Multiple Modernities

by S.N. Eisenstadt

How may we characterize contemporary society in a world so complex? Can looking at the diverse paths followed by various cultures in the modern world generate useful new social scientific typologies, or must a different set of questions be posed in this era of globalization? What, in short, is the nature of modernity? These are some of the questions addressed by the contributors to Multiple Modernities.

Following the theme in an earlier work edited by Shmuel Eisenstadt, Public Spheres and Collective Identities, this book challenges conventional notions of how the world has changed politically, socially, and economically. The authors consider the meaning of modernity in contexts as different as communist Russia, modern India, the Muslim world, Latin America, China and East Asia, and the United States. Miscegenation, transnational migration, technological developments, and changing communications have shifted the ground on which theories of society were once built; political system, diaspora groups, religion, and "classical" theories of modernity have to be reconsidered in a new context.

Genres: Sociology

29 pages, Library Binding

First published May 31, 2000

About the author

Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt is a sociologist who has taught at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and lectured at many other universities around the world. He writes on modern civilizations and comparative cultures.

Photograph copyright Tzahy Lerner.

Reviews

[João Pinho · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ainda que em alguns pontos o autor tenha razão, do ponto de vista de uma teoria, a concepção de "múltiplas modernidades", contrariando o pós-modernismo enquanto teoria, não consegue explicar realmente os inúmeros retrocessos complexos e contraditórios que tiveram lugar ao longo do século XX e que culminaram em nacionalismos messiânicos ou comunismos científicos com uma matriz teológica. Para além disso, o autor raramente exemplifica as suas ideias com casos específicos, sendo altamente repetitivo, como se nunca tivesse realmente avançado da premissa inicial.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

Objectively speaking: simplistic concepts written in excessively dense prose.

Subjectively speaking: a nightmare.