Abstract
Modernity is one of the most widely and vaguely used words in common parlance. However, for the social scientists and sociologists in particular, the term is used in a much more specific manner. Nevertheless, the concept remains somewhat elusive and amorphous for many and at times is very puzzling. Rooted in the intellectual developments of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Enlightenment and symbolized by reason, progress, science, freedom, universalism, equality and democracy, the project of modernity had gained enough respect and aura to become a lighthouse for the developing societies by the late nineteenth century. In the first half of the twentieth century, social thinkers and critical theorists were increasingly apprehensive of the benevolent character of the growing cult of modernism highlighting some of its pernicious potentialities and invoked caution against the unchecked rise of modernity. The culmination of World War-II followed by political and economic ascendency of the victorious Western powers which joined forces to establish multinational organization like United Nations to put an end to war and conflict all over the world helped in rechristening the status of modernist paradigm.
The debate around modernity gained renewed momentum towards the end of the twentieth century as the idea of postmodernity threatened to dethrone the legitimacy and utility of modernist paradigms. It raised serious doubts about the viability of modernist paradigm in understanding newer set of changes experienced around the world. Experiences of modernity were straying significantly away from the promised worldview posing serious questions about the whole project of modernity. The story of modernity has not been the same for all societies.
Some of the notable titles that come to one’s mind addressing the debate around modernity in the last three decades are The Consequences of Modernity by Anthony Giddens (1990), Formations of Modernity edited by Stuart Hall and Bram Gieban (1992), Questions of Modernity edited by Timothy Mitchell (2000), Rethinking Modernity by Gurminder K Bhambra (2007), The Dark Side of Modernity by Jeffery C. Alexander (2013). The titles resonate the concerns around the theme of modernity posing serious challenge to social theorists and policymakers alike. Most of the theorists have distanced themselves from the position of postmodernity that is highly sceptical and at times dismissive of modernist paradigm in contemporary times. The newer terms like late modernity, second modernity, liquid modernity, multiple modernities, entangled modernities, and others, offered by social theorists have shed light on the phenomenon of modernity by looking at emerging social reality in contemporary times. It indicates that modernity continues to be an important point of reference to study developments in contemporary societies though it also requires us to develop a more nuanced understanding of the concept in its newer avatars and dimensions.
Chang Kyung-Sup’s concept of ‘Compressed Modernity’ is a valuable contribution in this debate and allows us to engage with modernity with a fresh perspective to understand contemporary social reality. The book ‘The Logic of Compressed Modernity’ is a culmination of Chang’s arduous effort since the last three decades to understand the phenomena of social, cultural, political and economic changes in South Korean society as seen through the lens of compressed modernity. In this book, Chang Kyung-Sup elevates his conceptual understanding of compressed modernity into a systematically and painstakingly developed theory of modernity which provides an elaborate theoretical framework for understanding the trajectory of triumphs and tribulations of modernity as experienced by different societies. His craft of meticulously carving out clear cut concepts and exhaustive categories to locate wide range of experiences within modernity of different societies is indeed the high point of his book.
The book has been divided into 10 chapters classified into 3 parts across more than 200 pages. Part I of the book is titled Compressed Modernity in Perspective wherein he introduces and contextualizes the concept of compressed modernity. In the first chapter, he lays down the purpose of his book which is not only to introduce the concept of compressed modernity for understanding the contradictory and confounding developments in contemporary South Korean society but also to develop a ‘generic category of modernity in the modern world history’ which can help develop a nuanced understanding of experiences of modernity in different countries of South East Asia and Korea in particular for scholars working in the field of comparative modernities. He proposes compressed modernity as a ‘critical theory of postcolonial social change, aspiring to join and learn from the main self-critical intellectual reactions since the late twentieth century as to complex and murky social realities in the late modern world, including postmodernism, postcolonialism, reflexive modernization, and multiple modernities’ (p. 13). He takes the reader to a brief tour of debates surrounding modernity and explains how he borrows extensively but selectively from intellectual contributions by theorists like Lyotard, Bruno Latour, Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens, Göran Therborn, John Urry, Shmuel N Eisenstadt and David Harvey before building his own theory of compressed modernity that tries to capture diverse dimensions of lived reality in South Korean society.
The second chapter is more theoretical in nature where he presents his schemata of five constitutive dimensions of compressed modernity along time, space, compression and condensation grid. He explicates how South Korean experience of modernity exhibits too many changes in too short a span and simultaneity of multiple realities conflicting, conflating and compounding in unique ways requiring very flexible understanding of its ensuing complexity. After defining compressed modernity and discussing its diverse dimensions, he explains how it manifests itself at various levels of social existence ranging from regional places, social institutions, families to personhood.
In the third chapter while discussing compressed modernity in the universalist perspective, he distinguishes between nature of compressed modernity across advanced capitalist societies, colonial and post-colonial ‘un(der)developed’ societies and post-socialist transition societies.
Part II of the book deals with the structural properties of compressed modernity spread over six chapters (from chapters 4 to 9). This segment of the book primarily draws upon the experiences of South Korean society and very lucidly lays bare its complexities and confusions. It traces the journey of South Korean society from a hermit kingdom into an aggressive modern society that has emerged as an exemplary nation with enviable success in achieving the goals of modernity.
Chapter 4 portrays South Korean society as a complex society with coexistence of various forms of modernity that compete, confound and complement each other in different ways. Foreign influences faced by South Korean society since its colonization by Japan has led to confrontation and upheavals at local level. South Korea’s renewed affinity to Confucianism of Chosun era after Japanese colonialism followed by American dominance and bifurcation of Korea makes South Korean experiences in social life very dense and complex. In a Weberian sense, Confucian ethics has shaped Korean social fabric and its modernity in its own way. From an inwardly quiet and stable society of Chosun era to a dynamic globalized society of modern times, the dilemma of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism confronts South Koreans in a complicated manner.
