AR THEORY (CULTURE& 'GOCIETY Editor: Mike Femtnsistona Review Editors: Jon Gihbins, Mike Hepwortt Editorial Boord: Joset Bleicher (Gioagow College of Technology), Mike Featherstone (Tease ‘ich John Gibbins (Teosside Polytechnic}, Mike Hopwarth (Abarseen University), Roland: oberon (Universiy of Pitisbucgh). Brian Tutor (Univarsiy of Suesex). Divan § Turner (Finde’s University of South Auseaia) Polytech 16 Manager: Lovise Biviner Incividuald who have helped wih the preparation of this iesue include! Chite Feaihers:one, Erie Carlion, George Re Assotlated Editors: Edwvaid Boneel (Arnsterdors), Pier Bourdiav (Contre do Suciotegle Européenne, Pasi), Roy Borsa (Newcastle Polytecinic), Rosalind Brunt (Shetiald Polyclinic), Divid Chaney (Dusham University), a Cohen (Ruigars Univeray. Andeow Ganble (University ‘of Shelield), Oavic Helo (Open Univarcty), Anal Hanneih (University of Fiank/ur)- Russell Jecoby (Concordia Univerety, Montreal, Roger King (luddersfold Potytech-vcl, Scott Lesh (Universiy of Laccauter), Jorge Lacain (Uaiversily of Biaringnar), Hola Roberts (likley Collage), Welfgang Schiuctuer (University of Heidetbory). Carol Sinaat {Hsslonal Counciifec Or Parent Files. London), Guarg Stauth (University of Gisttald, Nico Stabe (University of lveca}, fan Tavlor (Corleion Universioy, Qltawal, Alt Tomlinson (Brigivon Polyiechuic), Michatina Vaughan. (Univerety of Lareaste) Subscriptions: Anaividuals £10.60 (Over Inttatione £32.60 (Over Single Conies £3.90 ( Back issues ove eval £12.76, $23.00) £98.08, 66.00} ‘nostage £4.20, Overseas £5.00, 614.00} je: Individuals £6.00 (Overeuae £8.75, £16.00) Insutulions £15.60 (Overseas £47.00, $32.00) Theory, Cutturs & Society ofles a reduced subsetintion 13 Applicalions shoutd ba inadn Co the Editor, (6 £8.00 10 the unwaued. ‘Aaticlos spewing in Theory. Culture & Society a0 sbstacied in Sociological ‘Abstracts. The journal is ols indexed in the Alternative Press Index. ‘Theory, Cutture & Society i published thee vines e year, Work! Capytigit ©) Theory, Culture & Society 1985 All coursspomience sinus he achogeni 78 very Se 3 ‘Acrsinisvative an 3BA, England. ‘Social Siadios, leuside Polyiochnic. Midulesbrougi, Clevelaid, T31 ISSN 0263 — 2764 Volume 2, Number 3, 1985 Special fssue on The Fate of Modeerity CONTENTS: Articles Mize Featherstoute ‘TheFate of Modernity: An introduction Zyginani Bauman (On the Origing of Civilisation: A Historical Note Geollrey Pearson Lawinpinens, Hodernlty and Social Change: Adfistorcat Appraisal inal Waitt The invisible Fléneuse: Women and iheLilereture of Modernity DavidFrieby Georg Simmel. Firs Sociologist of Modernity ‘athurKroker Baudritarg' stare AlexCalliicos ,_—-Poslmederniain, Post Suucturatism and Post- — Marsicm? PuloudRabertgon®& | Modernization, Globalization and the Problem FrankLechiner oC uhureie WoskieSy terns Theory Ihab Hassan 5, TheCulture ofPosimodernisin Dovid Raarussen CCummonieative Action and the Fate of Modoraity Conunenary Axof Honeat ‘An boats Rat the Universal: A Comnuantary ‘oniyotari's Postimodere Condition Review Article Bryan STursor—* OA Eliog The Civlixing Process, Volume Two: \, Stele Formation and Ciilzalion; The Court Society Reviews MWermnan Al That is Solid Melts into Air: roviowod by Bernice Mastin E Holyshawin a7 Ramgat The lavantion of Tradition eviawad by David Chaney . FW Lutisiain The Differentiation of Society: reviewed hy Friedrich Sixal AMaclotyis Alter Viewa: evieweed by Jon Boustletd Jon thatvlam ond Modernism: reviewed by Alan Tomiioson J i onaruit ax Weoer and uve Bustiny of Reasern: 8 rarer Woe Lite of Ratiowality: reviewed by Wilicm Outtrwsite A Sandbsook The Falitic of Bosie Needs: reviewed by Peter Cross a eae 103 ne ve 14 138 162 165 168 M6 8 1e2 ima48, sociological abstracts online and print editions are valuable tools for you if you do literature searches in: \ \ sociology (natch) * management * medicine « social psychology a4 «criminology « economics & demographics = linguistics = etc. We've made mojor changes in our print ond online services recently. When did you lost use sa? Working hard in the 80's sociological abstracts, PCL Box 22206 lego, Colforwin 92122-0206 01.619-565-6600 Georg Simmel: First Sociologist of Modernity . David Frisby le ans, Je fugit contingeny, Is meslé de on, dont Faure moité est roto Fira, ‘The azeance ol modemity as such i psychologivm, the expetiencing