of thinking?
The first is that:
Nature and society are separate.
This is the prospect that we can draw a line
between what we humans have constructed, and
what nature naturally created, and we can
be satisfied with that separation.
A Nature versus Culture dichotomy is created.
Second, and 
linked with the first, is that we moderns
are separate and different from Pre-moderns,
who we imagine as being more one with nature
than we are.
This is argued to be self-evident because,
look, we’ve transformed our surroundings
rendering them unidentifiable compared to
the original forms they took in nature.
The fact that we can draw a line between us
and nature at all means that we can separate
ourselves from it.
Then, after this purification process, we
can study it.
Third, modernity obliterates God by also separating
God from everything else.
Nietzsche elaborated on this idea as well,
arguing that the Enlightenment killed God.
In modernism, God becomes an impotent, yet
ultimate judge.
We need to remove God from logic, science,
and society, while also allowing God to do
the work that needs to be done on our spirits.
God is bracketed off, just like nature and
society.
Fourth is that we can subject everything to
objective, scientific inquiry and scrutiny.
Because everything has been separated and
purified, modernity means being able to observe,
measure, and come up with universal models
that can help us explain the world around
us.
The laws of nature, and grand narratives about
society and culture, are able to be constructed
because of our modern way of thinking and
operationalizing the world.
And last modern contradiction is that time
is linear.
The more we move forward in time, the more
things improve, change, and become completely
different from what came before.
This modern logic says that in the past, people
were more ignorant and less aware than they
are now, technology has unquestionably improved,
and the world has gotten better, our problems
more complex, and our answers to those problems,
more complex as well.
This logic is what allows anti-moderns to
want to turn back the clock.
They agree that time is linear, but they disagree
that things are better now.
They don’t question the model; they question
its interpretation.
These five concepts are pretty recognizable.
Our society has been built up with an understanding
that the world is made up of separate spheres.
We have work lives, personal lives, and personal
time.
We have different groups of friends.
We might believe in God and read the Bible,
but not necessarily want that to influence
our politics or our science.
These things aren’t mutually exclusive,
but they are separate from one another.
But how true are these five propositions?
Is time really that linear?
There are several reasons to believe that
it isn’t that simple.
The idea that “pre-modern peoples couldn’t
have been as advanced than us” has led to
Ancient Aliens theories.
It’s hard to believe that pyramids could
have been built using methods that, we logically
imagine, others thousands of years ago couldn’t
possibly have had.
But considering there have been hostile regime
changes, book burnings, and other events resulting
in loss of knowledge throughout history, we
can’t really know for sure.
There have also been relevant archaeological
findings, making us question that people in
the past were as “ignorant” and “primitive”
as we imagine them being.
Our depictions of Neanderthals as brutish
and stupid is also not validated by any scientific
findings!
That’s more of a social construction that
science is actually refuting.
So, time is more of what Latour calls a “poly-temporal
spiral.”
Issues resurface, new answers are usually
adapted from old ones, and things that happened
in the past seem to come back again: Like
issues of immigration, race, war, and many
other things.
"History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does
rhyme.”
But more importantly, is it desirable to disconnect
our society, from nature, from God, and from
science?
The answer is complex and not one that has
ever been satisfyingly concluded.
The conflicts between “postmodernists”
and “scientific realists” during the science
wars of the 1990s thrust a lot of these issues
into the public sphere, but never did anything
with them.
They asked, can science be truly objective?
There’s a lot that can be gained by engaging
in these issues.
And more importantly, if used correctly, reflecting
on this question can result in better science,
not lack of science.
There is a benefit in disconnecting science
from other things.
The best thing we can do to conduct a good,
faithful study is to remove personal bias
and other extraneous elements from the context.
We call this being objective.
But these debates put forth by post-modernists
in the social sciences resulted in what we
call reflexivity, which is the act of taking
into account the researcher in the research
context.
The meaning of this can vary.
It can mean acknowledging your personal bias,
which could make doing research difficult:
(imagine believing that the world was flat
while trying to test whether it was spherical.
Ideally we should be objective, but it’d
still be important to be honest about where
you stand on a given issue, even if it’s
with yourself and not to anybody else.)
Reflexivity could also mean more of an observer
effect—like, whether your physical observation
or presence can bias the results you collect.
(So, it’d be like being a man, collecting
data on women who have experienced sexual
assault at the hands of men.
