Although often employed colloquially, the term “modernity” is complex and not necessarily clear without explanation. Michael Saler, a historian of European intellectual and cultural history, views modernity as a “mixture of political, social, intellectual, economic, technological, and psychological factors” (2006, 694).

Saler states that modernity traces back to the period between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, during which there was a differentiation of cultural spheres, the emergence of the autonomous and rational subject, the rise of liberal and democratic states, and a turn to psychologism and self-reflexivity. Various ideologies also came to dominate, such as nationalism, secularism, industrialism, urbanism, capitalism, consumerism, and scientism (2006, 694).

Yves Lambert, a specialist in secularization theory, views modernity as a new “axial period,” which refers to a certain period in history that has contributed to developing new techniques, political structures, and worldviews (1999, 304–305). As Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) observed, humanity has transitioned through at least four periods or ages: “Man seems to have started again from scratch four times” (1954, 37–38).

Each of these four axial periods (the Neolithic age, the earliest civilizations, the emergence of great empires, and modernity) replaced or significantly transformed earlier ones into new systems. They also facilitated new religious forms such as oral agrarian religions, the religions of antiquity, religions of salvation (universalist religions), and modern changes (Lambert 1999, 305).

Lambert considers the contemporary era a new axial age or period given the reshaping of collective thought (1999, 304–305). The transitions of the axial periods facilitated new religious forms, which suggests modernity has contributed (and is still contributing) to religious changes and transformations. Modernity not only challenges established religions but also constitutes a potential source for religious innovation (Lambert 1999, 304–305).

Several fundamental characteristics and features of modernity are outlined by Lambert. Constitutive of the modern axial period, which began in the fifteenth to sixteenth periods, is the primacy of reason, functional differentiation, modern science and technology, mass social movements, nationalism, democracy, and socialism (Lambert 1999, 305).

Several of these characteristics are shared by Saler, who stresses economic, technological, and political changes. Saler is arguably more nuanced than Lambert for including the ideology of “scientism” (among others), which is a metaphysical worldview held by many that science is the arbiter of all truth in the world.

Lambert breaks down axial periods into “axial moments” (1999, 306). For example, the emergence of Christianity and Islam constituted axial moments in a previous axial period of universalism.

The first modern axial moment witnessed the emergence of the Enlightenment, the scientific method and thought, and the English, American, and French Revolutions.

The second axial moment surfaced with the birth of industry and facilitated the rise of capitalism in the nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries in England, which expanded throughout Europe and North America.

The third moment occurred in the building of the nation-state, the development of socialism, the proliferation of nationalism and colonialism, the eventuality of two world wars, decolonization, globalization, and the triumph of democracy in the West, the emergence of an affluent society, and the welfare state.

Lambert does not believe we live in a postmodern age, which he interprets as claims rejecting metanarratives, institutionalized religions, and ideologies such as communism, nationalism, fascism, and endless progress (1999, 307). Instead, Lambert views postmodernity as comprising a new axial moment within the wider modern axial age. Postmodernity is therefore a further “moment” following a prior moment.

Neither should one ignore the strong challenges raised against the concept of modernity. It has been strongly argued by J. C. D. Clark (212) that many of the core pillars ascribed to modernity, notably urbanization, individualism, egalitarianism, rationalization, and the secular state, have been unwarrantedly monopolized by modernization proponents when several of these features trace back historically well before the traditional dates ascribed to modernization.

Few things in sociology and academia go uncontested. It has been argued by J. C. D. Clark (2012) that many of the core pillars ascribed to modernity (urbanization, individualism, egalitarianism, rationalization, and the secular state) have been unjustifiably monopolized by modernization theorists. He argues that these features trace back historically to moments well before the traditional dates ascribed to modernization by many historians and sociologists.

References

Clark, J. C. D. 2012. “Secularization and Modernization: The Failure of a Grand Narrative.” The Historical Journal 55(1):161-194.

Jaspers, Karl. 1954. Origine et sens de Ihistoire. Paris: Plon.

Lambert, Yves. 1999. “Religion in Modernity as a New Axial Age: Secularization or New Religious Forms?” Sociology of Religion 60(3):303-333.

Saler, Michael. 2006. “Modernity and enchantment: A historiographic review.” The American Historical Review 111(3):692-716.