A Contemporary Interpretation of Marx's Thoughts on Modernity

Author(s): Ziyi Feng and Lijun Xing

Source: Frontiers of Philosophy in China, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jun., 2006), pp. 254-268
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30209968 .
Accessed: 09/01/2011 02:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Frontiers of Philosophy in
China.

http://www.jstor.org
254

FengZiyi

Acontemporary ofMarx's
interpretation onmodernity
thoughts

a HigherEducationPressandSpringer-Verlag
2006

Abstract Unlike some western scholarswho limit their interpretationof modernity

and its source to conceptual, cultural, value, and psychological dimensions, Marx
pointed out that modernity came mainly from modern production system. Starting
from the historical context of his time, Marx explored various aspects of modernity
and pointed out that modernity was inherent in the logic of capital, resided in the
process of historical evolution, arose in social conflicts and segmentation, and
presenteditself in a global horizon. The logic of capital, the historicalviewpoint, the
theory of contradictionand a global perspective are fundamentalin Marx's analysis
of the problems of modernity. Marx's ideas of modernity are methodologically
significantto the constructionof modernityin contemporaryChinese society.

Keywords modernity, modern production, the logic of capital, predicament of

modernity

IThetheoreticalbasisof Marx'sthoughtson modernity

Marx's thoughts on modernity have been interpreted so dramatically in the

discussions about modernity that it seems that he played different roles and
presented different viewpoints. Concerninghis primaryposition, on the one hand,
Marx is considered as a vindicator of modernity. It is thought that Marx's many
ideas are completely congruouswith the dominantvalues of modernity.On the other
hand, Marx is considered a criticizer of modernity, because he had never extolled
modern society and he worked all his life to criticize modern capitalist society and

Translatedfrom ZhongguoShehui Kexue a (China Social Sciences), 2005 (4) by

XingLijun

FengZiyi(1)
PhilosophyDepartment, Beijing100871,China
PekingUniversity,
E-mail:fzygry@sina.com
 255

the modernityof capitalismso that the vitality of his thought is regardedas lying in
its criticismand its negative dialectics. As for the natureof Marx's philosophy, there
are also two contrasting opinions. On the one hand, it is regarded as a genre of
modernist philosophy, for it goes alongside other modern western philosophies to
pursue essentialism, rationalism and centralism, is keen on "metanarrative"or
"grand narrative",and advocates the evolutionary progressive theory of history,
thereforealthough Marx waged profound exposure and critique against the bygone
philosophy, it actually did well inside the traditionand reach of modernism.On the
other hand, it is regardedas a genre of postmodernistphilosophy to the extent that
postmodernityis considered to be the essence of Marx's philosophical revolution
and the rejection of metaphysics, its prominentcharacter.Therefore,Marx's theory
is essentially different from various modernisttheories in history and his thoughts
and value orientationare well in accordancewith postmodernism.
It is worthwhile pointing out that we can find evidences of all those conflicting
ideas in Marx's works, and after specific interpretationand illumination, Marx's
thoughts on modernityget even more elusive and hardlyrecognizablebecause of its
built-in conflicts and paradoxes.
Modernity can indeed be described and interpretedfrom different perspectives
and in differentlevels, but it cannotultimatelybe subsumedunderone interpretation.
As the basic characteristicand embodimentof the developmentalprocess of modern
society, modernitymanifests itself in all aspects of social life. It is a general concept
concerningeconomy, politics, culture,society and many other factors.
Although the concept of modernitydid not appearevidently in his works, on the
basis of his thorough explorationinto the development of social history, Marx did
expound ideas concerning modernity and made substantial breakthroughsin the
understandingof the concept.' Here we must notice an obvious characterof Marx's
theory of modernity, namely, it is not a kind of modern philosophy in the usual
sense but a kind of modemrn social theory. Expounding the theory of modernity is
closely linked with his study of modern society. The specific meaning of Marx's
so-called modern society is the capitalistsociety. The birth of capitalismopens such
a new era that Marx added the word "modern"before "capitalism"on occasions
when he referred to it, or simply abbreviated it as "modern society". In Marx's
vision, modernity is not an issue limited within an area or part of society, but a
social issue concernedwith the integrity of society. This has something in common
with Giddens' view that modernity is the abbreviation of modern society or
industrialsociety in its simplest form. [1]
Lenin made acute and profoundremarkson this issue. He asked a question about
the phrasingof "modernsociety" when talking about the preface of the first edition
of Das Capital, "Why does Marx speak of 'modern' society, when all the
economists who preceded him spoke of society in general? In what sense does he
use the word 'modern', by what features does he distinguish this modern society?"
[2] Although Lenin did not answer this question directly, in the subsequentin-depth