In Chapter 5, Chang explains how in the compressed modernity of South Korea, the citizenship is defined by the participation in the project of modernity. The logic of modernity is so deeply ingrained in South Korean society that an average citizen is institutionalized into participating in the transformative capacity of the modernity thereby contributing to development and growth of the nation. Participating in educational pursuits along with developmental efforts remains central to Korean citizenship. South Korea’s ‘instrumentalist globalization’ has led to Westernization without Western ideology or Philosophy creating contradictions and inconsistency in its society. With globalization, there is a trend towards aligning with diasporic Korean community to fuel the national transformative modernist agenda but there is somewhat reluctance to adopt and incorporate foreign brides and especially foreign workers in mainstream South Korean society. According to Chang, ‘a distinct mode of citizenship has arisen in terms of transformative contributory rights—namely, effective and/or legitimate claims to national and social resources, opportunities, and/or respects that accrue to each citizen’s contribution to the nation’s or society’s transformative purposes’ (p. 106). The aggressive zeal for economic and technological development has also led to inadvertent creation of ‘transformative victims’ in the form of ‘students in cramming educational institutions’, women in patriarchal households, foreign workers with no citizenship rights and foreign brides awaiting cultural assimilation.
Chapter 6 titled ‘Complex-Culturalism vs Multiculturalism’ digs into the cultural fabric of South Korea and explains how fairly homogenous Korean society before the Japanese invasion turned into a complex multicultural society within a short span of hundred years or so. The demands of economic and cultural modernization in South Korea offered opportunities for international marriages which became popular after globalization in 1990s. Initially, the trend was towards marriage of urban Korean men with Korean Chinese followed by forced bachelor’s marriages with Southeast Asian women since 2000s. Wider global influences coupled with nationalistic fervour reinvented South Korean culture that was ostensibly liberal but practically parochial. Korean Chinese women marrying poor urban Korean men and peasant Korean bachelors marrying South Asian women in the last two decades has created a new kind of cosmopolitanism necessitated by circumstances rather than evolving out of cultural transformation.
Chapter 7 titled ‘Productive Maximization and Reproductive Meltdown’ maps South Korea’s rapid and aggressive economic growth focussed on continually expanding its productive capacity accompanied by an equally massive ‘social withdrawal and displacement’. This vacuous productive maximization has created new challenges in South Korean society in the form of ‘epidemic suicide, extremely low fertility, widespread postponement, denial and breakage of marriage, pervasive poverty of elderly and youth, excessive rural exodus, rampant dismissal and withdrawal from industrial work, and radical cultural and normative self-isolation (particularly among youth), etc.’ (p. 123). The stressful conditions of existence of the elderly, peasants, industrial workers, women and students in South Korea have put tremendous pressure on the social institutions of marriage, family and market. As a result, the South Korean society grapples with the problems of social reproduction like never before.
Chapter 8 highlights the familialism in South Korean society and brings into relief its centrality in compressed modernity too. South Korean family is one of the most dependable institution that has helped it modernize extensively and intensively. From ensuring the imparting of modern education to children irrespective of the resources at its disposal to extending care for non-productive elderly, the institution of family bears it all with élan. Even for capitalist economic development of the country, family-based business conglomerates Chaebols are acceptable symbols of modernity. However, after the restructuring of economy in late 1990s and rising inequalities in the economy the institution is overburdened and needs special support from the state to maintain its modernist stride.
The last chapter of Part II, Chapter 9, deals with the demographic configuration of compressed modernity. The South Korean society with its compressed modernity is marked with exceptionally drastic fall in fertility rates, rapid industrialization and urbanization, predominantly urban society, increase in nuclear families, extended life expectancy, high rate of suicides, late marriages, increasing divorce rates, and so on. The demographic transition under compressed modernity is indicative of weakening capacity of South Korean society to maintain its momentum as a modern state.
Part III of the book contains the last chapter which provides a brief synoptic view of compressed modernity in South Korea and its concomitant challenges. It describes the nature of challenges faced by the South Korean society in its modernist journey filled with contradictions and complexities.
The chapter scheme provides a gradual but comprehensive explanation of the theory of compressed modernity unfolding with each successive chapter. Though replete with examples from South Korean society, the elaborate theoretical framework offered by the author in this book provides a useful perspective that allows one to study any contemporary society with reference to modernity. As a student of Indian society, I found myself appreciating the nuances of the analytical framework offered in the book that allows one to relate with the schemata offered by Chang irrespective of one’s socio-historical context. The Indian experience of modernity is well documented in some of the books like Modernization of Indian Tradition by Yogendra Singh, Mistaken Modernity by Dipankar Gupta and Indian Modernity by Avijit Pathak bringing about the uniqueness of Indian modernity. The present book adds immensely in contextualizing many such experiences in the light of Indian context. The strength of this book thus lies in its ability to transcend cultural barriers and provide a perspective for comparative study of modernities across globe. The logic of compressed modernity is reasonably sensitive and flexible to accommodate cultural and regional diversities. Though developed primarily on the experiences of South Korean society, the book will surely appeal to many social theorists in different parts of the world who can use the template provided by Chang Kyung-Sup to analyse and critically engage with the modernity experienced in their respective countries. The long sentences with multiple adjectives merged together in a careful manner by the author make it an interesting but serious reading as they meet the criteria of essentiality. The book will definitely be useful for anyone who wishes to understand contemporary South Korean society but also to the students and teachers of social sciences who wish to make sense of complexity of lived experiences of modernity in non-Western societies.