1

Mahender Singh Dhakad

Associate Professor Department of history,
Rajdhani College
Raja Garden New Delhi 110015.

MODERNITY:

Modernity is that distinct form of social life that characterises modern societies. Jiirgen
Habermas, the influential social philosopher, argues that modernity is essentially a mode
of thought that refuses to accept tradition unreflectively. It is a world of the present, adrift
from tradition and bound for the future. Key Features of Modernity:

There remains uncertainty about what constitutes modernity. It is characterised by a cluster

of institutions and values each with its own pattern of change and development.
Economically, capitalist relations of production provided modernity with its dynamics of
growth and expansion. This created distinctive class relations based on social inequality,
especially between those who controlled the means of production and those who had only
labour to sell. Gradually, with the decline of traditional social hierarchies, new
occupational groupings and new social divisions emerged that were not reducible to class
divisions only. The political constituent of modernity has been the growth of a powerful
bureaucratic state. This was partly the result of a shift of political legitimacy from divine
monarchical rule to the nation-state and sovereignty of its people. The organisational
technologies of modernity include State bureaucracy, land survey, census operations,
national legal systems, and the like. These changes did not happen overnight. Ultimately
these changes led to the construction of a single world of similar rules and regulations.
Modernity has also meant the transition from a religious to a secular materialist culture. At
the root of this lay the conviction that knowledge is derived from scientific and rational
thinking, not from faith or superstition. Modernity sought to relegate religion to the
private sphere, denying it the authority of reason and knowledge which were reserved for
the public sphere. A very important constituent of modernity has been the universal ethic
of respect for the dignity of each individual. This emerged from the belief that, at the root,
the interests of all human beings are similar and that the object of all moral endeavour is
the progress of the universal community of humankind.

Modernity differs from tradition in that social practices are constantly examined in the
context of incoming information about those very practices. It is also important to bear in
mind what is 'non-modern', because modernity loses its value as a concept if everything in
the world is, by definition, modern. If 'modern' means 'here and now' 'modernity' has
 2

come to mean much more than that. Modernity designates a state of mind, a commitment
to the new. It carries connotations of scientific rationality, progress, freedom of the
individual, and the political institutions of emergent nation states. Its pull is constantly
towards the future. Modernity is also distinct from the related terms 'modernisation' and
'modernism'. Modernisation generally refers to the process of transformation of
technologies, economies, and institutions in the modern time. It tends to exclude the
philosophical and humanistic dimensions of modernity. The term 'modernism' refers
primarily to the literary and artistic developments of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, the projects that isolated and experimented with the problem of form.

Modernity has had a long and complex historical evolution. It has been the result of the
articulation of a number of different processes working together in unique historical
circumstances. Modern societies began to emerge in Europe from the second half of the
fifteenth century, a period that saw three momentous cultural shifts, namely the
Renaissance, the Reformation, and the geographical 'discoveries'. The period from the late
fifteenth to eighteenth centuries is seen as 'the epochal threshold' between modern times
and the middle ages. It was in the eighteenth century that the idea of the 'modern' acquired
a decisive formulation in the discourses of the Enlightenment. The philosophers critically
scrutinised authority and tradition, and viewed science and technology as a means for
promoting human betterment. They believed in the essential rationality and goodness of the
individual and in objective rules that gave form and structure to artistic productions. With
the Revolution in France in 1789 and its reverberations, people began to share the feeling
of living in a revolutionary age. The nineteenth century saw dazzling changes in Western
society. Advances in science and technology, rapid industrialisation, improved standard
of living, spread of education, extension of parliamentary government, end of serfdom,
all seemed to confirm the belief in humanity's future progress. Most nineteenth century
thinkers carried on the spirit of Enlightenment. The telephone, electricity, the bicycle, and
the car were all around to dramatise this sensibility. In fact, since its inception, modernity
has worn two faces. One is dynamic, progressive, forward-looking, and promising
unprecedented abundance, freedom, and fulfilment. The other face is grim, revealing new
problems arising out of the very efficiency of the instruments it has created, as also
problems of alienation, poverty, and pollution.