Whether Marxplayed a role in the study of modernity,or whetherhe had a theory of modernity,should
not be viewed from the perspectiveof whetherhe initialized or used the concept of modernityas it is used
today, but should be viewed from the perspective of whether he offered us a special and substantial
understandingof the centralissues of the theory of modernity.
256

analysis of the progress of economic forms of society, he considered modern

productionas the markof modern society.
To emphasize the decisive significance of modernproductionto modernityis not
to explain the formationand development of modernityonly in terms of economy; it
is also not to reject and deny the roles other factors play. Marx only accentuatedthe
"fundamental"effects that modernproductionhas on modernity;he did not say that
only economy would have any effects. From the point of view of the abstruse
origination and the initial dynamic of modernity, the coming to stage of modern
production did play a decisive role. Without the rapid change in the mode of
production, there would be no calling for modernity. Yet economy is not the sole
factor that drives the process of its gradual development and evolution. The
combination of many factors, economic factor included, does the job. It is the
complex inter-stimulationand inter-influencebetween these factors that promotes
the formationand developmentof modernity.

IIAmulti-dimension
perspectiveof modemrnity

Sufficient attention must be paid to the historical context when we study Marx's
theory of modernity. There is a whole range of differences between Marx's
modernityand the modemrnity we talk abouttoday, differences in the object of study,
the theme of investigation, the focus of observation, and the method of research.
Therefore,only by getting into the domain of Marx's discussion, can we understand
and grasp his theory of modernity. As Marx's theory of modernity permeates and
manifests itself in the process of dissecting "modernsociety", only by an analysis of
modemrnsociety can we grasp Marx's basic opinions on modernity and his
methodology of investigation. These opinions and methods manifest themselves
especially in the following dimensions throughwhich Marx has done the analysis of
modernity.
(1) Modernityis inherentin the logic of capital.
According to Lyotard, capitalism is necessarily connected with modernity.
Modernity developed in the capitalist society is not only a result and outward
exhibition of capital logic, but is also a prerequisiteand an inner mechanism of it.
Without modernity, there would be no normal movement of capital. So it is safe to
say that the factors of modernitylie not outside the logic of capital but are contained
in it.
It is by the analysis of the logic of capital that Marx developed his theory of
modernity.According to Marx, modernityis ultimatelythe productof the movement
of capital that is based on modern production.It rises and progresses alongside the
movement of capital. The logic of capital is but the constantpursuingof the greatest
profit. Profit stimulates capitalists to transformand renovate without a break. "The
bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of
production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole
relations of society." [3]. It is the logic of capital that stimulates the formationand
developmentof modernity.
Just as the movement of capital has its inner logic, the development of modernity
 257

has its innerlogic too. The so-calledlogic of modernityis an innertendencyof

inter-connection andevolutionthatrunsthroughthe developmentof modernityas a
law or trend.How does the logic of modernitycome into being? Althoughthe
inter-connection andinter-influence of the factorsof modernityplay somerole,the
logic of capitalis a decisivefactor.In otherwords,the logic of capitaldetermines
the logic of modernity.The historyof the developmentof the logic of capitalthat
Marxinvestigatedis also the historyof the developmentof modernity.Similarto
many scholarssince modemrn times, Marx maintainedthat the developmentof
modernitybegan with the great mental liberationwhen reason became the criteriaof
judgment; afterwardsmodernity developed from rationalityand enlightenmentinto
political freedom and democracy; later it developed from political freedom and
equality to economic freedom and equality; economic freedom and equality then
demandednew fairness, righteousness,justice, and all-roundprogress in all areas of
social life. This is basically the logic of modernity.Why does the logic of modernity
presentitself in such a way? The primaryreason for this is the logic of capital. After
capital came into being, the principal question it faced was to how get rid of the
bondage of religious dominationand to remove the obstacle of feudal despotism to
get onto the fast road of development. The prerequisite of this has to be the
implementation of reason so that the fetters of mind might be broken up,
individuality,subjectivity,and self-consciousness might stand out. On this basis, the
political demandsand claims of democracy,freedom and humanrights might be put
forward.Once the bondage of mind and politics had been removed, it became the
objective demand of the logic of capital to implement firmly the market rules that
were harmonious with the development of capital. This becomes necessary to
achieve economic freedom and equality because the movement and accretion of
capital could not go on without marketexchanges, and marketexchanges have to be
free and equal. The emergence of political equality and freedom would accompany
this process, because it is the prerequisite of the smooth flowing of capital to
establish economic freedom and equality,to adjustall the laws concerned,and to set
up new frameworks of the political and social relations. Thus, "as developed in
juridical,political, social relation,they are merely this basis to higher power",([4], p.
245) Here, "to higher power" apparentlymeans to magnify and extend economic
equality and freedom in the fields of politics and society. Along with the expanding
and growing process of capital, it would exert influences on the mental arena of
human beings so that the consciousness of democracy, law, and social membership
would come into being. Therefore,the developmentallogic of modernityis a result
of the logic of capital;the in-depthcontent and profoundmotivationof modernityis
but the logic of the movement of capital, the logic of productionof commodity and
its consumption.
If modernity is a result of the development of the logic of capital, is the
foundationon which the currentpostmodernityand postmodernismis built still the
logic of capital? Moreover, does "postmodern society" mean the complete
destructionof the logic of capital, or does it present the logic of capital in a way
other than modernity?This is a question that has drawnmuch attentionfrom many
scholars. Baudrillardthinks that with the emergence of the consumer society, it is
not Marx's so-called logic of capitalist production but the symbolic effect of
258

