Page 1

Textes

de

Référence

XXIIème Conférence de l’Académie de la latinité

Mondialisation et différences émergentes

Du 17 au 19 novembre 2010 Rio de Janeiro, Brésil

Académie de la latinité Rio de Janeiro, 2010


© Académie de la latinité Publié par Educam – Editora Universitária Candido Mendes Rua 1º de Março, 101, Sala 26, Centro CEP 20010-010 – Rio de Janeiro – RJ – Brasil

Coordination Editoriale Hamilton Magalhães Neto Révision Anne Marie Davée et Luiz Carlos

Palhares

Couverture Vitor Alcântara Illustration de la Couverture Florão da América (1994-2000)

Peinture acrylique sur des poteries et des plantes, 279 x 260 centímetres. Collection Gilberto Chateaubriand — MAM-RJ. Foto de Murilo Uchôa.

Programmation visuelle Vitor Alcântara

Académie de la latinité Siège Amérique latine — Secrétariat général Praça XV de Novembro, 101, sala 26, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil CEP 20010-010 Tél.: (55.21)3543-6498 — Fax (55.21)3543-6501 E-mail: cmendes@candidomendes.edu.br www.alati.com.br


S

ommaire

Introduction Mondialisation et différences émergentes Candido Mendes …………......….......................……11

1ère Séance Décentrement de l’Occident et émergences nationales

Deconstructing Singular Modernity: The Modernization of China’s Past and Present Wang Ning ……………...................................…….....23 From the Idea of “Multiple Modernities” to the Idea of “Multiple Democracies” Tong Shijun ……………...................................……...49 L’Acquis historique du “peuple de Lula” Candido Mendes …………….......................…......…69


2ème Séance Diasporas, citoyenneté et exclusion globale

Dangerous Democracy: A View from the Periphery Susan Buck-Morss ……………..............................…95 El retorno de los piratas en la era global Daniel Innerarity ………….….............................…115 Nihilisme et identité Gianni Vattimo ……………............................……..141

3ème Séance L’Amérique latine en transformation: constructions ou réinventions?

Región y Estado nacional en América Latina: el caso de Ecuador en el siglo XIX Enrique Ayala Mora …………….....................……153 Ciudadanía y “nuevas democracias” en la América Latina del bicentenario Gerardo Caetano ………….............................……189 Futuro incierto: modernidad, “giro descolonizador” y nueva propuesta estética Javier Sanjinés C. ……………................................265

4ème Séance L’Europe, l’Islam et la reconstruction de l’espace méditerranéen

Ne restera t-il rien de l’Europe? Alain Touraine ……………...............................……305


Amère Méditerranée François L’Yvonnet …………….......................……331

Collaborateurs ……………....................................…… 345


I

ntroduction


Mondialisation et différences émergentes

Candido Mendes

Le nouveau siècle, dans sa première décennie, nous dresse le bilan de la chute des tours de Manhattan; de l’avènement du terrorisme poussé au martyr par les témoignages vengeurs d’une reconnaissance collective suffoquée; à la reprise des théocraties, ramenant le politique au transcendant; du recul de la citoyenneté, face au déferlement migratoire et de la possible irruption de nouvelles “guerres de religion”. L’alerte mondiale continuelle se poursuit avec la canonisation populaire de Mohammed Hatta au Yemen de même qu’on entend, de la part de certaines voix de l’Islam, que les droits humains seraient encore une “idéologie de l’Occident”. De par là même se dessine une 11


12

Candido Mendes

nouvelle architecture de la mondialisation vouée, à la longue, aux coexistences internationales non hégémoniques mettant en cause cette montée du multiculturalisme dont l’impératif de la différence se joint à celui de la liberté au moulage contemporain de la démocratie. La modernité remise à la pleine désinvolture de l’homme dans la cité s’assure-t-elle aux horizons de l’universalité et aux miroirs empressés de la civilisation, déjouée d’une pleine “reconnaissance de l’autre” où puise le monde des cultures? L’impasse aujourd’hui de cette modernité naît de la contradiction émergente où se perd la synchronie de jadis de cette mouvance de l’histoire, dès la Renaissance et son premier regard urbi et orbi et toujours isochronique, soumis à une dialectique sans résidu. La laïcisation deviendrait dans ce même temps l’achèvement de ce rationnel comme dernier sursis de cet universel en tant qu’avenance du monde. Nous nous voyons, au contraire, au seuil des guerres de religion, au retour aux fondamentalismes de tous genres dans leur formule réductrice des identités et leur possible “réciprocité de perspectives”, et à la mise en place des contrepoints culturels face au terraplanage civilisatoire. Tout redépart dialectique effectif, depuis le 11 septembre, exige comme point nodal la reprise des médiations et des recherches d’alternative face aux prémisses multiséculaires d’assimilation menées par la vieille raison impériale de l’Occident des Lumières.


1

Décentrement de l’Occident et émergences nationales


Deconstructing Singular Modernity: The Modernization of China’s Past and Present

Wang Ning

The issue of modernity with regard to the construction of Chinese modernity, an alternative modernity or modernities, has become a key theoretical topic in both the Chinese and international contexts. Since in the Chinese context, Fredric Jameson’s definition of modernity is most influential and controversial, the paper starts with elaborations and discussions related to his book Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present (2002). Although the author largely appreciates Jameson’s association of modernity with postmodernity in today’s context, he does not agree with the totalitarian conclusion that there is such thing as the so-called “singular 23


