What's wrong with the concept of multiple modernities?

The concept of multiple modernities has been developed with a view to highlighting the ways in which modern societies differ from each other. Other sociological approaches, by contrast, emphasize such societies' commonalities. But does the juxtaposition of convergence and divergence in the form of a mutually exclusive, binary opposition really make sense? Might it be that there is convergence in some respect, while diversity persists in other respects; that there are dimensions of social change that exhibit common trends across regions and cultural zones, while other aspects of social life show remarkable resilience against homogenization? The present paper argues that our observation of convergence or diversity might be less a matter of truth or falsity than an artifact of our chosen methodologies. Based on this premise, the concept of multiple modernities will be rejected as sociologically meaningless, conceptually flawed and empirically dubious. It is sociologically meaningless because its advocates fail to spell out sufficiently clearly what they mean by modern as against non-modern societies; it is conceptually flawed because it does not provide criteria for distinguishing theoretically significant from insignificant (or less significant) differences, and it is empirically dubious because it misrepresents the state of the world's development

Multiple modernities? The case against

"The paper rejects the notion of 'multiple modernities' as both conceptually flawed and empirically unfounded. In line with the sociological tradition, it will argue that we should speak of modernity only in the singular. Modernity, according to this view, denotesa peculiar epoch in the history of human kind, originating in Europe and spreading from there to the rest of the world. We may well be tempted to succumb too quickly to ill-conceived generalizations of what are in fact often only particular, locally based experiences. But we should also not lose sight of the truly revolutionary character of the historical 'breakthrough' to modernity. The protagonists of the multiple modernities paradigm appear to be doing precisely this: their very terminology impliesa trivialization of what is common to 'the' modern condition. At the same time, it suggests an overrating of which ever diversities (may) exist in different parts of the world. The paper will identify four main conceptual flaws in the pertinent literature: 1. The proclivity to equate modernity with its polity. The proposed conception of modernity is thus too thin for capturing the complex social structure of modern society as a whole. 2. To the extent that a theory of modernity is proposed at all, this theory is a self proclaimed cultural theory. Such a theory may shed light on some of the historical roots and self-perceptions of modernity, but it does so at the cost of excluding any thorough analysis of institutions. 3. The conceptualization of inter-societal difference in civilizational terms is misleading because it rules out, almost by definition, the possibility that countries belonging to different civilizations may in certain respects have more in common with ones from other civilizations than with some of the members of their 'own'. 4. The account's notion of diversity is exceedingly vague - the nature and profundity of the differences that are said to exist between different modernities are nowhere discussed at adequate length. But we need to know them to assess their social theoretic significance. In addition to these conceptual flaws, there are also various empirical phenomena and trends that challenge key premises of the multiple modernities approach. None of this is to say there are no differences between different regions, countries, civilizations. Nor is it to suggest their insignificance. It is, however, to suggest that we be more precise and that we extend our analyses beyond the confines of culture and politics - at least if we want to say something meaningful about modernity or modern society at large. Rather than speaking of multiple modernities, a better alternative to accommodate existing differences might be a yet to be developed concept of 'varieties of modernity' - akin to (but naturally pitched at a higher level of abstraction than) the notion of 'varieties of capitalism' which is beginning to crystallize in the new political economy literature." (author's abstract

Limits to growth? China's rise and its implications for Europe

"The paper outlines two future scenarios, one 'pessimistic', the other more 'optimistic'. The first assumes that definite limits to growth exist and that, to the extent that this is still possible, economic policies must be radically altered to prevent the collapse of our ecosystems ('global warming'). If this assessment were correct, then we would probably be doomed. For even if all understood the dangers, it would still seem to be extremely unlikely that the major world powers will exit the market economy, i.e. an economic system premised on perpetual growth, anytime soon. Because such a scenario, while possibly realistic, would be social scientifically sterile (why bother if the world is going bust anyway?), the second scenario construes a somewhat 'friendlier' outlook of the future, one in which technologies become available that render economic growth and ecological sustainability compatible. If this scenario came true, then where would the world be headed in the 21st century? This is the question I wish to pursue here, with special emphasis given to China's rise and its implications for Europe. During the past 27 years, China's economy exhibited an average annual growth of 9.6%. At this rate of growth, a country doubles its income every 7.5 years. That means a child born in China today grows up in a country that is 12 times richer than it was during the youth of his/ her parents. If this growth continues unabated, as economist believe it can for at least several more years, then China will overtake the US as the world's largest economy by 2020. At that point, China's per capita incomes would still be below the OECD average. But the world would already have witnessed the emergence of an economic giant of historically unprecedented proportions. And this giant would still have ample scope for further catching up. Given that China's population is more than double that of the whole West, a China that reached a level of development similar to that of an average OECD member would dwarf any single European economy and, eventually, surpass the economies of North America and Europe combined. This would not only shift the weights in the world economy, but sooner or later also those in world politics, in military strength, and, potentially, in the areas of science and (popular) culture as well. At the present point in time, nobody can say with certainty whether any of this will come true. But if it did, then it would mean nothing less than the end of an era that lasted for about 500 years: the era of uncontested European or, for that matter, Western supremacy. Since China is not the only newly emerging power (as is well known, India and Brazil are rapidly rising too now), such a development would seem to be all the more likely. Thus far, however, Europeans appear to be largely oblivious to it. Remarkably, this is true even of the continent's leading intellectual circles. They had better attend to the matter and prepare their publics." (author's abstract

Multiples modernités ou variations de la modernité?

