This week, I have realized that my definition of modernity is not a common one. I define modernity as being the belief that capital-T Truth is neither universal nor local, but rather individual – that is to say that one person’s Truth might differ from another person’s Truth, and that both can coexist as valid equals. If “modernity” had the complex connotation that it has today in Machiavelli’s day, he likely would have defined it as the belief that one’s own (which is to say, the prince’s own) interests trump all other notions, which contains the belief that the ultimate “good” for oneself as the prince is one’s continuing to rule over one’s principality. Many would define “modernity” as being exposed to and holding as equally valid other cultures and belief systems. Overall, one thing that these definitions have in common is their belief in the individual’s ability to define one’s own purpose and Truth. (According to this definition, I am no modernist.) To be clear, I realize that these definitions are narrow and, perhaps untruthfully or paradoxically, exclude Rubashov because he has little to no care for himself or for any particular individual until his bitter end.

Now that the definition of modernity for the sake of this blog post has been nailed down, I must say that modernity comes from lowercase-h history. The French citizen became a modernist when they realized that they could claim their own destiny and, using their reason, define what the state ought to be and what the individual “Good Life” consists of. The young Chinese farmer became a modernist when they decided that, against their family’s will, they leave to live in the city and design their own life apart from tradition. The cleric’s child became a modernist when they decided that, despite their upbringing, they were going to use their individual reason, as opposed to their family’s authority, in order to chase after Truth on their own accord.

I think modernity is based on the collective in the sense that groups of people do not and cannot decide as individuals to enter modernity- this is inconceivable, as modernity is a state and way of viewing the world, removed from the realm of individuals’ decisions. In a broader sense, though, it is not rooted in the collective (a group of individuals) in any meaningful way. It is neither the group nor the individual who brings modernity from nothing or provides its source. I do not think modernity requires any set of ‘fixed truths’ of a sacred authority, as the argument that such truths do not even exist is itself a modern idea. Perhaps the individual reaching for their own truth, finding the things they value and want to live by, is a very modern practice, but it is not modernity’s source. No one can opt-in to modernity, and no one can simply choose to opt-out. In fact, to even try and do so would be a very modern choice indeed, as the individual would be viewing themselves as able to view and interact with the world in a way very distinct from those around them.

Rather, it is a gradual shift (happening little by little– there is not a single moment of mental shift in which a person suddenly becomes modern) based on changing group experiences giving birth to new conceptions of self in relation to the world; it a self-perpetuating reality unto itself. While an entrance to modernity can be especially marked by, or apparent in, certain events, it cannot be directly tied to a very specific date or year as Lerner tries to do by saying ‘they had entered History” in the summer of 1950.

Modernity as a historical category was marked by the advent of the Age of Reason. With the Age of Reason came a rejection of tradition and the prioritization of individualism, freedom and egalitarianism. Once these overarching historical changes came, so too did modes of thoughts which brought modernity to individuals in society. The logic of modernity and modern modes of thought have their own inertia and thus modernity now does not need a singular source, it is a self-reinforcing cycle. Further, the inherently skeptical nature of modernity means that any singular source would be questioned and distrusted. The individualism, freedom, and egalitarianism of modernity also means that authority in modernity is less centralized and must be legitimized through the consent of the people. No more can a leader claim authority exclusively through religion and tradition