Departament d'Humanitats i Ciències de l'Educació

This chapter is an invitation to rethink some narratives about the emergence of the modern Western world – restricted to Europe in the beginning and then expanded gradually to encompass the United States of America – and the ways in which this process has been explained through historical accounts at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is an attempt to return to a societal process that was left aside when what was happening in a ‘borderline’, liminal time and space became the status quo. More to the point, the focus here is on some aspects of what was regarded as America, the ‘New World’, before and after the modern ruptures that occurred in the liminal ‘age of revolutions’ (Wagner, 1994; Armitage and Subrahmanyam, 2010). It is argued that America went through a process of bifurcation, or divergence, of North and South, at exactly the point when certain historical events of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries started to be seen as inaugurating the modern times. In this process, many of the links which were used to make the New World as a whole a significant idea started to change in the early nineteenth century, became strongly separated out in the second half of this same century, to become irrec-oncilable after the first decades of the twentieth century.

The tendency to spatially displace imaginaries of societies and their specific historical development is not new. The interpretation of a space based on geographical orientation has indeed seldom been based on any natural idea of what the space is (Gregory 1994; Garfield 2013). Recently, though, much attention has been devoted to the discussion of space as a political and historical entity. It has been rediscovered as a privileged object for the analysis of different historical processes largely crystallised in different parts of the globe.

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.

En el ámbito estrictamente pragmático cada uno de los proyectos políticos que hoy se citan

This chapter explores how a number of Latin American thinkers have put in practice cosmopolitan projects and by doing so developed cosmopolitical projects that should be seen as tools to advance universalism as humanitarian and inter-species projects of conviviality. It describes the idea that cosmopolitics is rooted in histories and interpretations which are the main sources of creation of a cosmopolitan imaginary, a version of what Appiah calls 'rooted cosmopolitanism.' In an empirical sense, in Latin America in the nineteenth century there was the foundation of non-colonial, modern, liberal, and republican states which were marked by a new kind of mixed social configuration. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the cosmopolitan perspective in Latin America has been marked by the fact that we are living in an increasingly connected world. As the work of Mariategui shows, the ethnic and the racial question in post-colonial Latin American dominated debates in the first half of the twentieth century.

Neste artigo argumentamos que os temas da ação e da história presentes em alguns contos de Jorge Luis Borges antecipam alguns pontos que apareceram nas discussões pós-estruturalistas – nos campos da história, filosofia, antropologia – das últimas décadas do século XX. No seu labirinto literário-filosófico, especialmente por meio da ideia de destino, Borges explora elementos chave que se tornaram parte da noção de crítica que enfatiza as ideias de contingência e da impossibilidade de controle deliberado dos efeitos da ação humana em seu curso temporal.

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.

Drawing on archaeological findings about individuals of the archaic Brazilian ‘hunter-gatherer’ societies and on the life and work of a contemporary Brazilian artist, Paulo Nazareth, this paper argues for the use of a timeless history in which chronological historical time will be less important in sociological comparative analyses. There are processes that belong to a significant past which still inform how societies imagine themselves and which cannot be understood from the established perspective of a divided human and natural history. These processes can only be interpreted by overcoming disciplinary constraints and by assuming that history goes beyond the systematic organisation of the facts and historical evidence. There are aspects of American archaic history that are not only completely unknown to us, but they also inform societal practices and imaginary significations of the past, present and future in many New World societies. The paper critically discusses historical-sociological literature on Brazil. Based on a number of perspectives developed in the fields of philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and archaeology, it will be argued that the division of the world into ‘civilisation’ and ‘other simplistic social-historical-economical-cultural groups’ is incompatible with a comparative historical sociology that does not aim to hierarchise diff erent societal forms.

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.