24

Wang Ning

modernity.” To the author, there are different types of modernity that appear in different regions. In this sense, modernity should be thought in plural form, that is, there are different forms of modernity or modernities, not only in different times, but also in different regions. The author, then, will deal with the birth of modernity in the Chinese context in the last turn of the century, arguing that modernity in China is a “translated” concept, or more exactly, a “culturally translated” political and intellectual project. Modernity in China has undergone three periods: 1. as a project of enlightenment from 1919 to 1949; 2. as a totalitarian Maoist discourse from 1949 to 1976; 3. now as a “glocal” narrative category pointing to an alternative modernity of Chinese characteristics. The birth of Chinese modernity has actually deconstructed the totalitarian singular modernity paving the way for the birth of pluralistic modernity or modernities in the global context. As we all know, in the current Chinese as well as international cultural and theoretic context, modernity and globalization are two of the most heatedly discussed or even debated theoretic topics with regard to postmodernity in the age of globalization. One might raise these questions: why should we Chinese humanities scholars deal with these topics with such enthusiasm? Has modernity really brought about great benefits to the Chinese people as well


Deconstructing Singular Modernity: The Modernization of …

25

as humanities intellectuals? If we were confronted with these questions decades ago, we might well be puzzled and unable to answer them in an adequate way. But now, we cannot avoid the fact that modernity has long been with us, not only bringing China closer to modernization, but also influencing our way of life, our form of thinking and our academic research, as well as stimulating our material and intellectual production. Since we are now in an age of globalization, modernity has taken on a new look, or appeared as a sort of “modern0ity at large,”1 or of a postmodern modernity, and even undergone a sort of splitting: from one singular modernity into different forms of modernity or modernities. In this sense, we are able to reconstruct an alternative modernity in the Chinese context in such an age of globalization. Obviously, these two are Western concepts brought into China through translation and frequently quoted and discussed by Chinese literary and cultural studies’ scholars in our theoretical debates. That is why we should start with translation. Translation: Practice

from

Interlingual

to

Intercultural

Although translation has been in existence for thousands of years, it is translation in its modern and postmodern 1 As for the so-called “modernity at large,” or the modernity in the age of globalization, cf. Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1996.


From the Idea of “Multiple Modernities” to the Idea of “Multiple Democracies”

Tong Shijun

The idea of “multiple modernities” has been widely accepted in the discourse on modernity by scholars in various parts of the world. In this paper I want to show the possibility of deriving the idea of multiple democracies from that of “multiple modernities. 1. “Deep-Seated Reflexivity”: The Core of “Multiple Modernities” as a Normative Notion

“Multiple modernities” is not only a descriptive notion, but also a normative notion. Even when S. N. Eisenstadt, one of its major advocators, was using it as a descriptive notion, he did not only mean to propose a new description or narrative of the history of modernity, but he also meant 49


50

Tong Shijun

to argue for the following position: modernization and Westernization are not the same thing.1 In our times, when the troubles of the Western modernity have been disclosed again and again, to disconnect modernity from “Westernization” is obviously to open a door of hope for those nonWestern societies that are in the process of modernization. View in this perspective, Eisenstadt’s notion of “multiple modernity” is already not only descriptive, but also normative, although normative in a negative sense. In Charles Taylor, another major advocator of the notion of multiple modernities, its normative sense is not merely negative, but also positive. Taylor differentiates various conceptions or theories of modernity into two types, cultural and acultural, and defends the cultural theory of modernity against the acultural theory of modernity. If modernity is a product of a particular culture even in the West, according to Taylor, then in various non-Western societies there will come naturally various types of modernity different from the Western type of modernity, because of the fact that different cultures will have significant impact upon the process of change at the starting points of these changes. Taylor calls these modernities “alternative modernities”2 and on this ground, he uses the term “multiple modernities.” The need to put forward the problem of modernity in this new way can first of all be understood in a cognitive 1 Eisenstadt, 2000, p. 2-3. 2 Taylor, Charles, “Two Theories of Modernity,” 1999, p. 162.


2

Diasporas, citoyennetĂŠ et exclusion globale


Dangerous Democracy: A View from the Periphery

Susan Buck-Morss

The title of my comments needs clarification. By the periphery, I mean the the United States, which is now a much-weakened player on the global scene. By dangerous democracy, I mean just that: not danger to democracy, but democracy itself as dangerous. That is how things look from the periphery, and you will tell me how exceptional the US case is. Perhaps in new global centers like Brazil and China, both well represented here, or France (which at least for intellectuals may never stop being the center of the earth) things look very different. And then again, perhaps they do not. Seven years ago, at our AcadĂŠmie de la LatinitĂŠ Conference in Alexandria, I spoke in support of a Global 95


96

Susan Buck-Morss

Public Sphere in which political solidarities might be possible regardless of national borders, and irrespective of cultural differences. Today, at least from the periphery, that possibility looks dim. This is true despite accelerated communication, despite endless international conferences and dialogues of civilization. Lines of difference have hardened in the past decade. Anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, antigay, antiimmigrant, antiabortion, antigovernment, and anti-Arab sentiment have become more central than ever to public debates, inflamed by politicians who have made use of these negative passions for their own political advantage. In Hollywood movies—but no less so in the art-market and the academy—Cynical Realism is in fashion. Nothing seems more out-of-date or absurdly hopeful than the politics of the 1960s—when student demonstrations spread around the globe like wildfire, attaining a measure of transnational solidarity far exceeding our own times, despite the absence of the internet, hence with an infinitesimally smaller quantity of global networking. Today, globalization is the hallmark of the times, and yet the idea of a common humanity loses ground. In this context, democracy becomes dangerous. What went wrong? Political discourse is both symptom and cause of the present situation. Its purportedly democratic form rests on a structural contradiction between the nation-state organization of political life and the transnational realities of the global economy. We think as nationals; our material fate

Projeto gráfico  

Projeto e editoração do livro da Academia da Latinidade do Prof. Candido Mendes

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you