I was thinking about the concept of "modern" today. What is modern really? Just because we say that computers and advanced agriculture is "modern", does that mean that everything else is primal or inferior? I read in a sociology text book that there is no "in" group unless you can leave someone out; there is no "cool" without the "uncool". You can't have any superior group unless there is something you can compare said group to and call inferior.
Back to my original point, why should "less modern" societies be frowned upon when the "advanced" societies wouldn't be at their elevated status without them? And who knows? We say "modern" like it's a good thing; what if the advanced cultures have it all wrong? What with all the urbanization and destruction of nature, one begs the question that there might be another way... What would be so terrible about combining the undeniably good factors of the "modern" society with the "primal" ways that kept the world the way it was meant to be? We need to disassociate the word 'primal' with it's negative connotations, as we must do the same with the word 'modern' so that we can see that there are things to be learned from these so-called primal societies and that the glamorized "modern" lifestyle is far from it's ideal image.
- Meredith Cloverfield
No comments:
Post a Comment