Chances are your presence would create some
discomfort and depending on what you’re
analyzing and how you’re collecting it,
that might influence how those women could
respond to you.
In both of these examples, there are very
valid concerns.
However, it’s important to note that scientific
studies create a controlled environment, and
mostly only study certain variables.
This helps us test hypotheses, but depending
on the methods being used, they have inherent
limitations.
In other words, science is a tool, and it’s
important to understand what your tool can
do!
A statistical study can look at the links
between two variables and find pretty good
evidence that something, like bacon, can result
in a higher likelihood of heart attack.
But what does this kind of finding mean?
Does it mean that eating bacon will eventually
lead to a heart attack?
What about people who eat bacon every day
and live well into their 90s?
Could it be the salt in bacon?
Or the fat?
Or could it be that people who eat bacon regularly
are also more likely to do other unhealthy,
self-gratifying things?
Or what about sampling?
Were the people who were surveyed from lower
income communities, where food options are
limited?
This would be an example of how economics
and politics, in this case, lower socioeconomic
status, can be inserted in science studies;
and this crisscross between disciplines is
appropriate.
This also exemplifies that scientific studies
simulate reality but are very rarely actually
engaged in everything involved in a real-world
scenario.
By purifying science, we also run the risk
of ignoring variables that might also be important.
But this doesn’t mean such studies are pointless,
they just mean that one study can’t really
stand on its own, and may result in more questions
than answers, and that’s okay!
Scientific studies build on past research
and lay the groundwork for future research.
The idea that one study will be the answer
to everything is a myth!
So, the mistake isn’t the process or the
result.
The mistake is that we then start believing
that, again, bacon causes heart attacks—though
we know it’s more complicated than bacon
in, heart attacks out.
We also know that science studies, as an institution,
is highly political.
Science journals are socially constituted
systems within themselves that fall prey to
regular human problems.
And I’m not necessarily talking about science
as a methodology and a way of thinking here.
Again, science is a tool, but we “moderns”
can sometimes use it foolishly.
For example, science journals and science
funding have deep issues engrained in them.
Sometimes, the results that scientists report
finding can be a bit problematic because of
what many scientists have recently argued
against, which is statistical significance.
Modern ways of thinking can sometimes lead
us to believe too much in our categories.
Modernity is more of a frame of mind, a way
of thinking, than it is actually a way of
being.
The takeaway is that “We have never been
modern!”
But that doesn’t mean modern thinking isn’t
useful.
For example, we operationalize everything,
even whether you as an individual prefer to
operationalize your own life!
We call it being type A or type B. Type A
people are the planners and type B people
are not, liking to procrastinate or do things
without very much planning.
There’s a wisdom in this realization: and
it’s that, there’s more than one way to
be efficient or actually get things done.
The problem isn’t the categories, but when
we believe in them too much.
We can’t feel uncomfortable when things
inevitably contradict them.
And they will inevitably be contradicted.
Humans have been practicing science all over
the world, since before we called it science.
Corn was created by American Natives thousands
of years ago through trial and error.
They began cultivating the teosinte plant,
and generation after generation, they made
it larger, with more seeds, and through more
intensive cultivation—so much that if humans
disappeared tomorrow, corn probably would,
too!
Although, “life finds a way.”
So who knows?
The scientific method is perfect, because
it allows us to: take knowledge that we know.
Create a hypothesis about a phenomenon, based
on that knowledge.
Test our hypothesis.
Analyze those results.
And see whether we got answers to our questions,
whether we are left with additional questions
that need answering, or if additional hypotheses
should be formulated and tested.
Bruno Latour might argue that these “pre-modern”
people made science work on their own terms,
without ever referring to it as science.
But what’s certain is that these issues
are more complicated than recent debates propose.
Being modern isn’t the goal, but, as Latour
proposes, we should be non-modern.
This means using the benefits of modernism,
pre-modernism, and post-modernism while never
fully accepting the modern Constitution that
wants to separate everything.
We can use these tools while being aware of
their limitations.
Ironically, this non-modernist self-awareness
is only something that could have come out
of modernism.
But it’s important to figure out what’s
happening around you, or in whatever disciplines
you enjoy.
It’s okay to draw on models and concepts
that have already been revealed.
They’re helpful for understanding the world
and for questioning and thinking through important
ideas and issues.
But the minute you let those models take over
and guide your opinion of people and the world
around you, that’s when, whether we’re
talking about modernists, anti-modernists,
or post-modernists, modernity truly becomes
toxic.
