Modernism and its Aftermath
NISHIKAWA Megumi / Journalist
March 28, 2019
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the end of the Cold War, but in the history of ideas, 1989 was a year that also signaled a shift away from Marxist modernism, which embodied a progressive view of history, to post-modernism, which was symbolized by the growing diversity and relativity of values.
To be sure, the ideological transformation did not happen overnight, and it is not as if 1989 was a watershed year. The progressive view of history, as epitomized by Marxism, was already clearly in decline since the 1970s.
Progressivism is the idea that history progresses and develops from the primitive stage towards modernity, giving rise to something closer to the truth in the process. This linear view of history was replaced by the post-modernist theory of structuralism, proposed by the late Claude Lévi-Strauss, a French anthropologist and ethnologist.
Based on his study of undeveloped regions of Brazil, Lévi-Strauss formed a comprehensive theory in which he argued that societies differed only in their structures, that there was a rich world of spirituality and reason in primitive communities, and that Western society was not the only center of civilization. Structuralism laid the ideological groundwork for ending the Cold War, which became apparent in 1989 as a turning point in political and social systems.
Today, we live in a world where modernism exists together with post-modernism in a state of struggle. There are developed countries steeped in post-modernism, such as the United States, Europe and Japan, while China remains in the midst of modernism by embracing Marxism as its ideological foundation. And in the middle are countries making their transition to post-modernism.
In the developed countries, advances in the proliferation, relativization and segmentation of values has fomented a nihilistic social mood. This is shaking up the moderate middle class, especially in the United States and Europe, which are further ahead in the stage of post-modernism, and have provided momentum to extremist groups both on the right and the left. The former camp is inciting ethnic nationalism, while the latter camp insists on reevaluating the merits of Marxism. To me, it seems as though there is a certain nostalgia for modernism on either side.
China’s ability to defend its bastion of modernism is due in large part to the Internet and AI. It has set up a nationwide surveillance network while seeking to unite its people by appealing to their nationalistic sentiment through calls for a grand resurgence of the Chinese people. China has also benefited from the confusion in the post-modernist world. Even so, the waves of diverse and relative values are lapping at its feet.
South Korea is an example of a neighboring country where the two ideological tides are colliding with violent force. The insistence on a historical perspective of drawing a clear line between the aggressor and victim, and the sense of sympathy for North Korea’s anti-U.S. stance of self-determination are both founded on modernist thinking. Meanwhile, rapid advances in its wired society are accelerating the division and subdivision of values, and the government is being pushed around by wild swings in public opinion.
There are still no signs of a “post-” post-modernist ideology. Yet, one thing is certain: there can be no return to modernism. Let us keep our eyes firmly on the proliferation, relativization and segmentation of values that characterize our times, and look forward to the emergence of a new way of thinking.
Megumi Nishikawa is Contributing Editor for the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
To be sure, the ideological transformation did not happen overnight, and it is not as if 1989 was a watershed year. The progressive view of history, as epitomized by Marxism, was already clearly in decline since the 1970s.
Progressivism is the idea that history progresses and develops from the primitive stage towards modernity, giving rise to something closer to the truth in the process. This linear view of history was replaced by the post-modernist theory of structuralism, proposed by the late Claude Lévi-Strauss, a French anthropologist and ethnologist.
Based on his study of undeveloped regions of Brazil, Lévi-Strauss formed a comprehensive theory in which he argued that societies differed only in their structures, that there was a rich world of spirituality and reason in primitive communities, and that Western society was not the only center of civilization. Structuralism laid the ideological groundwork for ending the Cold War, which became apparent in 1989 as a turning point in political and social systems.
Today, we live in a world where modernism exists together with post-modernism in a state of struggle. There are developed countries steeped in post-modernism, such as the United States, Europe and Japan, while China remains in the midst of modernism by embracing Marxism as its ideological foundation. And in the middle are countries making their transition to post-modernism.
In the developed countries, advances in the proliferation, relativization and segmentation of values has fomented a nihilistic social mood. This is shaking up the moderate middle class, especially in the United States and Europe, which are further ahead in the stage of post-modernism, and have provided momentum to extremist groups both on the right and the left. The former camp is inciting ethnic nationalism, while the latter camp insists on reevaluating the merits of Marxism. To me, it seems as though there is a certain nostalgia for modernism on either side.
China’s ability to defend its bastion of modernism is due in large part to the Internet and AI. It has set up a nationwide surveillance network while seeking to unite its people by appealing to their nationalistic sentiment through calls for a grand resurgence of the Chinese people. China has also benefited from the confusion in the post-modernist world. Even so, the waves of diverse and relative values are lapping at its feet.
South Korea is an example of a neighboring country where the two ideological tides are colliding with violent force. The insistence on a historical perspective of drawing a clear line between the aggressor and victim, and the sense of sympathy for North Korea’s anti-U.S. stance of self-determination are both founded on modernist thinking. Meanwhile, rapid advances in its wired society are accelerating the division and subdivision of values, and the government is being pushed around by wild swings in public opinion.
There are still no signs of a “post-” post-modernist ideology. Yet, one thing is certain: there can be no return to modernism. Let us keep our eyes firmly on the proliferation, relativization and segmentation of values that characterize our times, and look forward to the emergence of a new way of thinking.