The article offers a critical appraisal of the concept of multiple modernities that has been gainingground in sociology during the past decade. It rejects this concept as both conceptually flawed andempirically unfounded, and it proposes an alternative concept, that of varieties of modernity, which isbelieved to be better able to address the former’s substantive concerns, while at the same timepermitting us to speak of modernity in the singular. The main source of inspiration for such an alternative concept is the varieties of capitalism paradigm guiding the new political economy literature, and oneof its advantages over the multiple modernities paradigm is its focus on institutions, rather than vague,barely explicated notions of culture and cultural difference. However, a varieties of modernity approachthat followed its lead would have to be much broader and more comprehensive, and would thereforebe more difficult to develop and to apply, than the varieties of capitalism paradigm. But even if itultimately proved infeasible, the very consideration of its methodological prerequisites would stillpromise to yield valuable insights for students of modernity.Cet article présente une évaluation critique du concept «multiples modernités» qui s’est répandu enSociologie dans les années 1990. Il refuse cette notion non seulement car elle est erronée sur le planconceptuel, mais aussi elle est empiriquement sans fondement. Il propose donc un autre concept:celui de «variations de la modernité», car celui-ci répond mieux aux questions substantives du conceptantérieur, et en même tempos permet que le mot «modernité» soit employé au singulier. L’inspirationà ce concept innovateur est issue des variations du paradigme capitaliste orientant la littérature de laNouvelle Economie Politique; l’un des avantages à l’égard du paradigme des multiples modernitésest l’importance attribuée plutôt aux institutions qu’aux imprécises et peu claires notions de «culture»et de «différence culturelle». Cependant, l’approche variations de la modernité prenant cette voiedoit être plus vaste et compréhensive et doit donc être plus difficile de mettre en oeuvre que le paradigme de variations du capitalisme. Même si cette approche a la contrainte d’être impraticable,la prise en compte de ses exigences méthodologiques pourront offrir de précieuses suggestions auxchercheurs de la modernité.O artigo apresenta uma avaliação crítica do conceito de “múltiplas modernidades” que ganhou terreno naSociologia na década de 1990. Ele rejeita essa noção como tanto conceitualmente equivocada quantoempiricamente infundada e propõe um conceito alternativo – de “variedades da modernidade” –, que seacredita resolver mais facilmente as questões substantivas do conceito anterior, ao mesmo tempo em quepermite que se fale de “modernidade” no singular. A principal fonte de inspiração para esse conceitoalternativo são as variedades do paradigma capitalista que guia a literatura da Nova Economia Política;uma de suas vantagens em relação ao paradigma das múltiplas modernidades é o foco nas instituições,muito mais que nas vagas e pouco explicativas noções de “cultura” e “diferença cultural”. Entretanto, aabordagem de variedades da modernidade que siga essa via tem que ser muito mais ampla e compreensivae deve, portanto, ser mais difícil de desenvolver e de aplicar que o paradigma de variedades do capitalismo.Mas mesmo que em última instância ela prove-se impraticável, a mera consideração de seus pré-requisitosmetodológicos ainda promete fornecer valiosas sugestões para os pesquisadores da modernidade

Modernidade e diversidade:: reflexões sobre a controvérsia entre teoria da modernização e a teoria das múltiplas modernidades

O artigo revisita a reivindicação de convergência da teoria da modernização, fortemente criticada pelos teóricos das modernidades múltiplas, que sustentam que realidades emergentes não confirmam suas premissas subjacentes. Baseado em uma leitura completa dos textos clássicos, o artigo reconstrói o significado do termo, dentro de um quadro de referência da teoria da modernização e, então, considera a evidência que os teóricos das modernidades múltiplas apresentam contra o mesmo. O artigo sustenta que nenhuma das observações citadas pelos teóricos mais proeminentes das modernidades múltiplas são capazes de desafiar a teoria da modernização, que pode acomodar facilmente os tipos de diferença evocados por seus críticos. A modernidade do Leste Asiático, em particular, à qual os dois lados atribuem um peso especial para qualquer teste da teoria da modernização, parece notavelmente semelhante à modernidade ocidental quando observada através das lentes dessa teoria. Ao mesmo tempo, a literatura sobre as modernidades múltiplas, apesar de alegar que leva a diferença muito a sério, silencia acerca das diferenças que amplas partes do mundo menos desenvolvido exibem frente ao Ocidente e ao Leste Asiático, em aspectos socioestruturais e culturais, que indicam diferentes graus de modernização. O artigo conclui com uma nota breve sobre o peso diferenciado dos vários tipos de diversidade para os diferentes problemas de referência e com uma sugestão para uma resolução construtiva do conflito entre as duas abordagens

