- Show more
The passage from modernity to postmodernity according to Harvey
The passage from modernity to postmodernity, there is Harvey possibility to expose the wide meaning of modern, in a simple way in which he handles the different ways, shapes and readings in all fields and facilitates understanding what themodern movement, then allowing to understand through this route how the changing, the contradictory, the opposite, the individual.
The geographer David Harvey addresses postmodernism from everything that was the modern movement, in order to understand what it means or what postmodernism is. For this, it relies on various architect authors, artists, philosophers, starting with the reflection that Jonathan Raban makes where he poses some turns around architecture, art and "intellectual novelties" that demonstrate an internal daily urban movement that gives rise that gives riseto postmodernism. Harvey points out in this regard that the "only starting point to understand the postmodern lies in their implicit relationship with the modern".
However, that the project of modernity occupied a central place in the 18opinion of some in the name of the same human liberation was destined to oppress the man.
Also in spite of the multiple contradictions, the modern movement was focused on man, in his "emancipation", and it was in this sense that in all fields in one way or another the enjoyment of life was intended. He even points to Marxist thought as part of this project, to the extent that he sought the emancipation of man, being oppressed by capitalist society.
It is very important as Harvey makes a differentiation between those who argue that it is through this project that is possible for man to achieve freedom;and others, who consider that this project must be completely abandoned in the name of the "emancipation of man".
The modernism that emerged before World War I was more an antagonistic reaction to the processes derived from manufacturing production, but essentially afterwards it concentrated on the art of cities, in urban life, which in the period between wars was marked bypositivism and subsequently imbued in a corporativism.
The clarity with which Harvey shows modernism and postmodernism in relation to architecture and urban design is very important to the extent that it is consistent with the way in which it explains them from the opposition of postmodernism to modernism. It shows as under the influence of modernism both planning and development were based on large -scale projects and were marked by modern functionalist emphasis;Postmodernism is marked by a fragmented fabric that is revealed in the metropolis configuration. Harvey points out that this occurs to the extent that “the metropolis cannot be controlled except in parts, urban design simply seeks to take into account vernacular traditions, local stories, needs, requirements and particular fantasies."
The political economic transformation of late capitalism of the twentieth century. Here is a tour of political and economic transformations, mainly by the latter in order to show the radical changes that occurred between modernism and postmodernism, mainly marked labor relations and consumption;But also in geographical and geopolitical configuration.
In relation to the Fordist model established after World War II, it highlights the forms of organization of economic and political power, innovations and something that attracts a lot of attention is the control of workers (including the working days and the hours aimed at rest) In order to tie salaries with demand, that is to say salaries with consumption and the subsequent consequences in the post -war recession.
The transition process is very important to the extent that the adjustments that it had to make for the complete establishment of the Fordist production model, the reduction of the workday, the division of labor, the intervention of the State, the intervention of the State, the intervention of the State, is evidenceThis did not mean in any way that the concern for a more just society;but guaranteed market stability, that is, demand;while the unions of labor dynamics were excluded from stigmatization for their positions close to communism.
The economic growth derived from Fordism instead of reducing social inequalities increased them, generating a large wave of social manifestations that together with others against the implementation of new cultures associated with capitalism marked the protest in the 60s.
The experience of space and time
The way in which space and time have been taken, used and exploited individually and collectively, supposes for Harvey the definition of the turn towards postmodernism, which is mainly based on the fact that they reflect transformations in social processes, even though they simultaneously havecaused.
Both space and time concepts were built from daily practice, useful in the reproduction of social life. It is possible to find new meanings for the old materializations of space and time, for example in the relationship with history it is tried to build and change it, rather than accept it.
The space for its part is also essential for the capitalist economy to the extent that it is granted conditioning such as the optimal efficiency of the resource and the performance of the space. In addition, those who control space can always control the policies of the place, which occurs in that space. A particular assertion in this regard is done by David Harvey by stating that: “One of the main tasks of the capitalist State is to locate power in the spaces controlled by the bourgeoisie and disallow those spaces on which opposition movements can exercise greater power".
The condition of postmodernity
Here, the author raises the condition of postmodernity from the analysis of history and geography, under the approach of two questions. The first referring to what kind of geographical historical condition is being discussed and the second, if this condition "predicts a deeper and wider revolution in human affairs than the revolutions already forged in the historical geography of capitalism"
In conclusion;The immaterial forms of money, as well as the separation between real production and markets evidence important changes, but do not achieve structural changes and that is why the author brings us the most important elements of the passage of modernism to postmodernism and how these elements aretaken differently in each particular social process.