Notes on the ‘modernity perspective’

Tweet

By Edwin Madunagu 

Although the topic of our discussion has now changed, the theme remains the same: changing the world. In the opening segment of the preceding essay, Endless debate over changing the world (1) – (6), I introduced three books and their authors: How to change the world: Tales of Marx and Marxism by Eric Hobsbawm; Africa must be modern: The modern imperative in contemporary Africa  (A Manifesto) by Olufemi Taiwo; and The world we like to see: Revolutionary objectives in the 21st century, by Samir Amin. To these three texts I may now add – for the purpose of this continuation – selections from Biodun Jeyifo’s Talakawa Liberation Courier column in The Guardian (Sunday). Let me simply, for now, call these selections Essays on modernity and post-modernity (June 2011 and April, May and June, 2012).

In the second segment of the Endless debate, I listed the contemporary “problems with Nigeria” to include: mass poverty and unemployment; poor healthcare system; armed robbery, kidnapping and terrorism; corruption and ethnicity; exploitation and oppression; social inequality, marginalisation and alienation; cultural backwardness and socioeconomic underdevelopment; ignorance and superstition; state bankruptcy and delinquency; patriarchy and sexism; and inhumanity and immorality. I claimed that, “nearly every critic of the human condition in Nigeria today, from functionaries of the Nigerian state and its various governments, to the ruling classes and elites, down to the ordinary citizens (“citizens without labels”) would subscribe  to the use of these condemnatory terms to  describe our contemporary national existence”.

The real question before the nation, I suggested, divides into two: “the type of society we would like to see and live in; and the transition to it”. The first part of this question – except, possibly, the concept of exploitation and its absence – will also most likely produce a unanimity: we are all agreed on the elimination of the calamities and maladies listed above. The question on which there will not be unanimity therefore boils down to how to transit to the new society.

The very first sentence in Femi Taiwo’s book, Africa must be modern, makes a declaration: “The thesis of this book is very simple and straight-forward: there is nothing that is wrong with Africa at the present time that a serious engagement with, and acceptance of, modernity cannot solve or, at least, contribute to solving. I argue in what follows: Africa must be modern. And it must be modern now; not tomorrow; not in the near – future; not in the far future” (emphasis mine). The author’s point is strongly and clearly made.  It is categorical. Taiwo then lists the quarters from where he anticipates denunciation (not just criticism) of the book.  They include, in his own words, “nay-saying nativists”, “the do-nothing, ‘let’s find an African solution to our problem’ advocates’, “the pseudo-anti-Western – imperialism crowd”, “the renegade rump of anti-neo-colonialist noise makers”.

To these anticipated denouncers, Taiwo says: “You do not have to read this book.  It is not directed at the likes of you. By the same token, if you are one of those in the African world who believe that being modern is synonymous with being Western, this book is not for you and you may be too close – minded to benefit from the discussion to follow”. My simple response to Taiwo here is that this type of pre-emptive attack is really not necessary.  The author should have waited for actual criticisms and then incorporate his responses in a future edition of the book; or, if his responses cannot wait he could respond through any of the various media outlets available.  And they are many. Some parts of the prefatory section of the book may actually put off some ideologically innocent or uncommitted “general readers”.

However, the effect the pre-emptive attacks (or self-defence) had on me was to persuade me to read the book even more thoroughly and calmly. And I enjoyed it.  As an intellectual production, the book is good: highly intellectual, but not jagon-infested. It can be seen by any knowledge – seeking reader that the book is a product of serious research (driven by keen interest and passion). It was obviously designed, in its language, for audiences beyond schools and the academia, beyond intellectual communities. For instance, it is free of tedious annotations, which many authors use not because they are needed, but to intimidate readers and show the degree of their learning and erudition. As for the content, if I were to vote, in a “yes-or-no” referendum, on the book, I would definitely vote yes. I am approaching Africa must be modern and its author with seriousness.

What Africans need and want and aspire to, according to Taiwo, on page 8 of his book, include: “ensuring for themselves and their posterity lives that are free of the trinity of hunger, disease and ignorance.  They want to live in healthy environments.  They want to lead hopeful lives where they can always expect that the future, near or far, will be better than the present, that they will have more control over the direction of their lives, that they will not live under regimes in the constitution of which they have had no hand, and that they will live long prosperous lives marked mostly by happiness”. I don’t think that anyone genuinely concerned about Africa and its future will disagree with Taiwo’s general articulation of our “problems” – for which he recommends modernity as solution.

To prepare to follow Taiwo we may need to do a general survey of the concept of modernity, outside Taiwo’s book. When introducing the book, along with two others, in the opening segment of my preceding series, Endless debate on “Changing the world”, I said that modernity “can be taken in its literal meaning, and then understood historically as refereeing to a “post-traditional, post-medieval historical period’”. This working definition, taken from the Internet (Wikipedia), continues: “This historical period is marked by the move from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism, industrialisation, secularisation, rationalisation, the nation-state and its constituent institutions and forms of surveillance”.

Further down, we are told by this same source that “conceptually, modernity relates to the modern era and to modernism, but forms a distinct concept”, and that “whereas the Enlightenment involves a specific movement in Western philosophy, modernity tends to refer only to the social relations associated with the rise of capitalism”. You may need to bear this in mind because what we are doing here is beyond simply appreciating Femi Taiwo’s book. We are generally taking down study notes on modernity and the perspective it throws up for social transformation of Africa.

Modernity can be periodised into “three conventional phases: Early modernism (1500-1789); Classical modernism (1789 – 1900); and Late modernity  (1900 – 1989).  Classical modernity corresponds to Eric Hobsbawm’s The Long 19th century (1789 – 1914)”. I would like to draw the attention of the reader to the years 1789 (French Revolution), 1914 (beginning of First World War) and 1989 (Fall of Berlin Wall) in this periodisation. Finally, Wikipedia tells us that whereas some authors believe that “modernity ended in the mid or late 20th century and this has defined a period subsequent to modernity, namely post-modernity”, some others “however consider the period from the late 20th century (around 1989) to the present to be merely another phase of modernity”. In other words, the fourth or current phase of modernity is what is known as post-modernity.

From this general characterisation of modernity, we may move to the political and ideological plane. How does a radical leftist intellectual see modernity – not alternatively to the general characterisation, but additionally to it? I shall go back to my background texts: first to Samir Amin, and then to Biodun Jeyifo.  Amin says that, “modernity is a rupture in world history, initiated in Europe during the 16th century. Modernity proclaims that human beings are responsible for their own history, individually and collectively, and consequently breaks with the dominant pre-modern ideologies. Modernity then makes democracy possible, just as it requires secularism, in the sense of separation of the religious and the political”.  (The world we wish to see, page 87).

Samir Amin continues: “Formulated by the 18th century Enlightenment, and implemented by the French Revolution, the complex association of modernity, democracy, and secularism, its advances and retreats, has been shaping the contemporary world ever since. But modernity by itself is not a cultural revolution. It derives its meaning only through the close relation that it has with the birth and subsequent growth of capitalism. This relation has conditioned the historic limits of “really existing” modernity” (The world we wish to see, pages 87 and 88). I would again ask the reader to bear this passage in mind: the relations between modernity and capitalism, on the one hand and between modernity, democracy and secularity, on the other.  Also note Amin’s concepts of “historic limits” and “really existing modernity”.

• To be continued.