Advertisement

Non-western Contemporaneity and the Postmodern

  • Roida Rzayeva OktayEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

The intellectual-spiritual realities of modern life cause a reconsideration of the modernist theories and practices, including those in a postmodern situation . A postmodernist discourse is motivated by the modernity crisis, rejecting its monistic understanding. Under the influence of globalisation, postmodernism extends over “non-Western societies.” The analysis of the postmodern in its relation to the modern, as well as the “non-West” concerning the “West,” assumes the detailed and comparative analysis of “languages,” cultural pools, and the historical processes connected with noted concepts, i.e. differentiating terminology. The postmodernist theorisation of the dichotomy “West-non-West” obviously causes a discursive analysis , in the following contexts in particular: dialogue , an image of the Other, the claim on knowledge, a deconstruction , the subject-object relations, and the economic prism. The postmodern in the non-Western interpretation is characterised by the whole palette of the specific parameters inherent in non-Western modernity and becomes complicated in its ambiguous understanding and self-reflection.

Keywords

Non-west Alternative contemporaneity Postmodern Innovation Continuity Alternative modernisms Local modernity Plural modernities Multiple modernities 

References

  1. Allard, E. (2002). Somnitelniye dostoinsta konseptsii modernizatsii. http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/188/689/1231/006.ALLARD.pdf.
  2. Arnason, J. (2002). The peripheral centre: Essays on Japanese history and civilization. Rosanna: Trans Pacific Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arnason, J. (2003). Civilizations in dispute: Historical questions and theoretical traditions. Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  4. Beriş, H. E. (2003). Moderniteden postmoderniteye. In M. Türkone (Ed.), Siyaset. Ankara: Lotus Yayınları.Google Scholar
  5. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1987). European civilization in a comparative perspective. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Eisenstadt, S. (1999). Revolutsiya i preobrazovaniye. Sravnitelnoye izucheniye tsivilizatsiy. Per. s angl. A. V. Gordona pod red. B. S. Yerasova. M.: Aspekt Press.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus, 129, 1–29.Google Scholar
  8. Eisenstadt, S. N. (2002). Reflections on multiple modernities. European, Chinese and other interpretations. In D. Sachsenmaier, J. Riedel, & S.N. Eisenstadt (Ed.), Boston:Brill.Google Scholar
  9. Erdem, T. (2005). Postmodernizmin “Öteki”si Hangi “Öteki”? Düşünen Siyaset, Düşünce Dergisi, Sayı 21, Aralık 2005 (pp. 101–112), Ankara: Lotus YayınlarıGoogle Scholar
  10. Gavrov, S. H. (2003). Natsionalnaya kultura i modernizatdiya obshestva. M.: MGUКI. http://window.edu.ru/library/pdf2txt/244/66244/37946/page5.
  11. Göle, N. (2008). Melez Desenler İslam ve Modernlik Üzerine. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 3. Basım.Google Scholar
  12. Multiple Modernities in an Era of Globalization. (1999). World congress of the international institute of sociology (pp. 11–15). Tel Aviv: Temmuz.Google Scholar
  13. Rosenau, P. M. (1998). Posrmodernizm ve Toplum Bilimleri. Çev. Tuncay Birkan. Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları.Google Scholar
  14. Sezer, B. (2005). Osnovniye problemi turetskoy sotsiologii. Almati.Google Scholar
  15. Sim, S. (2006). Postmodern Düşüncenin Eleştirel Sözlüğü. (M. Erkan, & A. Tutku, Trans.). 1. Baskı, Ankara: ebabil Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  16. Yılmaz, M. (2005). Atatürk’ün Modernleşme Modeli. In Atatürk ve Çağdaşlaşma—belgeler ve görüşler. Ankara: AKDTYK, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Azerbaijan National Academy of SciencesBakuAzerbaijan

Personalised recommendations