The Non-European World and Modernity:

The emergence of 'modernity' coincided with the beginning of the establishment of

European military and economic hegemony over the globe. In the conduct of European
powers, the sense of superiority of the present over the past became translated into the
sense of their own superiority over the subjugated societies and cultures. They
constructed themselves as 'modern' and non-European societies as 'traditional', 'static',
and pre-modern. They denied that non-European societies had any internal dynamic or
capacity for development. They assumed the 'obligation' to introduce these societies into
modernity by imposing European models of historical change. Throughout the twentieth
century, the primary institutions of Western modernity -industrialisation, capitalism, and
the nation state - acquired global reach. In the nineteenth century, in Asian societies, there
was a debate between 'modernisation' and 'Westernisation'. There was a desire to
 3

modernise but there was also the legitimate fear that, in the process, their own traditions,
culture and way of life might be lost.

Limitations of Modernity:

The worldwide historical experiences of the twentieth century have raised many
uncomfortable questions regarding the nature of Modernity. How does one justify belief in
a universal community of humankind when faced with the violence that accompanied the
extension of European empires? How does one justify the slaughter of the two World
Wars in which millions of soldiers and civilians died? The systematic killing of six
million Jews in Hitler's Germany and dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
produced some of the most challenging questions in the West. It would not be right to
deduce from this that the holocaust was the inevitable result of modernity. But it certainly
revealed the hidden possibilities of the development of modern social forms and
technological advancement. Long-held assumptions about rationality, power of progress
towards a world of reason and justice, moral dignity of human beings, and ability of
nations to live in harmony seemed meaningless. Economists and historians in erstwhile
colonies find it difficult to reconcile Enlightenment ideas with the violence, injustices, and
economic exploitation that accompanied colonial rule in their countries.

Within Europe and America, regional cultures - such as Scottish and Irish in the United
Kingdom, African-American and Hispanic in the USA - have been dominated and
silenced by European-American modernity. In fact, liberty and equality were intended for
white bourgeois males, to the exclusion of women, workers, and, all non-white people.

One of the principal fears of modernity amongst males everywhere was that modernity
had the ability to create the educated and independent woman - 'the new woman' or the
'woman-on-top' . It was thought that Modernity was appropriate for men more than women
because the latter were seen as custodians of culture and traditions. 'Modern' women
would, they feared, overturn traditions without any qualms whatever. The equation of
women with tradition meant that woman became man's secret-self, to be kept hidden and
protected. In the non-Western world, by the beginning of the twentieth century,
'important' men operating in public arenas, began to wear Western clothes wherever they
lived - in China, India, or Latin America. For women, male reformers proposed a modified
form of traditional dress rather than Western dress. In India, in the literature (for example,
in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's humorous essays) and cartoons, the educated modern
woman was caricatured as wasteful, idle, self-centred, indulging her will, and likely to ill-
treat her parents-in-law. One feature of modernity has been the assertion that knowledge
is based on facts and that value systems imposed by religion are outmoded. But most of the
world, including the United States, is witnessing great religious revival, challenging the
idea of the triumph of secularism.

It is difficult to define what postmodernity actually is. It is characterised by relativism that

has resulted from the realisation that knowledge is contextual in its scope and
interpretation, that we can only be really sure of what is true for us, and, that what is true
for us, may not be true for others. Its other feature is pluralism, that is, there are a wide
variety of opinions and paths and all can be equally valid and that meta-narratives such as
Marxism or functionalism may not explain everything. Making claims of exclusive truth
is seen as a sign of arrogance and intolerance. Postmodernity also means that truth is
 4

subjective and alters depending upon the perspective of its bearer. Some historians have
begun to talk of multiple modernities or 'alternative modernities'. The implication is that
'British modern' might be different from say 'Japanese modern', 'Indian modern', or
'Algerian modern'.

