View source for Ghisi’s and Dussel’s Positions on Transmodernity Compared

=Discussion=

Irena Ateljevic:

"I will now briefly highlight and compare '''the main tenets of ‘transmodernity’ as given by Ghisi and Dussel'''.  

Transmodernity can generally be characterized by optimism to provide hope for human race. Ghisi (1999, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008) describes transmodernity as a planetary vision in which humans are beginning to realize that we are all (including plants and animals) connected into one system, which makes us all interdependent, vulnerable and responsible for the Earth as an indivisible living community3. In that sense this paradigm is actively tolerant and genuinely democratic by definition, as the awareness of mutual interdependency grows and the hierarchies between different cultures dismantle. Transmodernity is also essentially post-patriarchal in a sense that women’s visions and intuitions are to be recognized as indispensable in order to invent together innovative urgent solutions. This is radically different from the (preceding and necessary) (post)modern feminist movements that fight for women’s rights only. Rather it is about a joint effort of men and women to fight for the better world of tomorrow by rejecting values of control and domination. It is also essentially postsecular in a sense that redefines a new relation between religions and politics in a way that re-enchants the world towards a new openness to spiritual awareness and presence as a basis for private behaviour and public policy, whilst rejecting any religious divisions and dogmas. It is open to the transcendental, while resisting any authoritarian imposition of religious certainty. In doing so it tries to rediscover the sacred as a dimension of life and of our societies. 

Transmodernity opposes the endless economic progress and obsession with material wealth and instead promotes the concept of quality of life as the measure of progress. This is expressed in the form of the knowledge economy which moves the emphasis from material capital to intangible assets and the nourishment of human potential. It challenges the rationalized notions of work in its artificial divorce from life. It combines rationalism with intuitive brainwork. It moves away from vertical authority toward “flatter,” more “horizontal,” organizations; away from “recommendations-up-orders-down” management and toward more consensual decision-making (Ghisi, 1999, p.3). It downsizes the concept of clergy, technocrats and experts in order to raise the self-awareness, self-knowledge and individual accountability of all, yet it simultaneously uses the modernist achievements of science, technology and social innovation. It promotes Earth citizenship and draws from the highest potentials of humanity. It redefines the relation between science, ethics and society to reach for real and radical transdisciplinarity. Yet it is not a uniforming view as global reconciliation around a sustainable future and a broad range of cultural diversity is maintained at the same time. Within the global vision of connected humanity it claims that each community or region needs to be free to develop in ways that are uniquely suited to its culture, ecology, climate and other characteristics. It wants us to see that the danger of today is less between cultures and religions, than the conflict between different paradigms (Ghisi, 1999). As such it offers a powerful path to peace and a new platform of dialogue between world cultures. In developing the concept of transmodernity, Ghisi (1999) speaks from the capacity of a Belgian theologian, philosopher and researcher on global cultural transformation who worked in the Forward Studies Unit of the European Commission for 10 years, advising presidents Delors and Santer on EU visions, ethics and culture shifts. Dussel (1995), on the other hand, speaks from the Latin American, postcolonial neo-Marxist perspective, and associates transmodernity with his philosophy of liberation. Needless to say, while there are many similarities, Dussel’s perspective on transmodernity is somewhat different from Ghisi’s admittedly Eurocentric perspective. While Ghisi departs from a point of mostly Western socio-cultural and historical analysis, Dussel and his followers take epistemological, philosophical and political aspects of transmodernity as a starting point to unsettle Eurocentric coloniality. Dussel sees the potentiality in transmodernity to move us beyond traditional dichotomies; to articulate a critical cosmopolitanism beyond nationalism and colonialism; to produce knowledge beyond third world and Eurocentric fundamentalisms; to produce radical post-capitalist politics beyond identity politics; to overcome the traditional dichotomy between the political economy and cultural studies; and to move beyond economic reductionism and culturalism (Grosfoguel et al., 2007). Dussel, just like Ghisi, is concerned about the destructive forces of modernity that are destroying the planet and along with it humankind: “The three malaises of modernity (individualism, the primacy of instrumental reason or technological capitalism, and the despotism of the system), produce a ‘loss of meaning’, an ‘eclipse of ends’, and a ‘loss of freedom’ in bureaucratized societies” (Dussel, 1996, p. 142), and the capitalistic emphasis on “profit, private appropriations and personal benefits” (Dussel, 2006, p. 491) needs to be replaced with transmodern planetary interconnectedness and mutuality. 