consumption that dominates and controls social life. Although Habermas and
Giddens do not completely deny that the logic of productioncan be used to explain
moderncapitalistsociety, they strictly limit the scope within which this logic works.
They think that it is effective to analyze some regional systems and earlier
capitalismwith such a theory, but it would be hardly so to analyze the entire social
system and contemporary capitalism. On the contrary, Jameson comes to the
conclusion through an analysis of the later capitalist culture that postmodernism
does not escape the dominationof the logic of capital and it does not lie outside the
capitalist culture but indeed the culture logic of later capitalism. It should be
admittedthat Jameson's analysis is to the point. From the perspective of the general
course of the logic of capital, capitalism has experienced three important stages,
which are freely competitive capitalism, monopoly capitalism and later capitalism.
Although there are distinctive characteristicsin each of these stages, the ways with
which capital shows itself and the ways in which capital works in these stages are
different from one another,they are still within the logic of capital as analyzed by
Marx. There are significant changes in each area of social life in later capitalism
compared with the bygone stages. For example, in the area of production and its
organization,the old big enterpriseshave given way to agile and diversified small
enterprises;in the area of consumption,productionin small batches both stimulates
fast consumption change and satisfies personalized demands, while consumption
system gets ever more importantin the developmentof social economy; in the area
of resource distributionand capital operation, the wave of globalization breaks up
the previous mode to enable the fast flow and reorganizationof resources and capital
within the entire globe. These phenomenacollectively illuminate the importanceof
diversity as well as the characteristicsof novelty, mobility, and contingency in
contemporarylife, and break up the particular-region-centered practice common in
the Ford era. This, in consequence, results in the ideological features of
decentralization,diversification,anti-essentialism,anti-fundamentalism,and fluidity,
and leads to the emergence of postmodernthinking.All in all, it is the contemporary
development of the logic of capital that produces the ideas expressed in
postmodernism,and postmodernismis but a contemporaryexpression of the logic of
capital.
(2) Modernityresides in the process of historical evolution.
To a great degree, critiques of modernity originate from a rigid and biased
understanding of modernity, which takes it to be a fixed pattern, a specific
configurationand belonging to specific times. It is Marx who observed modernityas
well as the development and evolution of modern society from a historical
perspective. According to him, although modern society is by far the most
developed form of society, it is by no means a sudden phenomenon without any
historical prelude. Modern society is generated within the traditional society.
Modern civilization is built on the basis of the accumulation of traditional
civilization, which on one hand presents itself as the accumulation of material
groundwork, and on the other hand as the accumulation of knowledge and
technology. "The means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the
bourgeoisie built itself up, were generatedin feudal society." [3] It is safe to say that
modern society is the way by which previous social contradictionsget resolved and
 259

new social contradictionsfunction, whose coming into being does not demonstratea
pure "rupture"of society but is the unification of the continuityand discontinuityof
social development.
To understandmodernity and modern society better, we should pay sufficient
attentionto Marx's idea that modem society is an "organicbody". Marx's assertion
that "the present society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of change, and
is constantlychanging"([5], p.10) could be taken as Marx's general attitudetoward
investigation of modem society. The division made between "organism"and "solid
crystal" is to emphasize the mobile development of modern society as well as the
fluidity and evolution of modernity. Marx made the following summarizationin
Grundrisse about the self-constructionand mobile evolution of the modem social
organic body: "This organic system itself, as a totality, has its presuppositions,and
its development to its totality consists precisely in subordinatingall elements of
society to itself, or in creating out of it the organs which it still lacks. This is
historicallyhow it becomes a totality. The process of becoming this totality forms a
moment of its process, of its development." ([4], p.278) Essentially three notions
about the development of modern society are illuminated here: the first, it is a
process to totality; the second, it is a "built-in" process; and the third, it is a
"self-organized"process. These processes are both a developmentalprocess of the
social organicbody and a process of growth and progress of modernity.
Of course, the evolution and growth that modernity experienced in modern
society is rather complicated. Generally speaking, it involves the following
circumstances:firstly, modernity has different accentuations in different historical
periods. Modernityin the period of Renaissance is different from its counterpartin
the period of capitalist revolution;the latter is also different from modernityin the
period of the industrialrevolution; it is the same with modernity in the period of
industrialrevolution and modernity in the period of later capitalism. The change of
the accentuationof modernityis caused by the differentdemandsof developmentin
differentperiods. Different periods have differentmotives, thus naturallymodernity
of society during different periods have different emphasis. Secondly, the same
factor of modernityhas differentcharacter,function, and quality in differentperiods.
For instance,reason appearedas the opponentof religious faith. It was an expression
of self-consciousness and self-awakeningof humanbeings and played a great role in
promoting social enlightenment, the improvement of technology and the
developmentof entire society. Yet reason graduallydeviated from its original nature.
It drove people's values and spiritualityinto crisis while driving social economy and
technology in the directionof rationaldevelopment.Hence, Weber exclaimed, "with
the expanding of reason and rationalization,the ultimate and most sublime values
have retreatedfrom public life into the transcendentalrealm of mystic life." [6]
Thirdly,the factors of modernityoccupy differentpositions in the general structure
of modernity in different periods. Because there are different principal issues for
social modernity to cope with in different historical stages, the positions and
functions of these factors are not steadfastbut are changing all the time, with some
factors getting stronger and some factors on the wane, some factors going to the
front stage and some factors going behind the curtain. The factors such as
discrepancy, pluralism, and heterogeneity which were neglected in the past are
260

