Anthropology, multiple modernities and the axial age debate

Thomassen, Bjørn

doi:10.1177/1463499610386659

Cited by 57 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thomassen adds that, in light of the recent revival in popularity of the hypothesis, "it is at any rate strange that no critical examination of Jaspers's axial age hypothesis has taken place with reference to the anthropological record of non-axial or pre-axial cultures." 59 Jaspers's philosophy of history has been criticized with regard to its factual accuracy. Its moral implications have largely escaped notice.…”

Section: "Negroes Etc": the Problem Of Eurocentrism In The Axialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decolonizing Philosophy? Habermas and the Axial Age

Rees¹

2017

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: "Negroes Etc": the Problem Of Eurocentrism In The Axialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decolonizing Philosophy? Habermas and the Axial Age

Rees¹

2017

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Social sciences and humanities have witnessed the rise of various forms of pluralising modernity – such as possible, alternative or multiple modernities (see Eisenstadt ; Mitchell ; Taylor ) – from the 1990s onwards, yet many of the developments in this direction are not radically transformative as they seem like to be. As Thomassen notes, one of the leading strands in the studies of multiple modernities – the historical‐comparative studies of civilisations by Eisenstadt “stayed within a Weberian comparative method and analytical framework” (Thomassen :328). In a way, the method of multiple modernities has been further developed but not substantially moved beyond the motif of “creative adaptation”.…”

Section: “Consumers Of Modernity” “Creative Adaptation” and Multiplementioning

confidence: 99%

Situated Interpretations of Nationalism, Imperialism, and Cosmopolitanism: Revisiting the Writings ofLiang in the Encounter Between Worlds

Zhang¹

2014

J Historical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of the nation has been considered to have delivered political modernity from its native Europe to the rest of the world. The same applies, though more implicitly, to those paradoxes inherent to the nationalist ideology – that between universalism and national particularity and that between liberal nationalism and imperialism. This article seeks to complicate these theses by looking at the interpretations of nationalism, imperialism, and cosmopolitanism provided by Liang Qichao, one of the most influential Chinese intellectuals in early twentieth century, during his exile in Japan when increasingly exposed to the encounter between worlds. This reading also engages with the wider debates on modernity/modernities in non‐Western societies through showing that neither the “consumers of modernity” approach nor the “creative adaptations” approach can be easily applied here. I argue that the various tensions, contingencies and historical situatedness in Liang's accounts of the nation‐state structure represent and constitute the paradox of the structure itself. They also shed light on contemporary debates about the limits of our political imagination in the misnamed “global politics” beyond the false opposition between nationalism and cosmopolitanism.

show abstract

“…Eisenstadt invoked the notion of multiple modernities in the footsteps of Max Weber's comparative study of the ‘world religions’, which served to answer more fully the question concerning the particularity of the ‘West’ in a world‐historical comparative framework (Weber 1963 [1922]). Eisenstadt always understood his notion of multiple modernities as an inherent part of the wider theoretical and historical framework that Karl Jaspers (1953 [1949]) called the Axial Age (Eisenstadt 1982; 1986; Voegelin 1974; for fuller discussion, see Thomassen 2010). In his studies of China, India, Ancient Judaism, and in his unfinished manuscripts on Islam and early Christianity, Weber clearly recognized that civilizations are multiple and unique.…”

Section: Recasting the Homogeneity Versus Heterogeneity Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…To my knowledge, Voegelin was actually the first thinker to pluralize modernity (into what he called the Mediterranean and Atlantic modernities). For further discussion of Voegelin's perspective, see Thomassen (2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropology and its many modernities: when concepts matter

Thomassen

2012

Royal Anthropological Inst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a critical review of the multiple modernities paradigm used in anthropology today. The article also indicates how the work of anthropologists intersects with social theory and historical sociology. It will be argued that by pointing to multiple or alternative modernities in attempts to ‘liberate’ modernity from its Eurocentric, modernistic connotations, anthropologists re‐inject modernity itself with new value. It will be questioned whether this is ultimately a meaningful strategy. With reference to certain branches of social theory, the article develops a position from which the multiple modernities paradigm may be readdressed. This position is based upon a recognition of the particularity of European modernity, and its defining characteristic: a continuous stress on transformation and transgression, a state of ‘permanent liminality’. Résumé Cet article se veut une revue critique des multiples paradigmes de la modernité employés aujourd’hui en anthropologie. Il souligne également les intersections entre le travail des anthropologues, la théorie sociale et la sociologie historique. L’auteur avance qu’en pointant les modernités multiples ou alternatives dans les tentatives de « libérer » la modernité de ses connotations eurocentriques et modernistes, les anthropologues donnent une nouvelle valeur à la modernité elle‐même. On se demandera si cette stratégie peut, en définitive, avoir un sens. Faisant référence à certaines branches de la théorie sociale, l’article développe une position à partir de laquelle il serait possible de revisiter le paradigme des modernités multiples. Cette position se base sur la reconnaissance de la spécificité de la modernité européenne et sur la caractéristique qui la définit : l’accent constamment mis sur la transformation et la transgression, un état de « liminalité permanente ».

show abstract

Anthropology, multiple modernities and the axial age debate

Cited by 57 publications

References 24 publications

Decolonizing Philosophy? Habermas and the Axial Age

Decolonizing Philosophy? Habermas and the Axial Age

Situated Interpretations of Nationalism, Imperialism, and Cosmopolitanism: Revisiting the Writings ofLiang in the Encounter Between Worlds

Anthropology and its many modernities: when concepts matter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About