IMPERIALISM

Imperialism is an unusually subjective term. It covers a complex of intentions and

material forces that predispose states to an incursion or attempted incursion into the
sovereignty of other states. The conquering state appropriates, for its own enrichment, the
land, labour, raw materials, and markets of other people. The term also includes a set of
beliefs to legitimise and promote this system and the assumption that the culture and
values of the conquering nation are superior to those of the conquered people. There is
general agreement that as a conscious and openly advocated policy of acquiring colonies
for economic, strategic, and political advantage, the word 'imperialism' did not emerge
until around 1880. It does not occur in the writings of Karl Marx who died in 1883. By the
end of the nineteenth century this word was on everybody's lips. It is interesting that
though the word 'imperialism' came into use for describing late nineteenth-century
expansion, the historical roots of the phenomenon were traced deep back to ancient times.
It came to be used to describe the expansionist policies of Macedonian, Roman, Mongol,
and other empires. The terms 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' have been used
interchangeably though experts do point to subtle differences between them. Edward
Said, in his immensely insightful study, 'Culture and Imperialism' (1993), offers a
distinction. He says that 'imperialism' means the practice, theory, and attitudes of a
dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory; 'colonialism', which is almost
always a consequence of imperialism, is the implanting of settlements on distant territory.
Thus Said uses 'imperialism' for the ideological force and 'colonialism' for the practice.

The conquerors always extracted goods, wealth, and tribute from the lands that they
conquered. In other words, these conquests were mainly for plunder and glory. But the
expansion of European empires that began after the 'discovery' of America and the
'discovery' of the sea route to India in 1492 and 1498, respectively, ushered in a new and
different kind of colonial practices that altered the entire globe in a way that earlier
conquests did not. From the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, European countries
established complete domination over the entire Atlantic sea-board. They also established
some colonies and many trading bases in Asia, Africa, and Australia. During this period,
mercantile capital controlled the world economy and Europe vastly benefited. European
powers exploited silver mines in the Americas and this brought unprecedented wealth to
Europe. Europeans transferred Africans to the Americas to work in mines as slaves.
Indigenous people in the Americas were almost wiped out. Europeans also obtained
spices, oil, indigo, tobacco, fur, and many other articles of daily use from there. Silver
from the Americas enabled European trading companies to buy spices, textiles, indigo,
and tea from Asian countries. In the early nineteenth century, Spain and Portugal also lost
their empires in South America. Britain established control over the whole Indian
 5

subcontinent besides building up its empire in other parts of Asia, Africa, and Australia.
The French expanded in Algeria and south-east Asia while the Dutch built their empire in
southeast Asia.

The Age of New Imperialism

The period from the 1880s to the outbreak of the First World War is known as the age of
new imperialism or classical imperialism. This period saw the biggest land-grab in
history. European countries acquired territories in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific with great
velocity and ferocity. The term expansion does not give adequate idea of the ruthless
drive for acquisition of territory witnessed in European countries during this period.
Britain occupied Egypt, Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya. France rounded off its empire in
north-west Africa by acquiring Tunisia and Morocco, and grabbed many other areas.
Germany acquired Togo Land, Cameroon, South West Africa (now Namibia), South East
Africa (now Tanzania) in Africa, and many islands in the Pacific. Italy helped itself to
Libya, Eritrea and Somaliland. Outside Africa, Britain and France rounded off their
holdings - Britain by annexing Burma and strengthening its hold over Tibet, parts of
Persia, and the Persian Gulf; France by conquering Indo-China; Holland by expanding in
Indonesia; and Russia by strengthening its hold over Siberia, Manchuria, and north Persia.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, USA and Japan also expanded at China's
expense in Korea and Taiwan (then Formosa). USA acquired the Philippines in 1898. No
independent state was left in the Pacific. Britain and France expanded their empire by
grabbing parts of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East and by adding parts of the
German Empire to their colonial empires. Britain acquired mandates over Iraq, Palestine
and Transjordan while France added Syria and Lebanon to its North African possessions
of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. The Belgians also made some gains. For the services
rendered to the British government, even Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were
allowed to pick up parts of the German Empire.
What were the motives behind this drive for Empire? This issue became a subject of
impassioned and dense debate even contemporaneously. It has remained a subject of
debate amongst historians, political scientists, and economists. It should also be said that
to each country, empire meant something different. Therefore, each move had complex
and differing causes. Basically, the empires were a product of the Industrial Revolution
which gave Europe a lead over rest of the world in technology and weapons. It made
western Europe a powerhouse generating trade and commerce. It also gave Europe an
efficient means of communications. Revolution in medicine and new technologies of
communication enabled Europeans to penetrate the interiors of Africa and establish their
control there. A number of contemporary observers argued that Europeans acquired
territories in Asia and Africa because of economic reasons. This expansionist urge was
based on the needs of industrial capitalism, which had a capacity for infinite expansion. It
converted conquered territories into producers for raw material, markets for
manufactured goods, and areas where surplus capital could be invested. In this respect,
famous British economist J.A. Hobson whose book, Imperialism: A Study, appeared in
1902, proved most influential. He argued that, as industrialisation spread, the production
of goods exceeded the demand, and capitalists could not make profit by selling their
goods locally. Moreover, more capital was available than could be profitably invested
within the country. So the capitalists prevailed upon their governments to acquire
colonies. Hobson's ideas exercised decisive influence on theories of imperialism,
including those of V.I. Lenin and German socialist leader Rosa Luxemberg. Lenin's
booklet, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, written in 1916, proved most
influential. He argued that the capitalists would never use the surplus capital at their
disposal for the purpose of raising the standard of living of workers because this would
 6