attractingmore and more attentionnowadays and are getting ever more prominentin
practice. So the development of modernity is a process of ceaseless reorganization
and constantrenovationof structure.
To emphasize the mobility of modernity does not mean to neglect its relative
stability. Because history itself is a unification of continuity and discontinuity,the
modernity that is born from such a history must be a unification of mobility and
stability. Although modernity has found itself in constant development and
evolution, there lie inside it essential contents and principles without which it could
hardlybe defined. The spirit of science and reason, the spiritof democracy, freedom
and equality as well as the spirit of self-liberationand all-roundprogress, which are
all advocated and sponsored by modemrn society, are all fundamentalessence and
common characterof modernity,which enjoy relative stability. There would not be
such a thing as modernity without these essential contents and essential spirits.
Because of this, there should be some differentiationmade between the fundamental
meaning and essence of modernity and its actual presentation under specific
conditions. As the former tends to be stable and to which the development of
modemrn society must hold fast eternally, the latter tends to be fluctuating thus
needing timely adjustments according to historical conditions. This is indeed the
fundamental standpoint of Marx's historical dialectics. Baudelaire expressed a
similarview about this from the perspectiveof art. He thoughtthat modernitymeant
a kind of brevity and liquidity containing stability and eternity. "Modernityis the
transient,the fleeting, the contingent;it is one half of art, the other being the eternal
and the immovable."([7], p.83) This suggestion is in accordancewith the practiceof
dialectics.
(3) Modernityarises in social conflicts and segmentation.
According to Marx, although modernity progresses with the development of
society, there lie inside it abstruse contradictions, which make the progress of
modernity a historical process full of twists and conflicts. On the one hand, the
progress of modernity has indeed brought mankind unprecedented fruits of
civilization; on the other hand, this has been done through tribulationsof fire and
blood. The journey of modernityis developed throughsuch contradictions.Marx no
doubt adequatelyaffirmedthe positive results of modernityand highly appraisedthe
"great civilization of capital"; in the meantime, he relentlessly exposed social
fissions and various phenomena of reification resulting from modernity. These two
attitudesare not separatefrom each other, they interweave in Marx's social critique
theory and unfurl themselves in this theory. It was throughcritical investigation and
diagnosis that Marx gave us a shrewd analysis and account of the internalfissions of
modernityand their sources.
Marx's critique of the modernity of capitalism concentratedin two periods: the
earlierone was the critiqueof the ideological period, the later one was the critiqueof
a politico-economic period. Though the topic and the objects of these two periods
differed from each other, basically they were all centered on the social issues of
modemrn society, and therefore could be taken as revelations of contradictions in
modernityfrom differentperspectives and different levels. The ideological critiques
in the earlier period were centered on issues such as state, law, and social
consciousness. As far as the relationship between civil society and state was
 261

