Historiography of sociology, nr. 7

Modernity a European project
or
A Classical headache?


There are aspects of human life which are 'inborn' and constitutive of 
his/her nature
( at least his/her physical framework, like to have two legs than six 
fingers), but at the same time there are cultural issues or patterns of 
thought which have taken the role of natural disposition or what one calls ' 
second nature'.  One of this cultural-turned-natural-disposition is the 
modernity ( and its intellectual paraphernalia) and its reproduction 
mechanism by various 'sites' of power.

Modernity has been introduced as a European project, started in Europe ( 
however, it should be noted that this Europe is not 'just' a geographical 
formation and sometimes it includes geographical locations beyond her own 
'ge' and in other time excludes geographical indicators and works in 
accordance to other mechanisms: take Spain during Muslim era, Ukraine or 
Bosnia; on the other hand the inclusion of North America and Canada.), 
developed in Europe, sustained in and by Europe, and exported to non-Europe 
by her.  That's why one can easily discern the intellectual reflexion of 
this political strategy during sixties and seventies within then current 
mode of academic theorizing which were full of Modernization proposals for 
countries beyond the European castle.


However, this approach to modernity ( and the intellectual conceptualization 
of this process) both in Europe and its modernization industry without 
Europe is, in my view, highly misconceived.  Actually this misconception is 
the main reason for so many socio-political suicides ( ie. political 
attempts to introduce via economical policies an assumed reality which there 
is not there. It is outopia and contrary to eutopia.) in most non-Western 
countries ( here, I have in mind, particularly the Muslim countries). Why? 
Because this intellectual misunderstanding by Western theorists and its 
synchronous uncritical acceptance by those so-called pro-Westerners made a 
mystical creature out of modernity and presented it as a Western commodity 
to Muslim societies.  There were so many 'Buts' and 'Ifs' in this narrative 
which is more of a political device than an intellectual account of human 
events.  The Western intellectuals, in my view, were mistaken in their very 
initial formulation of this civilizational framework which was construed in 
monological terms.  The Classics were wrong because they disregard the ' 
What Against' of modernity and took ' What For' of modernity as their point 
of theoretical departure.  Europe modernize itself ' Against' a premodernity 
which was not assessed wholly in internal terms but measured against over 
extra-European conditions.  Within sociology of science, one can find the 
blossoming of new trends which attempt to overcome the myopic internalism of 
mainstream historiography and avoid the mechannical externalism of critical 
historiography in hope for a better intellectual position.  Nonetheless it 
should be noted that these attempts although progressive in terms of 
intention but cannot redeem us intellectually.  Because the central concept 
which all these attempts are directed at work with a paradigmatic concept 
which is conceptualized in internal


terms.  In other words, what is termed as an external approach is external 
to that myopic internalism but still is internal in terms of 
modernity-concept.

On the other hand, the so-called pro-Westerners were mistaken and the past 
half a century ( since the establishment of various Muslim state-nations in 
Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, ... ) attests that they were mistaken both in 
political and intellectual terms in regard to modernity.  Theirs were a 
misconceived idea of modernity and a misapplied modernization.  Why?

Because they did not take issue with the modernity of their own native 
fellow intellectuals who formulated the modernity ( as an 
intercivilizational process which cannot be stopped due to geographical 
hindrances and overcomes all situational barriers thanks to shared 
homosapinal background among this terrestrial being) in their own native 
terms which in political terms meant a rejection of both Russification and 
Westernization.

What wrongly, in my opinion, has been termed Islamic Revivalism or 
Fundamentalism is actually the other part of modernity which I called 
imposed-non-modernity.  I do not mean counter-modernity or reactionism.  
Because the proponents of counter modernity like protagonists of modernity 
are trapped within the same monological pattern of civilizational process.  
These concepts won't reflect what I have in mind, so for the lack of better 
concept I prefer to work with imposed-non-modernity than concepts like 
counter-modernity.  Those who wrongly conceived


of modernity as a sole European product did not take into consideration the 
inter-civilizational aspect of human history ( and neglected the very simple 
lesson of historical archaeology and anthropological archaeology in terms of 
how 'findings', regardless their complexities, move from one location to the 
other due to the shared homosapinal inventive faculty: fire, cooking, 
burial, lavatory, writing, ... ) and just told a story full of exceptions 
and geniuses who were ahead of their times:  Arabs who 'handed' the Greek 
culture to Europe ( and eschewing the civilizational role of Persians both 
in terms of Metaphysics- the impact of Zoroastrianism on religious thought 
not just historically but substantially and Manichaeism and its impact via 
Augustinus on the Western political thought- and formation of Political 
Units and Organizations prior to Greek Polis); Abu Reyhan Biruni ( 973-1048) 
who was ahead than his time because his anthropological studies ( Research 
on India or Tahqiq Mal al-Hind) does not fit the European timetable, or Ibn 
Khaldun ( 1332-1395) who could be better off if he came after A. Comte 
coined the term socio and logy ( which in his opinion had to do with the 
intellectual background of Europe: Greek and Roman; and no one never asked 
how accurate this genealogy was.) four centuries later and etc.

In other words, modernity is a common human property and its founding 
theorists should not just be sought in France or Germany alone, but in a 
wider human context, ie. India, Iran, Ottoman Empire, Russia, Georgia, and 
etc.

In order to highlight my point, I can take one single example from the 
Iranian case in regard to Modernization.  The collapse of modernization as 
misunderstood by


European intellectuals and hastily implemented by Iranian modernizer 
government of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi ( 1919-80) was due to this category 
misunderstanding which brought about grave socio-political damages to the 
country and the whole region ( this is the legacy and fate of most Muslim 
countries and their unpopular governments).