mean a decrease in the profits of the capitalists. The capitalists would increase their profits
by expanding into backward countries. He intended to show that the First World War was
basically an imperialist war for the partition of the world's resources and for the distribution
and redistribution of colonies and spheres of interest. Robinson and Gallagher, in their
extremely influential and classic work -Africa under the Victorians (1961), have argued
that India was the core of Britain's imperial strategy and that Britain participated in the
partition of Africa primarily to protect the sea routes to India from potential threats.
Moral justification for imperial expansion was found in the theories of cultural and racial
superiority. The ideology of race, 'civilising mission' of Europeans, and language of
dominance had been accelerating since the eighteenth century. These acquired scientific
basis from the interpretation of the ideas of Charles Darwin who had argued in 1859 that,
in the process of the evolution of living organisms, some animal species survived and
evolved by virtue of being better adapted to existing conditions, while others disappeared
because they were less fit. From this some philosophers, who became known as social
Darwinists, began to argue that the natural superiority of some races justified the
conquest of 'backward' peoples by them. The idea became popular that possession of
empire conferred power and, therefore, to be a great power, it was imperative to acquire
an empire. This made Europeans contemptuous of other societies. They began to see the
rule of white people over others as beneficial for the latter. The idea was summarised in
either of the two phrases: 'civilising mission' or 'white man's burden'. The latter was the
title of a poem written by Rudyard Kipling, the writer who expressed the myths and
realities of imperial power most accurately. At one time it was thought that imperialism
was something that engaged only Europe's political, economic and military elite. But
now historians have written compelling studies which show that the desire to build the
empire and the idea that it had to be defended, were found amongst all sections of society,
persons of all ages and amongst amateurs as well as professionals. Christian missionaries
also supported expansion of empire because this could enable them to 'educate' and
'civilise' non-Christian people across the world.
It has also been argued that at this time of rapid industrialisation and social
transformation, the established elites supported a policy of expansion to divert the
attention of people from internal tensions and conflicts. This argument has been advanced
most persuasively in the case of Germany where the semi-feudal social and political
order was reluctant to accommodate the demands of an increasingly organised working
class. In countries with an increasing population it was argued that people could migrate
to colonies, and thus acquisition of colonies could provide space for the surplus
population. But only a tiny minority of population emigrated to colonies. There is no
evidence even to suggest that colonial conquests resulted in increasing the income of
workers or a decrease in unemployment. Expansion of empire is also attributed to the
zeal of the 'men on the spot' - administrators and generals - who annexed territories on
their own initiative. They often justified expansion of empire on the ground that there was
need to stabilise 'turbulent frontiers'. Possession of empire itself became a symbol of
national greatness irrespective of its value. One question that arises is: When rivalries
were so intense, why was there no war amongst great powers on this issue? One reason
for this was that European powers were able to resolve their disputes by providing
territorial compensation in the colonies.
New Imperialism

