Events in not only North Africa and the Middle East but also in Europe – for example, the recent acts of terrorism in Norway targeting 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 deliberately do not use the word ‘capitalism’ in order to avoid entering into a polemical political discussion, which is not the intention of this letter. This change from ‘thingness’ to ‘relationships’ is, in my opinion, of the utmost importance and may necessitate society as a whole making other adjustments, so that the transition to modernism is, in fact, completed. For example, the onus of correctness of the mass media now assumes greater importance than before and subjects the mass media to greater scrutiny in its operations than under the pre-modern system. This is not just an arbitrary exercise of power by the Authority 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 private media such as the internet – must bear some responsibility for its inexcusable inaccuracies made for pre-conceived ideological reasons, public control can only be exercised on the mass media in a pluralist society.

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? Whereas in the traditional Aristotelian logic, the essence of a thing – the thingness – was what mattered, and was most of the time deemed as to be unchangeable, if not eternal, 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. Modernism defined as non-essentialism – that is not defining the person or thing through the thingness or essence but through is interconnectedness with other persons or things – opens the door to a resolution of many contradictions that we habitually come across and to which we sometimes unwittingly commit ourselves, in a word gives our activity and our thinking the ‘scientific’ bent of modernism.

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

As a conclusion to 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 back and evaluate the actions of that person from time to time (and not the person as such!) which at times may be exemplary, while at other times shameful.

Mario Mifsud

HAMRUN