This week brought about an interesting aspect of modernity that I had never really thought about previously. I think most people would immediately think of modernity and the modernization of society as a primarily positive aspect of humanity, in the sense that we have moved forward and continued to push the boundaries of what is possible. However this week, we learnt about modernity in a more balanced analytical way, looking further at both the positive and negative aspects it had on Latin America, particularly Mexico in the reading by James Creelman.
I found it interesting to learn about the economic divide between the wealthy and the poor during this time in Latin America, taking a step away from the political analysis and colonial aspects we have been looking at so far. One thing I found to be really cool was the fact that it was the people who made up the upper middle/middle classes that were trying to forcibly bring about change and modernization. One would usually think that the poorer people would be pushing for economic and political change, but it was the upper classes and their exposure to Europe and the United States that made them want to modernize. On review, it makes a lot of sense that these elites would travel to Europe and gain inspiration from their aesthetic aspects of modernity, and attempt to bring this home with them and implement it in Latin America.
After reading Creelman’s essay on Mexico’s ex-president Porfirio Díaz, I was immediately struck by the explicitly positive and romanticized way in which he spoke of Díaz’s achievements and efforts for Mexico. As he states himself, “there is not a more romantic or heroic figure in all the world”. Nonetheless, the question he addresses and one that I further ask after this week’s learning is, can it prove to be a more successful and effective democracy if there is a stronger middle class to represent both sides economically?
Thanks for reading,
Antonin
Economic stability and greater spread of wealth is two components of a 21st century and modern first world country that Latin America continues to lack. Less economic instability and difference in between classes would help the process of modernity in the region to benefit all classes and ethnicities rather than being completely one sided on both accounts.
In response to your question, I think it’s important to look at the nature of the middle class. Historically there has been a lack of solidarity among those sort of class based lines, often it seems as though a ruling class poises the middle class against the lower class. In the USA for example, a common conservative line is that the middle class is held back because a (tiny) percentage of their taxes goes towards social services like welfare, which likely tend to be consumed by people of a lower class. I suppose if we’re gonna look at strengthening a middle class, why do we jump over strengthening a lower class? Or eliminating that completely, as much as we can. I’m not sure that we can achieve significantly meaningful change, if our system continues to operate on implicit disenfranchisement.
I’m glad you brought up the concept of good and bad effects modernity can have. Given that you can break modernity down to sub elements (Secularization, aesthetic….) do you think that any one combination of elements of modernity is more likely to have a long term negative effect on a country/nation? Or do the effects vary stochastically no matter what elements of modernity are involved?
I think your comments on the middle class are quite appealing. Obviously, in western countries today we are struggling with rising inequality due to various factors and the middle class is feeling the brunt of this. I believe the middle class would push for change because they often have the social and economic ability to do so, as well as the fact that they have something to gain if these Latin American nations modernized and became wealthier due to the new modern influence.