concerned, the separation of these two parts was an inevitable result of the
development of modern society and without doubt a kind of historical progress
because it markedmankind's walking out of the sphere of being a political animal
and acquiringelementaryhuman freedom and the freedom of activity. Yet this kind
of separationand the establishmentof the new type of political state did not bring
substantialchanges to the actual lives of humanbeings. The so-called political state
was but an "illusionary community" and a religious area in political life; the
so-called law was not the means to vindicate the proper rights and freedom of
humanbeings but the means of oppression for some people over others. There were
also internalsplits in other forms of consciousness that came into being in modern
society, as it was the case with state and law. Although these forms of ideology
reflected the demands of relationship of modern production and of politics and
might generally do good to the development of capitalism, they carried apparent
falsities since they first came to this world, which displayed themselves as the
so-called rationality, universality, eternity and so on. Marx exposed relentlessly
those "false consciousness"and their outwardforms in such explicit language: "All
forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by
resolution into 'self-consciousness' or transformationinto 'apparitions,' 'specters,'
'fancies,' etc., but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations
which gave rise to this idealistic humbug".[8]
After the 1840s, the economic critiques Marx made against modernity mainly
took the form of critique against capital and uncovering the inner contradictionsof
the commodity society of capitalism. The theory of capitalist commodity society is
indeed the pathology of capitalistmodernity.According to Marx, commodity society
brings human history td a new stage, which on the one hand leads to the rapid
progress and momentous revolution of social life, and solicits a series of severe
distortionsto social developmentand the developmentof humanbeings on the other.
These distortionsinclude the following:
1. The reificationof social relations
The exchange of commodities makes the relations among human beings "appear
as something alien to them, autonomous, as a thing. In exchange value, the social
connection between persons is transformedinto a social relation between things."
([4], p. 157). This kind of reification not only downgradesthe personality and the
human being itself to objects and commodities, but also lays the foundationfor all
kinds of fetishism.
2. The dominationof the abstractions.
In capitalist society, "from its (money) servile role, in which it appearsas mere
medium of circulation, it suddenly changes into the lord and god of the world of
commodities". ([4], p. 22). Whoever possesses money, the abstractfortune, is the
one who dominates the world. Thus, "individualsare now ruled by abstractions".
([4], p. 164). The reason for the domination of abstractionlies in the fact that it
representspower and fortune.
3. The dominationof formulation.
The capitalist commodity production implies mechanized production, whose
development plus the enhancement of technology will inevitably cause
"formulation", which is the only guarantee for the smooth running of the
262

mechanized production and actual practice of technology. Formulationdominates

completely not only humanbody, but also humanmind.
4. The deceitfulness of rationalization.
In the capitalistcommodity society, all the economic behaviors seem to be so free
and without any external super-economic forces, the principle abided by is the
principle of equivalent exchange, therefore, "rationalization"becomes an obvious
character.Yet such a "rationalization"is not really rational because it is in fact
irrationalitycovered by superficialrationalization.
5. The disastrousimpactofreification.
The negative value and consequence of the capitalist modernity ultimately
concentrate in the full-scale reification of human beings. The capitalist mode of
productionnot only produces poverty, exploitation, and oppression, but also brings
severe devastation and devaluation to "humanworld", thus it destroys both human
life and culturalvalues.
Generally speaking, the internalsplitting of modernityis the result of the internal
contradictionsof capitalism. Because of these invincible internalcontradictions,the
development of capitalism is both a positive power that enhances modern
civilization and a negative obstacle to the healthy progressof it. It is because of such
contradictions that Marx carried both positive and negative attitude toward
modernity.As a matterof fact, there should not be such simple assertions that Marx
is a vindicatoror a criticizer of modernitywithout clarifying in the first place what
Marx affirms of modernity and what Marx opposes of modernity. If we could get
sufficiently close to Marx's original meaning, it would not be difficult to see that
what Marx affirmed is the fruits of civilization createdby modernity,whereas what
he opposed is the form of society specific to modern civilization and the
antagonizing social relations it contains. Recognizing this point would be very
importantfor a correctcomprehensionof Marx's standpointabout modernity.
(4) Modernitypresents itself in a global horizon.
Marx's analysis of modernity does not merely huddle within the frameworkof
"traditionand modern times", but unfolds itself within a much wider horizon of
"globalization and modernity". The primaryreason for exploring modernity from
the perspective of globalization is that globalization and world history have become
an important background and immanent factor for the development of modern
society. It would be impossible to investigate the modernity of social development
without setting the globe as its new frame of reference. As a result, it becomes a
necessity to understand modernity from the point of view of globalization. The
internalmechanism is as follows:
Firstly, modernity was born with internationalcharacter.If "tradition"could at
least be handed down through the ages in an isolated environmentof a state or a
nation, "modernity"could hardly survive such a condition from the very beginning.
As far as its beginning or origin is concerned, modernitywas born at a time when
nationalhistory turnedinto world history. The great geographicaldiscovery and the
growth of world marketenabled fast and extensive spreadingof modern civilization
and thus developed modernity globally. Modernity has also been growing and
evolving in an environmentin which different countries influence one another.The
formationof world history unites the economic activities of all the countries into a
 263