endinurprelauon ofthe won {oun of she reactions ot ou na fe avtindted aan inner world the cgaoluan of Ted coccents ft {he fii elanont ofthe sou liom which al shat ir substantive lilered ond whose feames aa ce forms of metian. La modernite {n Sorgen Habenras’s recent incursions inlo the social engins, consequences and fato of modernity — 2 them that Was for several decades at the heart ol the earn Frankfurt, Schoo's cultural concerns. especially in the work of Adorno but sbova sll in Benjamin's * incomplete Passagenarbeit—thare remeins today. as then, areas lotal neglect of the work ol the Gest sociologist of modernity in both Baudelaie's and Benjamin's sense of the tore. Inthe ‘whole of Fabarmas’s 1981 Theorie des komemunikativen Handefns (which deals, ia porL with {hearies af modemnity) the work of Georg Sieve is cited only I Pertinent essay, “Modernity — au Unfinished Project felered to a all, Theugh fully in keeping with Critical Theory't oscillation betweon hostility lowards and neglect af Siewrel's social theoty,' this issleced since and avarsion £3 al| the ‘more remarkable ia the fight of Simune!'s developinant ofa social thecry of modernity which, umever fragmentary arid incomplete, unwitingly takes up bath many of the’ thames snnounced in Baudelaire's original delineation al inoderiity and anticipatna is subsequent treatment by Benjamin oné, most recently. Habemas.n seeking o delineate and reconstruct Shivbats own theory of modemity, we must fist tur Baudolaire’s fresco of modernity" {(Beniemin}-and itx most recent elaboration by Hebermias, before justifying the clairy ih Sinwnel was the lis: sociologist of modernity. Baudeinire's (1964) chotacterieeucn ol modernity stobe founda his essay in praise of the sedst Constentin Guys entiled The Painiar of Modstn Life’. Baudelaire, Inredueing tho ancapl ol modernits in this exsay (written 1859/60 andTust published in 1863), confessed {0 the reader: know of no beiter word lo express the Idea | have in mind”. He viewed ‘modernity 36 both @ “quality” of modern lite ag wall ag a iow abject of artistic endeavour For the painter of moder le, is quality is associated with the notion of newness, with pouvoaui, Is signilleance ‘as @ conscious aim of artistic production’ ¥ ematiasived by Benjamin (1880 1.3, » 1182, [i Byudoinie’s work, the concern erat with the ete, common to altho ant, to. forms orto gain azcess 1 anew side ef ihings but with se fence mantaly new object eel in the fact hat itis ew, regarcess of how rapuléve and wretched May be. (My emashacie) ‘Heory Cais Yor2 Nos 1965 49wich wil be the aye Hs Fashions. Nonettctes 08 Juuso (1876.9 4) hax atO0ed, (is aatheucs =f yinalasaluily now w98 ol evel 9 love v8 ‘and the eternal imuhos oath met mentee ial ihe ea inane vesuppostsine wows anther io any Fe chance an wea cat Hy tata temgy mace mi cooker toantonee dust the rodem artist ‘ibeiote the Boudelnire’s conception of motigmity and the tasks set fur the modern artist poole precisely in the inshionable sia hisierical dimensions which classical laste Ie!t out of fig account of the beaatlul” Gauss 1970, p 4). Je the very ah whi Boudelsie tthe pans of made ie, any stu he entemeracontngem newness ote present, pues pores able of method ie Freer ing aay melanbepio ot extern tinge the ea rapé muvoment whisk weictonanequalapeedot mecaron feanearttUvexten specie ill even amew kind “ree ethancore ster plows ee coh i wrac yuw t seaah ue lodsaboxow upon rin some occa hich you cxtsnavengly Wo heceine rete oracle losing nge one ne the parite ofe stng moma SEU noggeanane f even tse 4 onto (Oausolare 1268, p 8) (ny amphi) Toremomber everytniag in the roidst of the urban thang and for whori “cutiusity has decor 4 analysis’, he sit of Acired wath the naive gaze of childhood and aduliiood's ‘power of analy ! modern ble yoes in search of is lieeting heaoty, Where dues he touk (a? Bawidetave's answe ig unequivocal iiairaat crt" gases mtn as sighs element Hig pesion ens ts olesion me taconite ah wi Ue xed siineur igantnurense or te sup mse ike pn exe ie, ae ra fe be mwa from home aie Yl Enuerng th crowds as though entving amma! soc dean oR awa tt ‘an invnense reservoir ol elecuical energy’. The stist (99 is Pe ‘a minras as vast as the crow itself” or ‘a kalewoscope ified with consciousness’ inal reprocuces tho ialtipiicity af We and the fickering grace of al zhe elemencs of life... at