While Ghisi (1999) concerns himself, as we have seen above, mainly with describing the characteristics of the paradigm shift, Dussel’s (2009) central argument revolves around the role of intercultural dialogue in bringing about and defining the shift towards transmodernity. Granted, Ghisi does note certain underlying forces that he considers are driving transmodern changes, among them the inability of reductionist capitalism to respond effectively to increasingly challenging global problems, and the transition from an industrial to a spiritual, wisdom economy. However, for Dussel, genuine dialogue across all cultures is needed in order for transmodernity to transcend Eurocentrism. Let me clarify that Ghisi (1999) also sees intercultural dialogue as central to transmodernity, however, it seems as though to him it is an aspect, rather than the driving force of the transmodern paradigm shift, as it is for Dussel. In order to understand this claim, it is necessary to briefly outline Dussel’s preceding argument: In his revealing historical analysis (see Dussel, 1996), he locates the origins of modernity in the Iberian peninsula, starting with the invasion of the Americas from 1492, which resulted in Europe being able to place itself at the centre, while the rest of the world became a periphery. However, he also shows later (2002, 2004) that it was not until the Industrial Revolution that Europe gained a relative advantage large enough to exert its hegemony over other highly developed cultures of the time—such as China and Hindustan (Dussel, 2002). Given this relatively short timeframe of only 200 years, he continues, European hegemony was unable to fully suppress most of the value structures of ancient cultures, like the Chinese and cultures of the Far East, the Hindustani, the Islamic, the Russian-Byzantine, and Latin American cultures (2002, 2004). According to Dussel, these ancient cultures hold “enough human potential to give birth to a cultural plurality that will emerge after modernity and capitalism” (2002, p. 234), and that they are presently reaffirming their roots in a trans-modern cultural response to our contemporary challenges (2004). Moreover, he argues that this same process of self-affirmation is taking place in regional European cultures (such as the Galician, Catalan, Basque, and Andalusian cultures in Spain; the Mezzogiorno in Italy; the Bavarians in Germany; and the Scottish, Irish), and in the minorities of the United States, especially the Afro-American and Hispanic cultures (2002). In this, Dussel sees great hope for the future, as the irrupting diversity of perspectives carries a rich pluriversity that can create authentic intercultural dialogue (2004, 2009). In other words, far from limiting itself to a weak relativism by default, or to micro-narratives, the pluriversal or what is also known as decolonial approach would be to search for universal knowledge as pluriversal knowledge, but through horizontal dialogues among different traditions of thought. The construction of transmodern pluriverses means taking seriously the knowledge production of non- Western critical traditions and genealogies of thought and such dialogue, could “propose novel and necessary answers for the anguishing challenges that the Planet throws upon us at the beginning of the twenty-first century” (Dussel, 2004, p. 18). 

''- "Like the tropical jungles with their immense quantity of plants and animals genetically essential for the future of humanity, the majority of humanity’s cultures excluded by modernity [...] and by globalization [...] retains an immense capacity for and reserve of cultural invention essential for humanity’s survival. This creativity will also be needed if humanity is to redefine its relationship with nature based on ecology and interhuman solidarity, instead of reductively defining it on the solipsistic and schizoid criterion of increasing rates of profit". (Dussel, 2002, pp. 234-235)''

