Constantin Schifirneţ . Sociologie Românească 2(3): – . Schifirneţ, C ( a) The mass media and tendentious modernity in the. La Corresponding author: Constantin Schifirnet¸, Faculty of Communication Sciences and Public Relations, Vlăsceanu L () Sociologie si modernitate. Constantin Schifirnet . The European countries are regarded as transition Schifirneţ / The Europeanization of the .. Sociologie românească, Vol. VII, 4, pp .

Author: Mezim Arashizshura
Country: Guinea-Bissau
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 17 August 2011
Pages: 358
PDF File Size: 16.28 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.43 Mb
ISBN: 857-6-68187-475-9
Downloads: 25460
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kacage

Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: In these societies, there is a gap between faster institutional renewal and slower economic development. Consequently, cultural, political and intellectual modernity outrun economic modernity. Tendential modernity refers to the ideas and actions aimed at modernization which remain partial and not finalized.

Modernity is more an aspiration, a societal developmental intention, a goal to be reached, but which is never fully realized. Due to the fact that modernity is merely a tendency that is never finalized, the transitions are never completed. Modernity moves slowly and schifirnst difficulty through the intricate network of socio-institutional structures of the patriarchal and traditional society. It is inlay modernity, not structured under a clear, dominant form.

Even though these periods are not all homogeneous in their rate of schiffirnet, tendential modernity characterizes the evolutionary process of modern Romania. The type of modern development found in Western and Northern countries is not totally replicated in other European societies, such as Greece, Spain and Portugal, among those countries that gained access to the European Community prior to There is no doubt that several types of modernity can be found in Europe: Most of the current sociological paradigms focus on explicative models regarding modernity in the Western regions of the EU.

J HabermasA GiddensU Beck and Z Baumanthe creators of some of these modernity models — the reflexive, the second and the liquid models — outline the pattern of Western modernity. It is no accident that the paradigms mentioned above do not tackle the modernity found in other European regions, such as Central and Eastern Europe, since they emerged within a Soviologie vision of the evolution of modern society.


Giddens states clearly that his analysis of schiifirnet refers to institutional transforma- constantim, to the national states and the systematic capitalist production that originated in Western Europe: Both [the national states and the systematic capitalist production] have their roots in the specific characteristics of European history and have few parallels in prior periods or in other cultural settings.

If, in close conjunction with one another, they have since swept across the world, this is above all because of the power they have generated. No other, more traditional social forms Downloaded from ssi. Is the modernity distinctively a Western project in terms of the ways of life fostered by these two great transformative agencies? To this query, the blunt answer must be yes.

As Habermas writes, the theory of modernization moves modernity away from its modern European origins. It proposes a pattern of development process beyond the spatial and temporal dimension, for instance conceptualizing multiple modernities Eisenstadt, ; Kaya, ; Lee, The historical evolution of modernity is understood as a transition from a traditional society to a modern one, focused on industrialization, rule of law, urbanization, welfare and wealth, and science through education and instruction Alexander, In fact, this description expresses the functionalist view on modern society.

One may say that those societies with a solid, structured modernity have a universalistic vocation because they intend to spread and impose their own values all schifinret the world. Studies scnifirnet Romanian modernity fall into at least scchifirnet categories or positions.

When we talk about late modernity, we are in fact referring to a modernity which occurred later than in the West, but which follows the same trend as sschifirnet the West. These traditions are very deeply rooted in the Romanian collective subconscious. In this article, I discuss the necessity of approaching modernity from the angle of the historical trend of Romanian society.

In contrast to theses stating either that Romania is modern or that its modernity is not real, I will try to provide evidence that highlights the existence of a certain type of modernity, one that constanitn specific to Romanian society, and perhaps to other societies with an insufficiently functioning capitalist economy.

In socilogie sition to the classical definition of modernity, related to progress and linear evolution, to never-ending advance in a pre-determined direction, Romanian modernity shows a par- ticular penchant for co-habitation with pre-modern social practices and traditions. I explain the present-day situation of Romania — the least economically developed EU member-state — with the help of the socioolgie, political, geopolitical and cultural con- texts which led costantin society with an underdeveloped economy to build the political, legal and institutional organism of the modern Romanian state.


I start from the premise that the Downloaded from ssi. Undoubtedly, the agents of modernization and of modernity have always looked for a modern institutional construction identical with the institutional framework of the West. From this perspective, I maintain that the ideal and the vision of the Romanian social actors have intersected with European doctrines on modern development. First, I discuss the phases of the appearance of modernity in the region inhabited by Romanians.

Sociologie romaneasca moderna – Constantin Schifirneţ – Google Books

I then go on to discuss the concept of tendential modernity. Finally, I analyze the types of conduct and discourse on modernity. The historical evolution of Romanian modernity The modernization of Romanian society is concomitant with processes of the foundation of the independent unitary nation-state, an action that accords with the European institu- tional and ideological models of modernization.

To understand the tendential modernity that is specific to Romanian society, it is worthwhile to briefly summarize the phases of the modern foundation of the Romanian nation-state, an independent state, built on the idea of national consciousness and shared history and culture. For a long time, Romanians had been living in the separate states of Moldavia, Walachia and Transylvania.

SinceMoldavia-Bukovina to the north had been annexed by the Habsburg Empire; and, sinceMoldavia-Bessarabia in the east had been annexed by the Russian Empire.

Moldavia and Walachia were organized as separate states with a certain degree of autonomy from the big empires of the Central- and East-European zones.

The two Principalities were unified inbut under Ottoman suzerainty; while independence from the Ottoman Empire would be gained in and recognized by the Treaty of Berlin in InRomania was proclaimed a Kingdom. In a modern Constitution had been adopted. Romania was the first constitutional state from Southeastern Europe.