every instant rendering and expiring icin pictures rote fving han be itself, which is always unstable anal fugitive “the social jocation of the crowd itsell ies, of cunrse, wn (ne metrapulis Here the aris seeks 50 utheth the slightest change in what is new — whether a fashion or be cot ot a gases has been slightly madiied far instsnce — as well as marvotling ‘atthe elernal beauty and the amazing harmony of life inthe capital ciias, a atmony 30 gtovidentially raimained amid the ‘urn of harman ttaedor’. The resulting ‘plantasmagore’ of modern Me thot has been Sisiiia® hom sale cesults from ‘a pereeptivenass acute and magical by reason of its ‘Yel this very percepiveness suggests thal the painter of node since he “has an aig loftiet than thot of a mere féneur, namely the systematic search for ‘modernity’. His ask is thal of ‘secking aut and expauncing thebeeuty of modesnity.in order louiidarsiandils speciah nature, The ate must grasp ‘this wansitory lugiive element whose Matamemlvosas are sa tepid. Only he can release trom the sock tiviat exiemalities of modera ile since for most af us. for wham nature has no axistence save by ‘eleronce 20 uliity, the fantastic reality of lite has become singularly dilated’. Wheie, shen, is this elusive modernity located, i not merely in ‘the landscepe of the great iy’? Tha amis ta be concerned with "hs auwward show af life, such 28 ig to be seen in the ‘opiias of the civilised world’ and should be able to exprass af once the alliude and the Gesture of living baings ... and their luminous explosion in space’. In paruculs, Baudetire enpinasises the eating beauty of fashion, ‘a symptom af uve taste lor the ideal which floats on the suitace of all the crude, terestiat and joathsome bric-0-biae that the aatural lle 2ccernylates in the iumon orein,“an deat for which the restlass human mind feels a constant, Iitdlating hunger’ Ta tact fashions retain ‘the moral and eesthetic Feeling ol the! Knne'. Aeine th anit’ task is “to extract from fashion whatever slerent ity contain of poetyy within Tistory. te distil the eter from the transitory’. And ere we may concut with Oohler (1979 p 248) that fashions not merely a feature of modernity for Baudeleire;athar, Yor him fashions (ne salt ct modernity’ 4 ako the starting paint for iis aesthelies since i eanains 9 dual aitactian. Ikembedies the poetic in the historical. dhe eternal in the wansitions! (Jauss 1970, 953), This eantiality of fashion which we ourselves create and within which ‘the aternal part ol beauty will be voilec! challouges the timeless Ration of baanty and renders i historical New the eterna lias in the wansitry.in te tempol, Tor slmast all our orginlty eomes from We seal whictt Tine imprints on our sensations’ (Batidelaire 1964, p 14). Having liberated modern agsthasics fiom its inasmeriem with a Gineless post, Gaudalaive did ‘er intend thatthe presertation cf modernity wouldreplace itwath the aesthetics of a timeless ‘resent. Indeed, he intended the aestetic ea. presentation ol the ‘modern’ world, often as its ‘ppasite, une tat would reveal the *harst raluse of modernity’ (Oahles}, whe savagery that ‘orks it Ube wide of civilisation’ and its ‘living monstrosities’ (quated in Oehler 1979, p BS). Such a view of modernity was lo conimenditsel subsoquenily 10 Benjamin (1969, » 256) for wha thete was ne object of efviksaliun that was not, at the same time, the product ob Lnorism, lle is not marely a fisreur Bul when we trn to Habermas's treatment of modernity over a century alter that of Baudelaira and several decades alter Benjanun’s Fassagen- Week, we fine that. ellhough both, authors art invoked in his delineation of modemity. Habermas's interest lies in encther dreetion — albeit elated ona namely in the explication of the ations a! lime and history ‘and their relevance for tho aesthetics of modernity Habetmas's cheracterisation of aesthellé modemity highlights four dimensions of modernity that are pertinent (a Simmet’s awn thaory of and relationship to modernity. Firs, Habsimas (18816, p 446) delines vibat fs modern as that whieh “assis in the objective ‘rptession ofa spontaneous, self-renewing contemporancity (Akruafta) of the spirit of the iS. Itis indicated by that which is new, that which by Virtue of the rawness of the next style will be surpassed and devalued. But whereas the inetely fashionable passes into the Bt