One thing that really struck me about this week’s topic (particularly in the videos) was how subjective the concept of modernity really is.  The word modernity is often attached to a positive connotation of progress, of improvement – and while that is certainly the case in some aspects of modernity within Latin America, it isn’t necessarily what happens for all features of society.

A connection that I made in lieu of the notion of the export boom being equated with modernity is the Renaissance/Industrial Revolution periods within Europe.  These intervals within time are both periods in which technology and new ideas were rapidly emerging – yet what I found interesting is that although change is evident, there are still traditional conceptions that perpetuate within society, such as ideas regarding the social hierarchy in terms of race and class as well as gender roles.  Modernity in this sense was defined by a niche group of people in which it seemed to benefit. Thus, even as we move towards a better future as insinuated by the term ‘modernity’ it is clear that we cannot completely disentangle ourselves from the past.  Furthermore, modernity is a process that does not have a clear cut end date; some may believe that society has fully modernized to their satisfaction whereas others may believe that their society has a long way to go which again brings us back to the issue of subjectivity.

I think that it is also interesting to note that while Latin America’s approach to modernization was in part an attempt to emulate European modernization (which we can also discuss here the idea of European hegemony, but that’s for anther post) and yet modernization within Europe correlates with the rise of neoliberalism, in contrast to the expansion of state power within the Latin Americas that modernization brought.  It is fascinating to note the parallels within these processes even as we contrast the ways in which these regions ‘modernized’ (I use this term loosely, because are we ever really completely modernized?).

The notion of subjectivity is embraced within the Dawson reading as well, he notes that stability may be defined differently by different people of different social groups/classes/races/genders due to the different circumstances in which their perspectives are built upon.  I would also like to add to his observations, that stability, though generally regarded as something positive can’t be considered ‘good’ for everyone within a given situation – for example if the social classes are extremely stable and set, this would be disadvantageous to an individual in the lower class trying to further their social status.

Thank you for reading!