Dear Blog,
Something that stuck with me after class yesterday, was our discussion about sociocultural unity and social cohesion. Dr. Cummings, inspired from Lyotard, asked if the aim of modernism is sociocultural unity? This led us to conversations surround shared nostalgia and questioning when modernism has the power to bring people together. We came to the conclusion that modernism is intended to break from the past, which leads to erasing or not acknowledging a shared nostalgia which Lyotard argues should produce societal cohesion and unity. The purpose of modernism and its accompanying definition is still in question...
If modernism is supposed to break away from past, while also recognizing where the historical influences are coming from, does the shared nostalgia that promotes unity disappear? In class we were discussing big and traumatic events that different generations go through, some examples being 9/11 and a global pandemic. The effects these events have had on the general public go across racial, class, and gender lines. This idea that social cohesion and unity can come out of a terrible occurrence and affect people regardless of their background. Is this a "good" trait of modernism? Is this idea only exacerbated in the 21st century because of technology and our ability to empathize with someone's terrible tragedy across the globe?
Signing off,
mg
Comments
Post a Comment