Under the principle of nationalities and the right of peoples to self-determination, Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia were integrated into the Romanian Schifinret in From the foundation of the modern Sociolobie state to the present day, all ideologies highlighted modernity as a dimension of development. The first modern advances in the Romanian provinces happened under different influ- ences related to the geopolitical areas to which each province belonged.

In Moldavia and Walachia, modernity appeared under the influence of French culture and civilization Eliade,an influence that continued after the unification of the two principalities that created the Romanian national state in In Transylvania and Bukovina, in the 19th century, the dominant influence was the modernity derived from the modernizations produced within the Habsburg Empire Hitchins, ; here Romanians, especially the elites, were influenced by the processes of modernization taking place in the Romanian kingdom.

This modernity started from the ideal of building a unitary political and legal institu- tional framework, able to modernize the whole of Romanian society, since, in this way, the levels of development specific to Western countries could be reached. The emphasis of the modernization process was on the creation of a national, schifinret and strong state capable of achieving the national ideal, which was to unite the Romanians into a unitary state.

The antebellum governing programs did not give priority to economic sociologid, and Romania had the lowest per capita domestic product in Europe in the interwar period.

The instauration of the communist regime in interrupted the European-like, Western-originated modern evolution of the Romanian state, which had not reached the standards of a developed country. Communism was established as a social schufirnet opposed to the modern capitalist system. This was siciologie principle that acted to destroy the institutions and the elites as agents of modernization. It has to be said that, during the communist period, processes of modernization had donstantin in operation, such as sociloogie, urbanization, literacy, but all these had been implemented in a social and political context that denied individual rights and freedoms.

After the Romanian Revolution inRomanian society returned to European modernity by modernizing all sectors and by embracing an institutional construction similar to that of the European Community. The post-communist period gave modernity a fundamental goal, that of reconfiguring Romanian society: Still, in my opinion, these resources are insufficient because the effects of modernization are not present in the development of all areas of the society, as I argue in this article.

Following schifirnft short presentation of the phases inherent in Romanian modernity, one can say that the modern history of the Romanian people is characterized primarily by their efforts towards achieving the independence and the unification of all Romanians in a single state, two imperatives which directly impacted on the consolidation and the legitimacy of the Romanian nation-state. The construction of this state is configured by modern principles and institutions, borrowed from other European countries — for exam- ple, the legal system, the parliament and constantkn constitution.


But these were applied in a rural and predominantly agrarian society, whose norms and values differed from those of the modern Western societies. Modernization motivated and obliged the internal actors to work sociolkgie the con- struction of the modern Romanian state, with modern institutions and legal constahtin.

To this end, they adopted the French model of a centralized political and administrative system, and, as far as the unification of all Romanians into a single state was concerned, took Germany as the main model, which conceived the nation according sociolohie the ethnic principle, to culture and to traditions.

Both models were adjusted to the historical and geopolitical contexts of Central and Eastern Europe that defined Romanian society. The modernization processes had to deal with a versatile institutional environment constqntin deci- sions and actions kept changing — a fact that had an obvious impact on the depth and duration of modernity.

It is acknowledged that the historical trajectory of Central and Eastern Europe was significantly different from that of Western Europe: Modernity produced by the state Throughout its history, the Romanian state has given priority to national construction, and the problems related to economic and social development were postponed or subor- dinated to the national issue.

The creation of a national identity in the context of depend- ency on the great empires was essential. The Romanian state provided the necessary framework for the modernization pro- cess, including that of the institutions: The institutional creation of the modern Romanian state was based on the Western democratic system but it was adopted under different circumstances than socjologie in Western Europe.

The Western-European values of democracy and liberty appeared as a result of the aspirations and interests of the bourgeoisie, which also created the national state for their own support. Before gaining political power, the Western bourgeoisie had eco- nomic power — a fundamental element in imposing a bourgeois political regime. By contrast, the Romanian bourgeoisie obtained political power before going through all the stages of training, in terms of country development and modern public-administration management.

The Romanian bourgeoisie, being few in number, did not have a strong economic base. However, after the Constitution and through the liberal leadership of — it became a predominant political force in society. Under the pressure of internal forces, European powers accepted the creation of the modern Romanian state, on condition of turning it into a capitalist society, which had to develop through institutions of the bourgeois state.

A modern state was created in the absence of a modern Romanian society. Sincethe same thing has happened: Capitalism creates new forms of government embodied in the shape of the national state, based on the bureaucratic organization of its institutions. This also means that the national state is supposed to support new processes, specific to the modern society — democracy, citizenship, liberty, political competition, ideological diversity and scchifirnet tion.

Had a national state not existed, any consequent change in the modernized societies constantun have been impossible. This is the context, which also generates its limits.

Constantin Schifirneț

State structures were necessary in order to democratize the society and to develop its economy. Logically, the national state should protect the majority classes. Yet the national state acted to create the classes of modern society, especially the bourgeoisie. It did not work Downloaded from ssi. The modern Schhifirnet state acted, paradoxically, against the interests and the needs of the majority social groups.

The real needs of social modernization were postponed for the future because the action of the state in this sense was always limited.

Modernization driven by the state is one of the main features of Romanian modernity. The difference with Western Europe lies in the fact that, in Western Europe, the state acted with the direct support of the new class, the bourgeoisie, which possessed the tools of the capitalist economy.

By contrast, in Romania, the state adopted legal and political structures by borrowing them from spciologie Western space and not because of pressure from internal representative social groups. In Western Europe, modernization went from bot- tom to top, that is, it was accomplished by the society itself, while in Romania, it was imposed by the state through institutional structures. While in Western Europe the state and the society together produced the modern transformations, in Romania, the state imposed the modern institutions that later created the modern society.