Avanço e consequências da modernidade global

This work puts forward the concept of global modernity starting from the observation of worldwide data. This concept seeks to provide an integrative perspective that takes multiple dimensions of life into consideration, on the basis of at least four interrelated dimensions: the individual, culture, the organism and social systems. The discussion of the concept is elaborated through a historical perspective on economy, as well as the examination of issues such as poverty reduction, the rise of the city, formal education, science and academia, among a variety of other fields, and illustrated by modern development and its speed. Comparing the changes that have occurred in recent decades to previous centuries, the text suggests that global modernity can be considered a sociological tool used to explicate the speed at which these changes occur, as well as their dimensions and consequences - thereby illustrating the context of global society.Este trabalho propõe o conceito de modernidade global a partir da observação de dados mundiais. O conceito busca oferecer uma perspectiva integrativa que considera múltiplas dimensões da vida, a partir de no mínimo quatro dimensões inter-relacionadas: indivíduo, cultura, organismo e sistemas sociais. Por meio de uma perspectiva histórica da economia, e questões como a redução da pobreza, a ascensão da cidade, a educação formal, a ciência e a academia, dentre outros diversos campos, constrói-se o debate sobre o conceito, ilustrado pelo desenvolvimento moderno e sua velocidade. Ao comparar as mudanças ocorridas em décadas recentes aos séculos anteriores, o texto sugere que a modernidade global pode ser considerada a ferramenta sociológica utilizada para elucidar a rapidez em que essas mudanças ocorrem, bem como suas dimensões e consequências; o que termina por ilustrar o contexto da sociedade mundial. Tradução: Léo Lopes e Solange Miguel Marcondes Armand

A novel multistep mechanism for initial lymphangiogenesis in mouse embryos based on ultramicroscopy

Peer reviewe

Evidence for West Nile Virus and Usutu Virus Infections in Wild and Resident Birds in Germany, 2017 and 2018

Wild birds play an important role as reservoir hosts and vectors for zoonotic arboviruses and foster their spread. Usutu virus (USUV) has been circulating endemically in Germany since 2011, while West Nile virus (WNV) was first diagnosed in several bird species and horses in 2018. In 2017 and 2018, we screened 1709 live wild and zoo birds with real-time polymerase chain reaction and serological assays. Moreover, organ samples from bird carcasses submitted in 2017 were investigated. Overall, 57 blood samples of the live birds (2017 and 2018), and 100 organ samples of dead birds (2017) were positive for USUV-RNA, while no WNV-RNA-positive sample was found. Phylogenetic analysis revealed the first detection of USUV lineage Europe 2 in Germany and the spread of USUV lineages Europe 3 and Africa 3 towards Northern Germany. USUV antibody prevalence rates were high in Eastern Germany in both years. On the contrary, in Northern Germany, high seroprevalence rates were first detected in 2018, with the first emergence of USUV in this region. Interestingly, high WNV-specific neutralizing antibody titers were observed in resident and short-distance migratory birds in Eastern Germany in 2018, indicating the first signs of a local WNV circulation

Aberrant Hierarchical Prediction Errors Are Associated With Transition to Psychosis: A Computational Single-Trial Analysis of the Mismatch Negativity

Background: Mismatch negativity reductions are among the most reliable biomarkers for schizophrenia and have been associated with increased risk for conversion to psychosis in individuals who are at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). Here, we adopted a computational approach to develop a mechanistic model of mismatch negativity reductions in CHR-P individuals and patients early in the course of schizophrenia. // Methods: Electroencephalography was recorded in 38 CHR-P individuals (15 converters), 19 patients early in the course of schizophrenia (≤5 years), and 44 healthy control participants during three different auditory oddball mismatch negativity paradigms including 10% duration, frequency, or double deviants, respectively. We modeled sensory learning with the hierarchical Gaussian filter and extracted precision-weighted prediction error trajectories from the model to assess how the expression of hierarchical prediction errors modulated electroencephalography amplitudes over sensor space and time. // Results: Both low-level sensory and high-level volatility precision-weighted prediction errors were altered in CHR-P individuals and patients early in the course of schizophrenia compared with healthy control participants. Moreover, low-level precision-weighted prediction errors were significantly different in CHR-P individuals who later converted to psychosis compared with nonconverters. // Conclusions: Our results implicate altered processing of hierarchical prediction errors as a computational mechanism in early psychosis consistent with predictive coding accounts of psychosis. This computational model seems to capture pathophysiological mechanisms that are relevant to early psychosis and the risk for future psychosis in CHR-P individuals and may serve as predictive biomarkers and mechanistic targets for the development of novel treatments