Mempertimbangkan Kembali Modeniti Dalam Transformasi Sosial

The central argument of this essay is found in the critique of some of the essential features of modernity that are alleged to have deviated from some strands to the Enlightenment of the 18^(th) century which were concerned with ethics and society. This essay is concerned with questions of modernity and its place in the plan of social transformation of Malaysia. It does not reject the notion of modernity per se; rather it is an argument to bring back man and society into the larger scheme of modernization and in turn within the ambit of an even larger social engineering project. This is despite the Frankfurt School's scepticism that generally the Enlightenment has a hidden logic of domination of human beings. The reason for concern, excessive though at some point, is when triumphant liberalism continuously and uncritically proclaims the virtues of globalization. Yet despite such triumphalism, one still witnesses a profound disquiet expressing itself nervously in the face of several contradictions. It is, however, reassuring that although globalisation is inevitable, but the existing configuration favouring neoliberal politics and economics is not. Indeed, it is entirely possible to integrate domestic economies in ways which do not favour capital over labour nor inequity over egalitarianism. The anxiety about modernity as it is now understood is a significant event of our age. The transformation brought about by modernity and liberalisation appear both as a source of collective fulfillment for some, while it appears as objects of profound bewilderment for others. This essay is prefaced by a historical context and the basic assumptions of modernization theories. In presenting these schools of modernization, a critical position is adopted, especially on the early modernization theories. It takes the position of an advocate attempting to impress upon the need to position modernity in an appropriate context in order for modernity to fulfill its promises. In the main, modernity has been alleged to allow the prevalence of the 'logic of the economy' over the 'logic of society', to borrow the terms from Karl Polanyi; that is to say, the powerful dominance of economic concerns over the social. Hence, the increasing centrality of individual and private values as opposed to collective values in human relations. Karl Polanyi has warned against promoting the economy to the extent that power becomes so concentrated, thus allowing economic decision-making to easily elude human control while human dignity and freedom would reach a tipping point. This economism, according to him, would then undermine social cohesion and ultimately devastate society. Instead, he proposed that the economy should be embedded within relations of social control. This way society can protect itself against the consequences of the rapid expansion of untrammeled market economies. It is this argument that animates the intellectual position of this essay. Various alternatives are discussed and suggested as appropriate contexts for modernity that is in accord to the spirit of radical Enlightenment, the name is no longer the 'new mixed-economy' and M. Yunus' notion of 'social business'. As recent as 2017, a radical call was made to consider Malaysia's economic development, social progress, and innovation as a single whole. The criticism of present-day modernity as 'neo-liberal deviation' is merely a set of ideas placed within another perspective. It is made imperative by the growing hegemony of the market and increasing inequalities in Malaysia. The discussion of the issues of modernity, the questions posed and answers suggested are clearly tentative. Any such attempt to answer some fundamental questions on the philosophy of social transformation will certainly be criticised and understandably so given that we have been involved in a series of 'paradigm wars' in development studies. But raising these questions in itself might also be constructive, even in ways that cannot now be anticipated. Needless to say, the proposed framework does not claim novelty. European scholars have, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, been revisiting the earlier works on the true nature of capital. Thomas Piketty's 2014 publication Capital in the 21^(st) Century has since awed scholars with some wondering whether his academic travails could be a harbinger of things to come in the system of economic production. Piketty has indeed offered some tentalising insights.

並列關鍵字

modernisaton ； modernity ； Englightenment ； social transformation ； neoliberalism ； Malaysia

國際替代計量

全文下載

主題瀏覽