Modernity remains an axial category within contemporary social sciences. While often contested (Lyotard & Bennington, 2010; Latour, 2002), modernity continues to be what structures our historical self-understanding. Moreover, despite the former sharp division between modern and traditional societies having now been replaced by a continuum of modern and less modernised societies, the classification of societies still refers to the central concept of modernity. The concept of modernity also structures public discussions, figuring prominently in political debates in which the quality of being “modern” per se justifies the rejection of values and beliefs that may accordingly be labeled “outdated” or “fundamentalist”. Modernity is popularly understood as equating the “new” with the “good”, but this assumed equivalence is as often deconstructed as it is postulated. Moreover, critiques of modernity have not been confined solely to conservative discourses: the downsides of modernity have equally been the focus of progressivist movements. Sometimes progressivists have been willing to make a last push or offer a final sacrifice in order to achieve ultimate human happiness; here again, modernity is referred to as a historical movement that promises emancipation across all spheres of life. However, such utopianism, whether one is looking forward or backwards, is typically accompanied by disenchantment with the present. Thus, modernity keeps everyone on the move. Classical theories of modernity sought to identify a definitive element having the potential to transform traditional communities into new, hitherto unknown societies. Here, constitutive elements of modern society were said to include capitalist economics, scientific rationality, technological innovation and a democratic polity. These elements might not all have originated in Europe simultaneously; nevertheless, cumulatively they produced an engine of social and technical power that made Europe and its emigrant colonies globally dominant. Politically, modernity may be epitomised in the slogan liberté, egalité, fraternité. However, the choice of which of these principles should be prior with respect to the other two engendered three modern ideologies. If, of course, a reader would accept that brotherhood, or rather solidarity across generations can be attributed to the conservatives.

中文翻译：

---

“现代性继续构成我们历史上的自我理解……”

现代性仍然是当代社会科学中的轴心范畴。尽管经常引起争议（Lyotard和Bennington，2010年； Latour，2002年），但现代性仍然是构成我们历史自我理解的原因。此外，尽管现代社会与传统社会之间的鲜明区分现在已由现代和未现代化的社会的连续体所取代，但社会的分类仍然是指现代性的中心概念。现代性的概念也构成了公众讨论，在政治辩论中尤为突出，在这种辩论中，“现代”本身的品质证明拒绝接受可能被标记为“过时”或“原教旨主义者”的价值观和信念是合理的。人们普遍将现代性理解为将“新”与“好”等同起来，但是这种假定的等价关系常常被推定为被解构的。此外，对现代性的批评并不仅限于保守的话语：现代性的缺点同样是进步主义运动的焦点。有时进步主义者愿意为实现人类的终极幸福而竭尽全力或做出最后的牺牲。在这里，现代性又被称为历史性运动，有望在生活的各个领域中实现解放。但是，这种乌托邦主义，无论是向前还是向后看，通常都伴随着对当下的失望。因此，现代性使每个人都在前进。现代性的古典理论试图确定一种确定的要素，该要素有可能将传统社区转变为迄今未知的新社会。这里，据说现代社会的构成要素包括资本主义经济学，科学合理性，技术创新和民主政体。这些因素可能并非全部同时起源于欧洲。但是，它们累积产生了社会和技术力量的引擎，使欧洲及其移民殖民地成为全球主导。从政治上讲，现代性可以用口号“自由”，“平等”，“fraternité”来概括。但是，相对于其他两个原则，应优先选择这些原则中的哪一个，从而产生了三种现代意识形态。当然，如果读者愿意接受这种兄弟般的情谊，或者说跨代的团结可以归功于保守派。技术创新和民主政体。这些因素可能并非全部同时起源于欧洲。但是，它们累积产生了社会和技术力量的引擎，使欧洲及其移民殖民地成为全球主导。从政治上讲，现代性可以用口号“自由”，“平等”，“fraternité”来概括。但是，相对于其他两个原则，应优先选择这些原则中的哪一个，从而产生了三种现代意识形态。当然，如果读者愿意接受这种兄弟般的情谊，或者说跨代的团结可以归功于保守派。技术创新和民主政体。这些因素可能并非全部同时起源于欧洲。但是，它们累积产生了社会和技术力量的引擎，使欧洲及其移民殖民地成为全球主导。从政治上讲，现代性可以用口号“自由”，“平等”，“fraternité”来概括。但是，相对于其他两个原则，应优先选择这些原则中的哪一个，从而产生了三种现代意识形态。当然，如果读者愿意接受这种兄弟般的情谊，或者说跨代的团结可以归功于保守派。自由主义的口号“自由”，“平等”代表了现代性。但是，相对于其他两个原则，应优先选择这些原则中的哪一个，从而产生了三种现代意识形态。当然，如果读者愿意接受这种兄弟般的情谊，或者说跨代的团结可以归功于保守派。自由主义的口号“自由”，“平等”代表了现代性。但是，相对于其他两个原则，应优先选择这些原则中的哪一个，从而产生了三种现代意识形态。当然，如果读者愿意接受这种兄弟般的情谊，或者说跨代的团结可以归功于保守派。