whole that goes forward as a single body, and the most typical form of this
unification is to undertakecommodity productionon the basis of division of labor
among the nations. In this process, the production and consumption of different
countries need each other, satisfy the needs of each other, and as a result greatly
improve the modernity of the society. The most fundamental drive for the
internationalizationof modernity comes from the capital either in the beginning of
or during the developmental process. In order to create surplus value, the capital
must first "conquerthe whole earthfor its market".([4], p. 539).
Secondly, modernity reflects the common character of modemrncivilization.
Although modernity has obvious national characteristicsdue to different features
and forms of modernity in different countries and nations, the emphasis on
nationality does not imply the negation of its common character.As a symbol of
modern civilization, modernity displays distinctive common universality. Its
universality comes from the universality of social praxis. No matterhow special a
country's custom and environment, the country must first solve its survival and
developmental problems in some way and must promote productionto satisfy its
own needs. It has to expand its internal and external exchange relations and learn
from each other in order to deal with all the contradictions in the praxis of
production.With the enhancementof commonness of productionand the expansion
of intercourse,the previously isolated and dispersed communities unite into larger
communities after conflicts; the localized cultures mingle into new culturesthrough
communications and collisions as well. It is through such enlargement of
intercourses that the universality of culture has been fostered. It is by means of
intercourses, "the intellectual creations of individual nations become common
property.National one-sidedness and narrow-mindednessbecome more and more
impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures,there arises a
world literature."[3].
Thirdly, openness is characteristic of modernity. Barbarism and fatuity are
generally linked with isolation, whereas modernityand civilization with openness. It
is because of this Marx sometimes called those uncivilized or half-civilized nations
"barbarous"nations, and those carrying out the capitalist mode of production
"civilized"nations. Marx by no means tried to color capitalismon the standpointof
colonists, but simply articulateda fact from the perspective of the development of
human civilization instead of making a value judgment, because under the
conditions of world history, to reject openness is equal to rejecting civilization and
modernization.As the difference between being open and being closed reflects the
difference between being advanced and being backward,such consequences would
become inevitable as Marx stated, "Just as it (the capitalist) has made the country
dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarianand semi-barbariancountries
dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the
East on the West." [3]. The three "belongs to" indeed indicates the basic
characteristics of world history since the modern times as well as the true
relationship between being open and being closed. Because modernity is always
closely connected with openness, it is necessary for a country to open its door and
walk into the world in order to develop its modernity. "One nation can and should
learn from others"([5], p. 10).
264

Admitting the fact that the seeking of modernity cannot be done without paying
attentionto globalization, then, what is globalization? Or what is its impact on the
development of modernity?Indeed, the history of the development of modernity is
not an idyllic and harmonioushistory of development,but a history full of conflicts
and contradictions.These conflicts and contradictionsare denied in the theories of
orthodoxeconomic liberalismand their places are takenby the beautiful melodies of
equity, liberty, and mutual benefit. By way of an analysis of the origination and
development of capitalism and world market, Marx exposed penetratingly the
worldwide oppression and exploitationbehind free trade, that is, the dominationon
and exploitationof the weak countriesby the strong ones. He proved with plenty of
material that the formation of capitalist world system did not totally rely on free
trade and spontaneous market, on the contrary, the process of conquering and
plundering the colonies played a decisive role in the primitive accumulation of
capital because the vast fortune plunderedhad been transformedinto capital in the
suzerain countries. The world system set up through colonial domination would
certainly be unjust, as we see clearly in the opposition between cities and
countrysidein the world. Along with the developmentof capitalism, this opposition
graduallysolidifies and the world is turnedinto a system consisted of a "center"and
its "periphery",i.e., the suzerain and its affiliated countries. "The cheapness of the
articles produced by machinery, and the improved means of transport and
communication furnish the weapons for conquering foreign markets. By ruining
handcraftproductionin other countries,machineryforcibly converts them into fields
for the supply of its raw material... By constantly making a part of the hands
'supernumerary',modern industry,in all countries where it has taken root, gives a
spur to emigration and to the colonization of foreign lands, which are there
converted into settlements for growing the raw materialof the mother country;just
as Australia,for example, was convertedinto a colony for growing wool. A new and
internationaldivision of labor, a division suited to the requirementsof the chief
centers of modern industry springs up, and converts one part of the globe into a
chiefly agriculturalfield of production,for supplying the other part which remains a
chiefly industrialfield." ([5], p. 451). Globalizationsince modern times is in such a
severely lopsided pattern!The meaning of this unbalancedpatternvaries greatly to
the development of different countries:the central countries would benefit more in
the process of globalization, whereas the satellite countries would pay dearly in the
process of bucking for benefit in contrast.They are both participantsof globalization,
yet they harvestvastly differentfruits of modernity.

