Events in North Africa and the Middle East and also Europe - for example the recent acts of terrorism in Norway targetting the state and youth, by the exercise of wanton savagery - entice me to reflect on the question of modernism and pre-modernism.

I have written on this subject on other occasions and I feel that it is worth repeating, since this angle of the subject may be accorded more ample coverage in the various public debates.

A characteristic of modernism is that our age views the relationship of things as they stand to each other, as more important than the thing- in-itself. I do not use the word capitalism on purpose, so as to avoid entering into a polemical political discussion, which is not the intention of this piece. This change from ‘thingness’ to ‘relationships’ is in my opinion of the utmost importance and may necessitate that the society as a whole makes other adjustments, so the transition to modernism be in fact completed. For example, the onus of correctness of the mass media now assumes greater importance than before and subjects them to greater scrutiny in their operations than under the pre-modern system.

This is not just an arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities but a way of being, since we are continually defining ourselves not only by our own observations, but also by the messages we receive through the media. However although all the media - including the Internet - must bear some responsibility for inexcusable inaccuracies made for pre-conceived ideological reasons; public control can only be exercised in a pluralist society on the mass media.

But why do I assign such importance to what, at first sight, appear to be philosophical concepts such as ‘a thing-in-itself’ and ‘a relationship,’ and how - if at all - do these concepts affect us? In traditional Aristotelian logic, the essence of a thing – the thingness – was what mattered, and was most times deemed as unchangeable, if not eternal.

On the other hand, modernism views the relationships created by the connections person to person and person to nature as the characteristics that best define those persons and the world around us. Although this appears at first sight to be a petty observation, it is in fact a transformation of society in its very roots and in its implications.

In the pre-modern age, of course, there were relationships but society was stratified over many generations and the prevalent relationship was taken as given and unchangeable, and thus the differentiation on the basis of relationship was not of primary importance. On the other hand modernism generates continuous innovation and so our understanding of our relationships has to be updated by the minute.

As a conclusion of this reflection, I would propose that rather than naming or shaming a person or exalting him or her to the high heavens; we should take a step backward and evaluate the actions performed by that person from time to time (and not the person as such) which at one time may be exemplary, while at other times condemnatory.

■ Mario Mifsud

Mosta