Beyond and beneath this misunderstood modernity or as Jalal Al-e Ahmad ( 
1923-1969) called it gharbzadegi ( Westoxication), there was and still is a 
vital tradition which is aware of its own intellectual heritage but at the 
same time is honest about the limitations of its own intellectual paradigm ( 
yet confident about its ability to incorporate the other within its own 
domain) and does not uncritically glorify the Western achievment.  In 
Western Existentialism, for instance, sees the importance of modern dilemma 
and appreciates the Sarterian philosophy but does not yield to its 
conclusions. On the contrary takes the issue another step further.  What the 
Heidiggerians call for the conclusion, they take it as another angle for 
debating human existence.  Marxism and Other Western Fallacies ( An Islamic 
Critique) by Ali Shariati ( 1933-1977) is one among many of this approach 
which has found its recent resonance among some Western intellectuals who 
yearn for authenticity beyond European modernity and Traditionalism ( and 
its varieties, regardless its Islamicity or Catholicity).  Here, one can 
mention Robert D. Lee's Overcoming Tradition and Modernity: The Search for 
Islamic Authenticity ( 1997).
Returning to the category misunderstanding in Iran and most Third World 
countries, one can find, as mentioned above, a vital tradition which went 
beyond the surface


modernity of, say, Pahlavi dynasty.  The collapse of communication between 
the central power and various intellectual sources, at least in Iran, had 
some significant reasons which are still burdening the politics in Muslim 
countries.  Why?
Because, in my view, the elite power ( and their intellectual crew) took the 
legacy of Afghani, Abdu, Iqbal, Shariati, Taleghani, Kasravi, and et.al. 
either as Islamic Revivalism ( as conceptualized again by Western historians 
or orientalists) or some sort of reactionary movements which went against 
the modernity project ( as again conceptualized and propagated by Western 
intellectuals and backed up by so-called international aid-organizations 
like IMF or alike).  What these people told was not a simple re-turn ( ie. a 
physical turn towards the ancient golden age, because such a time did not 
exist but could not be brought about by building another New World a la 
America in Asia or Africa) or a revival of orthodox ( regardless its Shia or 
Sunni variant) Islam.  Because if this was the case they would not be either 
assasinated or exiled, on the contrary they could get high position within 
the ruling class ( or at least be tolerated more or less).  But theirs, in 
my view, was a call to modernization ( in Iqbalian sense 'Ihya' or 
Muttaharian sense 'Islah') but from within the tradition and in interaction 
with, not just modern Europe, but various human civilizations a la Daryush 
Shayegan ( b. 1935)- who has balanced his interest in Western philosophy 
with an equal attention to Asian philosophy. ( Mehrzad Boroujerdi: 1996, 
147)  This call to modernity ( ie. from within the tradition and in 
interaction with the world without the tradition) was actually the case when 
Europe first started to modernize itself.  The first reform ( as it is 
called historically) came about in religious sphere ( ie. in the



realm of sensing the whole and feeling the emotional world of being) and was 
from within the tradition and in interaction with Muslim civilization.

The importance of this discussion is not about the old debate on the bias of 
orientalists or the insistence of Muslim traditionalists regarding the 
contribution of Islam to European modern formation.  On the contrary, in my 
view, is related to the issue of Classics and the formation of modernity 
which is mostly considered as a paradigm of sociology.

From here, it is not very far-fetched to get at the idea of Classics and its 
formation and re-formation which cannot solve the problem of Dead Man 
Working ( or as it is known currently: Dead White Man) dilemma. Why?
Because they, in my view, in first place got the modernity problem from a 
wrong angle ( and based on a mistaken civilizational logic).  Besides, 
people who today try to amend ( or enlarge the scope of the Classics' 
theoretical point of reference) that mistake take a wrong point of 
departure; by either accusing them on gender issues or genital blindness.  I 
have in mind the feminism ( as an epistemological option to the so-called 
masculine theory of knowledge) or Gay-movement.  The proponents of these 
variants conceive of their theoretical approaches as a radical stance and 
presents their own as a delegitimizing attempt in regard to the logic of 
Social Theory or accuse the mainstream social sciences of not being 
sensitive enough to Gay issues or alike.  Whatever the popularity of these 
emotions ( these are just emotions and cannot be treated as movements, 
because they do not address the Homosapinal


Reason which cannot be affected by the accident of gender or genitals.) one 
should be clear that the problem of knowledge or epistemology is obviously 
somewhere else than the assumed terrain of genus or genitalis.

To put the problem of Classics in a wider context than the one produced by 
mainstream sociology goes beyond the current practice.  The issue is not to 
bring a Spencer or to remove a Ferguson but wider and deeper than this.  
First, in my view, it is the issue of Anarchists and those main European 
theorists who oppose the very logic of state and hence were excluded from 
European Academic Sociology, then it is the issue of inter-civilizational 
logic.  The modernity, if my above-mentioned points taken into 
consideration, was not ( and is not) a European product but definitely 
Westernization or Russification is a European property and it should be 
defied and was rightly defied.  On the other hand, it was wrongly equated 
with modernity which resulted in reactionary political regimes all over 
Muslim societies.  These regimes took for granted the logic of nation-state 
as god-given parameters and never surpass these Western imposed patterns and 
neglected the range of constructive ideas presented by Muslim thinkers who 
relied on modernity from within the tradition a la Iqbal, Afgahni, 
Muttahari, Qutb, Shariati and et.al.  Their theoretical attempts ( and their 
political praxis) were wrongly classified as Pan-Islamism which was more of 
a European Realpolitical strategy and did not reflect the nub of their 
thoughts.  It should be added, even briefly, that the ruling intelligenstia 
( and their intellectual allies) took that European strategy as their point 
of political actions which excluded both the former's attempt and legacy.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.