IIIThewayto breakawayfromthe predicament

of modemrnity

Accompanying the rapid social development, the profoundcontradictionscontained

in modernity since its birth has been gradually brewed into today's specific
predicament or crisis of modernity. Is it possible to walk away from such a
predicamentor crisis? Many scholars and schools consider the problem critically
and provide correspondingschemes and solutions. The leading schools active in the
 265

western philosophical arena, such as Husserl's transcendental phenomenology,

Scheler's phenomenology of values, Jaspers and Heidegger's existentialism,
Gadamer'shermeneutic,the social critical theory of Marcuse, Habermasand other
figures of the Frankfurtschool as well as the postmodernismof Lyotardand Derrida,
are all critical of modernityand bring forwardrespectively their own solutions to the
crisis of modernity.Among these solutions, the revisory critiquemade by Habermas,
Giddens, Rawls and other modernist thinkers are quite influential and are
representative.The project for resolving the crisis of modernity that Habermas
provides is based on "communicational reason". He thinks that the cause of
modernity is still unfinished and must be carriedon by overcoming its defects. He
objects to the complete denial of reason, and maintainsthat after the exposure and
recognition of the absurdity of subject-centered reason, philosophy should be
liberatedfrom the previous paradigmof"philosophy of consciousness"and achieves
a paradigm transformation,that is, to reconstruct modernity on the basis of
"communicationalreason". Giddens gives prominence to reflectivity and regards
this as a way to walk away from the predicamentof modernity.He thinks that it is
still too early to talk about the termination of modernity because the soil of
modernizationstill exists in contemporarysociety; as a result, presentlythe pressing
need is "to look again at the natureof modernityitself' ([9], p. 3) and to transcend
"modernity of the earlier era" and "simple modemrnization" with "reflective
modernity" and "reflective modernization". From the viewpoint of political
philosophy, Rawls puts forward"publicreason"to supplementthe traditionalidea of
personal reason and considers this the way to abandonthe vexations of modernity.
He thinks that modern society is a pluralistic society consisting of individuals and
groups with different notions and different interests. Members of a society are
seriously split up due to differentreligions, philosophies and moralitiesthey adopt;a
kind of "overlappingconsensus" must be realized among the citizens to enable the
long-termstabilityof a society, namely, a kind of consensus on the basic conception
of social justice must be reachedby way of "publicreason"
It should be admittedthat the above ideas are quite good for the diagnosis of the
disease of modernity,but the resolutionsthey put forwardare idealistic and romantic,
thus liable to suspicion. The common feature of these ideas is trying to take
modernityitself, especially the concept of culturalvalue, to be the root of the crisis
of modernity,and attemptingto seek ways to get rid of the vexations of modernity
from the reconstructionand rearrangingof these culturalnotions. This is a typical
standpointof pan-culturalism.
Marx also ponderedpenetratinglythe solution of the crisis of modernity,but his
basic viewpoint was thatthe existent should be relentlessly criticized and in this way,
a new world could be found. There are in fact two critiqueshere: one is theoretical
critique,and the otherpracticalcritique.As far as the relationshipbetween the two is
concerned, the theoreticalcritique is not the aim itself, but only a means. The real
aim is to change the world and establish an unprecedented "human society or
socialized mankind".Therefore,Marx did not seek remedy of the crisis of modernity
from ideas but from reality.
Firstly, Marx's critique is not only cultural but also foundational and holistic.
Although all sorts of contradictionsof modernityare present in culturalnotions that
266

have great impact on social lives, culturalnotions themselves are not self-sufficient
and are not well preparedto take such awesome responsibilityas the salvation from
the crisis of modernity. Culturalnotions always function and affirm themselves by
way of the praxis of humanbeings as well as their combinationand interactionwith
other factors of society in the general social structure.The root of the crisis of
culturalnotions lies in the crisis of social relationsand social institutions.Therefore,
the solution to the crisis of modernity should not be sought only from cultural
perspectivebut should also be sought in the foundationsas well. In other words, the
primarytask in the solution of the crisis of modernityis not to overthrowthe cultural
logic of capitalismbut to change the logic of capital. As long as the logic of capital
still prevails overwhelmingly, the contradictionsand problems in the development
of modernity will inevitably exist and overspread. That is the reason why Marx
targeted his critique of modernity on capital. Today, the logic of capital of going
after maximized profits is still unaltered,the inequality in social economy is still a
reality and the relations of internationalexploitation is ever more rampant.Under
these conditions, to stress only the cultural dimension of critique is too weak and
insufficient. Furthermore,a consequence of denying and criticizing modernity in
general terms might be to color reality. Jamesonputs this point ratherarticulatelyin
the essay "Globalizationand political Strategy".[10]
Secondly, Marx did not stick to reflection and introspection but emphasized
the critique and alteration of reality. Reflection and introspection on modernity
is a kind of rational self-consciousness about the liquidity of modernity. Bauman
used to make such an explanation: industrialized society or the earlier capitalism
is a weighty modernity and its weight has put capital and labor into an
inescapable iron cage, yet in post-industrialized society or information society
capital can move around by taking advantages of suitcases, mobile phones and
electric networks. Under the condition of such "liquid" modernity, capital can
escape the iron cage while labors are still pegged fast in fixed places. The
reflection and introspection on modernity is but to find a way to soothe people's
mind and adjust missteps in people's thinking in modernity. It should be
admitted that it is necessary to reflect and introspect on modernity. It helps us
understand modernity, but it is not the only way to break away from the
predicament of modernity. Reflection, introspection, and self-reflectivity are
only kinds of emotional reactions to the recognition of the inevitability of the
crisis of modernity. They cannot really provide an environment for the survival
and development of mankind. The problem of human existence and development
and the problem of modernity are not abstract problems of metaphysics but are
always realistic problems of history that cannot be solved by Heidegger's
reflective experience but can only be solved by actual social transformation and
social practice. Regarding the way to break through the constraint of modernity,
Marx did not appeal to reflection, but relied on the practical reconstruction of
real life. It needs only a new consciousness of modernity to get rid of the crisis
of modernity in ideas, but it needs realistic movements of social reconstruction
to remove the actual crisis of modernity. In this sense, the modernity Marx went
after was not the pure idea of modernity but the more important modernity of
society.
 267