By the end of the twentieth century there is almost no colonial dominion left. In other
words, territorial imperialism is no longer the prevailing mode. But, in many cases, weak
countries acquired only the trappings of sovereignty while western finance capital
 7

continued to hold the lion's share of their resources. One can say, imperial dependence
continued to exist in many forms between the industrialised and 'underdeveloped' regions
of the world. Without direct control, USA wields enormous economic and military power
across the globe. This relationship acquired various names, such as neo-colonialism,
informal empire, colonialism without colonies, etc. For Whose Benefit? With
acquisitions on such a large scale during this period of new imperialism, who made the
profit? For example, British perception has been that Britain did not profit from its
empire. In the 1980s, British historians and economists discussed at great length the
issue: Did the Empire pay? The conclusion they drew was that, for Britain, the empire
was a costly and deleterious affair, that is to say, an affair injurious to Britain's health. But
this makes one ask why did the British create, and then maintain, this empire as long as
they could, deploying their capabilities in the service of the Empire and sacrificing all
comforts for hard life in 'inhospitable' lands.

The general perception in Britain is also that the empire has brought untold benefits to
millions of people in the colonies. In a meeting of Prime Ministers of Commonwealth
countries in the 1980s, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked them to reflect on
how lucky they were to have been ruled by the British. But this does not explain why people
in the colonies had to engage in a long and, frequently, bloody process of dissent, protest,
and rebellion to secure independence. Imperial powers not only drained wealth out of
colonies but also changed the political, social, and cultural structures of colonial societies.
Belief in cultural superiority could ensure a superior right to exploit economic resources.
The Western powers saw their own civilisation as dynamic and 'advanced' and assumed that
the form of government in the colonies had been decadent, their ways of doing things had
been unproductive, and their culture was backward. They called Asia, as also Africa, the
'Orient', which stood for backwardness and stagnation. Millions were forced to change
their religion, their language, their family structure, and even their names in order to fit in
with 'progress'. For the people in the colonies the word 'imperialism' has negative
connotations of tyranny and repression. Until the medieval period this referred vaguely to
the distinction between European Christendom and the alien cultures beyond it to the East.
Terms like 'Eastern' or Oriental were used to describe this concept which was based on
ideas of racial, religious, and cultural differences. During the Cold War period the term
'Eastern World' or 'Eastern bloc' was used to connote the USSR, China, and their
communist allies.

One product of European cultural history has been the distinction between 'East' and
'West'. The concept of the West emerged in western Europe. By the eighteenth century,
Europeans were convinced of the centrality of Europe in all respects. They looked upon it
as the birthplace of the revolutions of the sciences, arts, politics, and industry. Its
economy had penetrated the rest of the world and its soldiers had subjugated most of the
world. All Europe is not in the 'West'. In this perception of Europe, Eastern Europe is not
included. During the twentieth century, in addition to western Europe, the West was
extended to include the United States. The term 'West' thus came to be applied to the
region that the Westerners considered developed, industrialised, urbanised, capitalist and
secular, and which acquired vast empires at the beginning of the twentieth century. So the
meaning of the West became virtually identical to that of the word 'modern'. Canada,
 8

Australia and New Zealand are included in Western society. The people in the West
presume that their society is the most advanced. 'West' is not equated with the western
hemisphere. South America, which is a part of the western hemisphere is not a part of the
'West'. Economically, the question is now asked: Have 'Third World' countries benefited
or suffered from a close economic relationship with the more economically developed
countries of the West? Whatever the 'Westerners' might think, the perception in all
erstwhile colonies is that their people would perhaps have been better off if they had been
able to maintain, at arm's length, the relationship with the West. Besides, the West has
not treated all people within its own territories equally. They have their own internal
'others'. Jews have lived in this region for centuries and have been close to the Western
tradition. Yet, they were generally excluded and frequently ostracised. Women there were
represented as inferior to men. The West European people regarded East Europe as
'barbaric'. Now the phrase 'the West and the Rest' is rightly seen as part of 'vulgar
parlance' even in the West.