Departament d'Humanitats i Ciències de l'Educació

Este capítulo explora como la idea de la modernidad se refiere a la interpretación del tiempo presente en términos de una reubicación del presente en relación con el pasado y el futuro. Se refiere a las transformaciones fundamentales que llevaron a la creación del mundo moderno y a la formación de nuevos imaginarios sobre la posibilidad de la autonomía de los seres humanos. El término modernidad no surgió hasta el siglo XIX y se reflejó en gran medida en los principales trastornos históricos de ese siglo, especialmente en la forma en que fueron experimentados por las personas en Europa y América. La modernidad puede definirse como una condición de conciencia de que nada está resuelto de una vez y para siempre y, por lo tanto, el futuro no está predeterminado. Expresa la idea de que el presente no está determinado por el pasado, especialmente por el pasado reciente. La mayoría de las concepciones de la modernidad han anunciado una ruptura del tiempo presente con el pasado, generalmente el pasado reciente. Lo moderno es el tiempo presente; es el "ahora" y "lo nuevo". La conciencia de lo nuevo es común a la mayoría de las expresiones culturales, filosóficas y políticas de la modernidad a partir del siglo XVIII.

The notion of multiple modernities as developed by Eisenstadt has become increasingly influential in debates about modernity and the historical formation of societies in comparative perspective. On closer inspection, the theoretical framework is less than straightforward when it comes to specific applications. This article considers Brazil from the perspective of a revised theory of multiple modernities. There has been virtually no application to specific case studies within the countries of the South. Brazil could be considered an important case study of modernity that deserves attention in its own right. The article shows that the theoretical framework of multiple modernities offers insights into the Brazilian trajectory of modernity, a consideration of which also challenges some of the assumptions of Eisenstadt’s approach. Despite the limits of the framework, the notion of multiple modernities offers a good basis for a global analysis of modernity. Greater attention needs to be given to civilizational encounters and to sources of conflict and plurality within modernity and which cannot be accounted for in terms of the principles of axiality postulated by Eisenstadt.

The growing body of literature on the idea of the Anthropocene has opened up serious questions that go to the heart of the social and human sciences. There has been as yet no satisfactory theoretical framework for the analysis of the Anthropocene debate in the social and human sciences. The notion of the Anthropocene is not only a condition in which humans have become geologic agents, thus signalling a temporal shift in Earth history: it can be seen as a new object of knowledge and an order of governance. A promising direction for theorizing in the social and human science is to approach the notion of the Anthropocene as exemplified in new knowledge practices that have implications for governance. It invokes new conceptions of time, agency, knowledge and governance. The Anthropocene has become a way in which the human world is re-imagined culturally and politically in terms of its relation with the Earth. It entails a cultural model, that is an interpretative category by which contemporary societies make sense of the world as embedded in the Earth, and articulate a new kind of historical self-understanding, by which an alternative order of governance is projected. This points in the direction of cosmopolitics – and thus of a ‘Cosmopolocene’ – rather than a geologization of the social or in the post-humanist philosophy, the end of the human condition as one marked by agency.