Appeals to modernity, and more specifically, to the need for ecological modernization, fall flat upon the ears of millenials, intellectuals and policy thinkers of the contemporary age. For one, we are all too aware of the passing of the post-modern moment, never mind the gilded age of so called modernity which gave the world centralized technocratic planning regimes and cities built for cars of the 1950s. And perhaps more importantly, we are children of the conflicted era whereby the clash of civilizations was pronounced dead and history over, only to be plunged into prolonged economic and political crisis through the failure of the post-industrial global financial system to generate lasting and equitable prosperity, and the resurgence of traditional identities and values vis-a-vis the post colonial / neo-imperialistic projects of European (yes, Russia is a European country, and an Asian one, know your geography) nations in the Middle East. The post-post modern condition rejects a unified notion of progress, and instead explores the diversity of subjective interpretations of both material and metaphysical transformations of the human condition.
And yet, triumphalist paeans to the virtues of capitalism abound. One recent economist article extolls the virtues of visionary billionaires investing in lofty techno-scientific projects which will seemingly lift the rest of humanity out of the inequity they themselves have helped create. The fact that Schumpeter’s piece draws upon examples from mercantile economies to support an explicitly pro-capitalist agenda lays bare the contradictions of the ‘modernizing’ project. There is more in common between the mercantile empires of old and the techno-entrepreneurial class of today than perhaps should make us comfortable.
Rather than attempting to simultaneously naturalize wealth inequality and claim triumphalism for modern techno-capitalism, we can lay bare the basic dynamics of social power run amuck. Wealth and capitalism are not synonymous, and as Latour tells us in We have never been modern, the civilizing dream of an end to history is certainly not a new idea. We would be better served by a nuanced discussion of the various social dynamics at play. If there is any unifying characteristic to the contemporary world it lies in the multitude of experiential realities and perspectives brought into increasing contact, collaboration and yes conflict.
Attempting to wash away this vibrancy with an appeal to the slick plate glass of the shining ecologically modern city on the hill, will likely continue to disenfranchise and destroy the human cultural vibrancy necessary for ecological intimacy, place based knowledge, and wisdom. While technology, and the finance of innovation and entrepreneurship, certainly have some social role to play in solving the various intertwined social, environmental and technological ills we face today, we would be wise to not let the imaginary steamroller of a unified notion of progress flatten our world.