Importantly, Dussel warns that (subconscious) Eurocentrism currently pervades all cultural arenas, European and non-European (2002), which makes genuine multiculturalism and dialogue—as opposed to sterile participation that follows Western procedural principles—a difficult endeavour (2004). Therefore, the dialogue needs to take place amongst cultures of the ‘South’ as well as between the South and the North (2004, 2009). Furthermore, genuine transversal dialogue needs to occur between culture’s critical innovators, who argue from the border between their culture and modernity, and who, rather than simply defend their culture, recreate it by critically evaluating both their own and modernity’s cultural tradition (Dussel, 2004, 2009). As a starting point, Dussel recommends certain core philosophical questions, which, while they can be expressed in different ways by different cultures, may still serve as bridges for a dialogue around universal human problems (Dussel, 2009). In a similar vein, another scholar, Ziauddin Sardar (2004) sees the positive potentiality of the transmodern world to bridge what appears currently the impassable gap between Islam and the West due to the concept of tradition as an idée fixe of Western society. He shows how transmodern tenets of truly universal concerns (i.e., the survival of our planet) that inherently then lead to the consensual politics and modalities for adjusting to change are at very heart of Islam. Yet he warns us that in developing a transmodern framework to open discussions it is important to think of the Muslim world beyond the strait jackets of either ultra-modernist or ultra traditionalist governments (neither of whom have any understanding of transmodernism) and involve ordinary people instead—activists, scholars, writers, journalists, etc. In doing so, Sardar (2004) argues we will discover that most people have critical but positive attitudes towards the West; and women will be as willing, if not more so, to participate in such discussions and the transformations they may initiate, as men. He is of the opinion that if the West shifts towards transmodernism, the involvement of the public will open up massive new possibilities for positive change and fruitful synthesis which would replace homogenizing globalization with a more harmonious and enriching experience of living together. Returning to Dussel’s work, it is evident that he is in agreement with Ghisi and Magda that transmodernity forms a dialectic triad with modernity and post-modernity. Post-modernity— which is in Dussel’s view still inherently Eurocentric, as it has rather paradoxically reinforced the process of Othering by further demarcation of difference and identity politics - has served to raise critical consciousness and general respect for difference (2002; 2006), so that humanity is ready to subsume “the best of globalized European and North American modernity [...] in order to develop a new civilization for the twenty-first century” (Dussel, 2002, p. 224). Instead of being dominated by it, transmodernity is in constant dialogue with modernity (Dussel, 2006). For instance, the best of the modern technological revolution should be adopted, while discarding anti-ecological aspects (Dussel, 2002). Furthermore, the focus on instrumental reason which characterised modernity should not simply be abandoned, but subordinated to ethical principles and “put at the service of the dignity and freedom of all the members of the community” (Dussel, 2006, p. 504). Actually, Dussel agrees with Magda (2004) that increasing globalisation (Dussel, 2002) and the availability of information technology (2009) are driving the emergence of transmodernity, as both enable us to instantaneously receive news about other cultures and respond with ethical judgement. As examples of social movements that are working towards replacing unjust modern practices with ethical alternatives, Dussel cites, for example, the Zapatist National Liberation Army in Mexico, the Sin Tierra movement in Brazil, the cocaleros coca growers in Bolivia, and the piqueteros—the unemployed—in Argentina, as well as groups that fight for the rights of workers, women, homosexuals, immigrants, and older people (Dussel, 2006)."

(http://www.integral-review.org/issues/vol_9_no_2_ateljevic_visions_of_transmodernity.pdf)


=More information=

==Bibliography==

Dussel, E. (1995). The invention of the Americas: Eclipse of ‘Other’ and the myth of modernity. New York, NY: Continuum. 

Dussel, E. (1996). Modernity, eurocentrism, and trans-modernity: In dialogue with Charles Taylor. In E. Dussel (Ed.), The underside of modernity (pp. 129-159). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International. 

Dussel, E. (2002). World-system and “trans”-modernity. Nepanthia: Views from the South, 3(2), 221-244. 

Dussel, E. (2004). Transmodernity and interculturality: An interpretation from the perspective of philosophy of liberation. Retrieved from http://www.enriquedussel.org/txt/Transmodernity%20and%20Interculturality.pdf.  

Dussel, E. (2006). Globalization, organization and the ethics of liberation. Organization, 13(4), 489-508. Dussel, E. (2009). A new age in the history of philosophy: The world dialogue between philosophical traditions. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 35(5), 499-516. 

Ghisi, M. L. (1999). The transmodern hypothesis: Toward a dialogue of cultures. Futures, 31(910), 879-1016.  

Ghisi, M. L. (2001). Au delà de la modernité, du patriarcat et du capitalisme: La société réenchantée. Paris, FR: L’Harmattan. 

Ghisi, M. L. (2006). Transmodernity and transmodern tourism. Keynote at the 15th Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research: Visions of Modern Transmodern Tourism. 19th – 22nd of October, Savonlinna, Finland. 

Ghisi, M. L. (2007). Beyond patriarchy and industry towards planetarist & sustainable tourism. Keynote at the 2nd International Critical Tourism Studies Conference. 20th - 23rd of June, Split, Croatia. Abstract available in C. Harris & M. van Hal (Eds.). Conference Proceedings: The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Promoting an Academy of Hope. Zagreb, HR: Institute for Tourism. 

Ghisi, M. L. (2008). The knowledge society: A breakthrough towards genuine sustainability. Cochin, IN: Arunachala Press.

[[Category:Integral Theory]]