Megumi Nishikawa is Contributing Editor for the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
モダニズムのその後
西川 恵 / ジャーナリスト
2019年 3月 28日
今年は冷戦終結３０年だが、思想史的に見れば進歩史観を代表するマルクス主義のモダニズム思想に代わって、価値の多様化・相対化を象徴するポストモダニズムへと移行した節目でもあった。
もちろん１９８９年を境に白が黒になるような手のひらを返した思想的転換が起きたわけではない。すでに７０年代ごろから、マルクス主義に代表される進歩史観の退潮は明らかになっていた。
歴史は原始から近代に向かって進歩発展し、その過程で「より真実なもの」が生起し続けると見る進歩史観。この単線的な歴史観にとって代わったのが、ポストモダニズムの思想といわれる仏文化人類学者の故クロード・レビストロース氏の構造主義だった。
社会にはそれぞれ編成の違いがあるだけで、未開社会にも豊かな精神と理性の世界があり、西欧だけが文明の中心ではないことを、同氏はブラジルの未開地の調査を通して総合的な思想にまとめ上げた。構造主義は冷戦終結に向けた思想的土壌を準備し、これが政治社会体制の転換として表れたのが８９年だった。
いま我々はモダニズムとポストモダニズムが混在し、せめぎ合う世界にいる。米欧や日本などポストモダニズムにつかった先進国、マルクス主義を依然国の思想基盤とするモダニズムの中にある中国。中間にはポストモダニズムへ移行中の国々がある。
先進国における価値の乱立・相対化・細分化の進行は、虚無的な空気を社会に醸成している。特にポストモダニズムが先行する米欧では穏健な中間層を揺さぶり、極右と極左のグループを勢いづけている。前者は民族主義を扇動し、後者はマルクス主義の良い点を再評価すべしと主張する。いずれもモダニズムへの郷愁がそこにはあるように私には感じられる。
中国がモダニズムの砦（とりで）を固守できているのはインターネットとＡＩによるところが大きい。監視網を全国に張り巡らせ、「中華民族の偉大な復活」と民族感情に訴えて結束を図る。ポストモダニズム世界の混乱もプラスに作用する。それでも価値の多様化・相対化は足元にヒタヒタと押し寄せている。
二つの思想潮流が国内で激しく衝突しているのが近くの国でいえば韓国だ。被害者・加害者を厳しく区分けする歴史への固執や、反米・自主の北朝鮮への親近感はモダニズムに立脚する。しかし一方で高進するネット社会は価値の分裂と細分化を促進しており、振れ幅の大きい世論に政府が振り回されている。
ポストモダニズムのその後（ポスト）の思想はまだ見えないが、一つ言えることは、モダニズムへの後戻りはあり得ないことだ。価値の乱立・相対化・細分化の時代をしかと見据えながら新しい思想の熟成に期待したい。
筆者は毎日新聞社客員編集委員
もちろん１９８９年を境に白が黒になるような手のひらを返した思想的転換が起きたわけではない。すでに７０年代ごろから、マルクス主義に代表される進歩史観の退潮は明らかになっていた。
歴史は原始から近代に向かって進歩発展し、その過程で「より真実なもの」が生起し続けると見る進歩史観。この単線的な歴史観にとって代わったのが、ポストモダニズムの思想といわれる仏文化人類学者の故クロード・レビストロース氏の構造主義だった。
社会にはそれぞれ編成の違いがあるだけで、未開社会にも豊かな精神と理性の世界があり、西欧だけが文明の中心ではないことを、同氏はブラジルの未開地の調査を通して総合的な思想にまとめ上げた。構造主義は冷戦終結に向けた思想的土壌を準備し、これが政治社会体制の転換として表れたのが８９年だった。
いま我々はモダニズムとポストモダニズムが混在し、せめぎ合う世界にいる。米欧や日本などポストモダニズムにつかった先進国、マルクス主義を依然国の思想基盤とするモダニズムの中にある中国。中間にはポストモダニズムへ移行中の国々がある。
先進国における価値の乱立・相対化・細分化の進行は、虚無的な空気を社会に醸成している。特にポストモダニズムが先行する米欧では穏健な中間層を揺さぶり、極右と極左のグループを勢いづけている。前者は民族主義を扇動し、後者はマルクス主義の良い点を再評価すべしと主張する。いずれもモダニズムへの郷愁がそこにはあるように私には感じられる。
中国がモダニズムの砦（とりで）を固守できているのはインターネットとＡＩによるところが大きい。監視網を全国に張り巡らせ、「中華民族の偉大な復活」と民族感情に訴えて結束を図る。ポストモダニズム世界の混乱もプラスに作用する。それでも価値の多様化・相対化は足元にヒタヒタと押し寄せている。
二つの思想潮流が国内で激しく衝突しているのが近くの国でいえば韓国だ。被害者・加害者を厳しく区分けする歴史への固執や、反米・自主の北朝鮮への親近感はモダニズムに立脚する。しかし一方で高進するネット社会は価値の分裂と細分化を促進しており、振れ幅の大きい世論に政府が振り回されている。
ポストモダニズムのその後（ポスト）の思想はまだ見えないが、一つ言えることは、モダニズムへの後戻りはあり得ないことだ。価値の乱立・相対化・細分化の時代をしかと見据えながら新しい思想の熟成に期待したい。
筆者は毎日新聞社客員編集委員
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