Thirdly, not an externalbut an internaltranscendenceis needed. Walking away

from the crisis of modernity implies transcendingthe previous modernity. What
should be done? There is no doubt that a way of transcendenceis to adopt the way
of postmodernist thinking and make a holistic overturn and a complete
deconstruction of modernity. But it is by no means a feasible option because
modernityis not approachingits end and thus should not be totally demolished. The
truly viable option is to investigate critically the development of modernity and
move towards internaltranscendence,that is, to face the internal contradictionsof
modernitysquarelyand pursue its naturaldevelopmentby rationalsolutions of these
contradictionsin order to make it more beneficial to the progress of mankindand
society. Marx pondered and explored the issue of modernity along this line. He
thought that because of its profound inner contradictions the development of
capitalism would become the obstacle and limit of the continuous proliferatingof
capital, thus there containedin the development of capitalism itself the possibilities
of transcendingit. Only by the realizationof communism,could such possibilities be
turned into reality, because it is only in such a society the profound contradictions
and violent conflicts contained inside the modernity of capitalism be resolved
thoroughly,and modernitybe turnedfrom a force that enslaves mankindblindly into
a force that is under the control of mankind and serves mankind. "Communism
differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier
relations of productionand intercourse,and for the first time consciously treats all
naturalpremises as the creaturesof hithertoexisting men, stripsthem of theirnatural
character and subjugates them to the power of the united individuals." [8]
Communism genuinely represents the internal transcendence over modernity
because it is a constructionof new social relations and new mode of society that
does not sever its connection with history and does not deny our predecessor's
contributions.
Of course, to stress the importanceof institution critique and reality alteration
does not imply that cultural critique is unimportant.The point this essay wants to
illustrate is that the crux of discussion on modernity is not whether cultural study
should be carriedout or not, but what kind of basis should be laid for culturalstudy.
Nothing valuable would be produced if we discuss culture simply for the sake of
culture, neither can a feasible road leading us out of the crisis of modernity be
pointed out throughsuch a discussion.
When we talk about the issue of modernity in the context of contemporary
China, we should notice that the social environment and historical situation in
Marx's times is quite different from those in existence today. But, our time and
Marx's are not totally different. From a great historical perspective, as long as
the nature of our times does not change essentially, namely, as long as the logic
of capital still exists, we can say that Marx and we live in the "same times". In
other words, Marx and we all live in the same process of modernization, the
difference is that Marx lived in the earlier period of modern society whereas we
live in the comparatively mature stage of it. As a result, though some of Marx's
opinions about modernity might not be appropriate today, his basic ideas and
basic standpoint concerning modernity are still methodologically importantto the
constructionof modernityin contemporaryChina.
268

References

1. GiddensA. andPiersonC. ConversationswithAnthonyGiddens:MakingSense of Modernity,

PolityPressLimited,1998
2. Lenin.CollectedWorks,Vol. 1, Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1936, 123-332
3. MarxandEngels.SelectedWorks,Vol. One,Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1969, 98-137
4. MarxK. Grundrisse.Harmondsworth, Middlesex,England:PenguinBooks Ltd, 1973
5. MarxK. Capital.Moscow:ForeignLanguagePublishingHouse, 1954
6. KarlEmilMaximilianWeber.Political Writings,CambridgeUniversityPress, 1994
7. Baudelaire
C.ArtinParis 1845-1862,London:Phaidon,1965.Reprinted in AlanTrachtenberg,
ed.,
ClassicEssaysin Photography,New Haven:Leete'sBooks, 1980
8. MarxandEngels. TheGermanIdeology,Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1964
9. GiddensA. The Consequenceof Modernity,Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,
1990
10. JamesonF. GlobalizationandPoliticalStrategy,New LeftReview,2000, (4)