let me clarify that modernism said, "man is asocial and ahistorical". when i say socio- economic, circumstantial and political context of situations, i mean it differently. when we analyse modern era, we put it in the contexts mentioned above. it has nothing to do with the theory of modernism.
i read something very intresting in wikipedia( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution) which put some things in perspective. it said that the belief system in Europe focused on indiviuals and that of China focused on inter personal relationships between people. the belief system in Europe were largely products of Judaeo- Christianity. lets go a step further and say that the fundamentals of Islam and Christianity are similar. Islam is people oriented religion, which tells you how to be in a society, however, the core of Islam lies in an indiviual's equation with god. therefore, Christianity is also introspective and self- reflexive.
lets generalize here. the Europe is the Occident and China- the Orient. what holds true of Europe, holds true of other continents in northern hemisphere. what holds true of China, holds true of the entire Orient, (it certainly does for India). maybe this is the reason why, modernism took shape the way it did back then. it focused solely on an indiviual's fight with the nature.
2 comments:
more or less there, i feel.
but to add to what you say, my interpretation of modernism's self-exploratory individaulistic outlook was a kind of saturation with generalisation. it was a post-war era that demanded the breaking away from conventions. till now (end of ww1), it was always about the global scene. a man was always held up for the actions of his country, whether he supported the ideology or not. the imperialists' regime had to come to an end, of course. but it brought along with it a bitterness against the colonisers that stands strong to date in many countries, including our own. this kind of generalisation of both, the colonisers and colonised, i feel, resulted in a desperate need to break free.
apart from this, like you mentioned earlier, the overpowering growth of the machines reduced man to a state where he realises that his forefathers were monkeys and that the machine is more potent at work than he is. thus comes into picture the need to appraise the self, the man, the individual. a quest that eventually, following another world war, leads to existentialism - a deeper, more philosophicla exploration of the self.
that is all. :)
but very good treatise, i say. keep it up!
Oh wow!
I did not know this earlier!
I wrote what i read.
Ok so basically after WWI, everyman represented his country (whether he liked it or not).
What is Imperialists regime?
Yes i agree with the generalisation part and the desire to break free.
Hmm.. Isn't it nice talking about these theories.
I love exchanging ideas on this
:) :)
If ever you write something on it
I'd love to read it
:)
Post a Comment