Libre Magazine

No- was the verdict given by an interesting article produced at the South Asian blog. In the following post, I would present my perspective on the article, and would further develop a theoretical model (hypothesis), based on the re-definition of modernity as defined towards the latter half of the post. Hopefully, you will stay tuned till then.

The blog draws away from the European Classification of modernity based on factors such as – ‘toleration, personal freedom, democracy, equality- racial and sexual, freedom of expression, sexual emancipation, and the universal right to knowledge’ – and builds a South Asian perspective on modernity described as moving from the old to a new set of values, in other ways tearing away from traditional to differing norms. I, on the other hand would define modernity from a different stream of light- specifically ‘openness to differing views’.

Firstly, modernity from the perspective of values- I am wondering what a set of values has to do with modernity in reference. If values are the gut for modernity as being described, then maybe being a ‘pre-modern’ South Asian is a blessing in disguise- based on divorce rates, feeling of alienation and isolation in some parts of the developed world.

More over, as most social intellects would be aware, modernity has little to do with superficial claims (such as dressing, talk, or walk) and arms of a person and is driven by the mental stance an individual holds, specifically in the form of tolerance – defined in terms of openness to accept varied views, whether they be conservative or liberal.

The term openness and tolerance includes all the other bi-products of equality, freedom of expression and so forth mentioned. However, it has very little to do with democracy and knowledge in practice- as otherwise basing on the European model, I would argue such a demarcation would classify, most of the developed world as non-modern, given the contradiction in theory and practice (However, a discussion for a latter date).

A theoretical possibility?

Given the tolerance (open view) definition of modernity, I shall argue, a middle class moderate South Asian can be classified as more modern relative to his counter-part in the developed world. This is based on a few assumptions such as the ability, means and inclination of the former to see the west and east in its prime and ill form. Therefore, given his exposure, and general openness associated with exposure, he/she should be classified as more modern, if such a relative term exists.

Living in a country such as India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, being a higher tier-middle class moderate (for lack of a better word), well to- do person, you get the opportunity of being exposed to the highest form of deprivation in terms of poverty on the one hand and elite practice on the other (utmost disparity) domestically. Standing on any traffic light on any street in Karachi, you get to witness insurmountable amount of disparity. Coupled with this, if you have sufficient resources, you get to live or experience parts of the developed world through vacations, schooling or work- a factor strengthened by the seeds instilled in our minds by our former rulers. Hence, given such wide ranging exposure, I would argue such a South Asian by definition should be more open. Although, not necessarily.

On the other hand, very few from the developed world get to experience such high levels of disparity in their home land (based on empirical evidence). Further, even fewer would travel beyond borders and live in such surroundings (poverty driven) beyond field or research work for an extended period of time, exceptions apart. Hence, given the definition of modernity- openness to varied views related and driven by exposure, they should have a lower probability of being categorized as modern, exceptions apart.

Further, given the current mayhem, on balance, I wonder who is more open to conservative and liberal views as a whole- a moderate South Asian or a moderate from the developed world? Especially in a world where conservative views regardless of validity, purpose or positivism are viewed through a backward eye, a negative and old fashioned dissent. Similar is the negative vibe attached to the word ‘feminism’, however not necessarily negative in practice. Ever wondered why women although ‘for’ women rights and so-forth, do not like to be classified as feminists?

Therefore, in terms modernity, due to the presence of exceptions all over the world, drawing generalizations without a quantifiable and empirical validation for a diverse community is a risky game.

UPDATE: Keep reading the South Asian Web blog for further updates on related discussion.