Gostujoče predavanje prof. Heinerja Roetza

V ponedeljek, 11. 12. 2023, ob 10:00 bo v Zbornični dvorani Univerze v Ljubljani imel gostujoče predavanje profesor Heiner Roetz, ki sodi k najbolj prepoznavnim evropskim sinologom na svetovni ravni.

Predavanje z naslovom Mnogotere modernosti: zakoniti dedič osnega obdobja? / Multiple Modernities – a Legitimate Heir to the Axial Age? bo v angleščini in bo problematiziralo Eisenstadtovo teorijo mnogoterih modernosti skozi optiko Jaspersove teze osnega obdobja. Izpostavilo bo pomen razsvetljenskih osnov modernizacije, ki se kažejo v samo-zavedanju subjekta in kritičnem odnosu do tradicije. V tem okviru profesor Roetz na osnovi idejnozgodovinskih raziskav antične kitajske družbe razgali politično nevarne implikacije radikalnega kulturnega relativizma in ideologij neo-tradicionalizma, ki trenutno tvorijo pomembno idejno osnovo novih nacionalizmov na Kitajskem, pa tudi v številnih drugih sodobnih družbah.   

Profesor Roetz bo v tem predavanju obravnaval kompleksno razmerje med univerzalnostjo in kulturno partikularnostjo tranzicijskih družbenih preobratov, torej temo, ki je osrednjega pomena za razumevanje specifičnih paradigem vzhodnoazijskih procesov modernizacije in je zato pomembno za vse študente in študentke Oddelka za azijske študije, zelo zanimivo pa bo tudi za študentke in študente mnogih drugih disciplin, predvsem tistih iz oddelkov za sociologijo, etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo, zgodovino in filozofijo.    

Povzetek predavanja v angleščini:

The theory of multiple modernities as developed by Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, Björn Wittrock, Johann Arnason, Tu Weiming and others is directed against the assumption that “modernization” is the name of a process that took place in the West and has to be copied in other regions of the world. It assumes that modernity in the course of its expansion has not merely brought forward variants of one model. It has rather merged with local conditions in such a way that a plural of “modernities” has come into existence which do not converge in one common pattern. They are shaped by different cultural ontologies that constitute persistent “core identities” of the respective cultures and rather than vanishing under the pressure of modernization leave their mark on it. In order to underpin their theory, the proponents of the theory of multiple modernities refer to Karl Jaspers’s idea of the “Axial Age” which, as they see it, helps to explain the formation of distinct great “civilizations” from different “axial” periods in which the core identities took shape that later define the various modernities. Interestingly, this is also the quasi-official reading of the Axial Age thesis in China. To be an “Axial” culture now means to be a member of a club of distinguished civilizations that draw from their own roots and may not be commanded by others. However, this means that an idea originally intended to overcome the “curse” of the claim to uniqueness by “boundless communication” is turned into a tool of cultural nationalism. How is this possible? Has the Axial Age thesis been made exploitable by the theory of multiple modernities, which has turned it into a tool of a merely explanatory and no longer critical historical sociology?