Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Griot : Revista de Filosofia |
Texto Completo: | http://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/1277 |
Resumo: | In this paper, we will develop the Ailton Krenak’s criticism to Western modernity-modernization as a monoculture of ideas that constitutes itself as a self-referential, self-subsistent, endogenous, autonomous and self-sufficient structure which does not need the help and the critic by the other of modernity. Using the notion of colonialism as theory of modernity, we will identify five fundamental problems that permeates the construction of Jürgen Habermas’ theory of Western modernity-modernization, problems that justify this Ailton Krenak’s criticism, namely: (a) the modernity as a society-culture marked by an absolute singularity as post-metaphysical universalism-globalism from cultural-communicative rationality, entirely different of the rest of societies-cultures as traditionalism in general based on essentialist and naturalized foundations; (c) the comprehension of the constitution and development of European modernity as an endogenous, autonomous, self-sufficient and closed movement-principle relatively to the other of modernity, totally capable of self-comprehension, self-reflexivity and self-correction from inside, by its own means, with no necessity of external help; (c) the reduction of the constitutive and distinctive dynamics of Western modernization to the notion of correlation, separation and tension-contradiction between cultural modernity and social-economic modernization, with the silencing about and the erasing of the colonialism as movement, principle and consequence of the process of Western modernization; (d) the restrictive comprehension of the constitutive and evolutionary way of Western modernization as a straight, direct and linear process which goes from modern Europe towards the First and Second Worlds, again silencing about and erasing the Third World as a constitutive part and consequence of the Western modernity-modernization as a whole; and, finally, (e) the correlation of cultural-modernity (as post-metaphysical universalism-globalism from cultural-communicative rationality) with/as humankind, the humankind as a big process of modernization, and each society-culture as a proto-modernity, which sustains and supports exactly the idea of Western modernization as the apogee of human evolution and, therefore, its universalist-globalist sense and vocation, a characteristic that is denied to the other of modernity. |
id |
UFRB-4_231ca6aedab73f16be6dd86534f08cf9 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:seer.www.ufrb.edu.br:article/1277 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRB-4 |
network_name_str |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talkingPensamento indígena brasileiro como crítica da modernidade: sobre uma expressão de Ailton KrenakPensamento Indígena Brasileiro; Discurso Filosófico-Sociológico da Modernidade; Autorreferencialidade; Colonialismo; Outro da Modernidade.Brazilian Indian Thinking; Philosophical-Sociological Discourse of Modernity; Self-referentiality; Colonialism; Other of Modernity.In this paper, we will develop the Ailton Krenak’s criticism to Western modernity-modernization as a monoculture of ideas that constitutes itself as a self-referential, self-subsistent, endogenous, autonomous and self-sufficient structure which does not need the help and the critic by the other of modernity. Using the notion of colonialism as theory of modernity, we will identify five fundamental problems that permeates the construction of Jürgen Habermas’ theory of Western modernity-modernization, problems that justify this Ailton Krenak’s criticism, namely: (a) the modernity as a society-culture marked by an absolute singularity as post-metaphysical universalism-globalism from cultural-communicative rationality, entirely different of the rest of societies-cultures as traditionalism in general based on essentialist and naturalized foundations; (c) the comprehension of the constitution and development of European modernity as an endogenous, autonomous, self-sufficient and closed movement-principle relatively to the other of modernity, totally capable of self-comprehension, self-reflexivity and self-correction from inside, by its own means, with no necessity of external help; (c) the reduction of the constitutive and distinctive dynamics of Western modernization to the notion of correlation, separation and tension-contradiction between cultural modernity and social-economic modernization, with the silencing about and the erasing of the colonialism as movement, principle and consequence of the process of Western modernization; (d) the restrictive comprehension of the constitutive and evolutionary way of Western modernization as a straight, direct and linear process which goes from modern Europe towards the First and Second Worlds, again silencing about and erasing the Third World as a constitutive part and consequence of the Western modernity-modernization as a whole; and, finally, (e) the correlation of cultural-modernity (as post-metaphysical universalism-globalism from cultural-communicative rationality) with/as humankind, the humankind as a big process of modernization, and each society-culture as a proto-modernity, which sustains and supports exactly the idea of Western modernization as the apogee of human evolution and, therefore, its universalist-globalist sense and vocation, a characteristic that is denied to the other of modernity.Neste artigo, desenvolveremos a crítica de Ailton Krenak à modernidade-modernização ocidental como uma monocultura de ideias que se constitui como uma estrutura autorreferencial, autossubsistente, endógena, autônoma e autossuficiente, não necessitando do outro da modernidade em termos de ajuda e de crítica. Utilizando a ideia de colonialismo como teoria da modernidade, identificaremos cinco problemas fundamentais apresentados pela teoria da modernidade-modernização ocidental de Jürgen Habermas que justificam a crítica de Ailton Krenak, a saber: (a) a modernidade como uma sociedade-cultura marcada por uma singularidade absoluta, enquanto universalismo-globalismo pós-metafísico via racionalidade cultural-comunicativa, diferente de todo o resto das sociedades-culturas como tradicionalismo em geral via fundamentações essencialistas e naturalizadas; (b) a compreensão do processo de constituição e de desenvolvimento da modernidade europeia como um movimento-princípio endógeno, autônomo, autossuficiente e fechado relativamente ao outro da modernidade, plenamente capaz de autocompreensão, autorreflexividade e autocorreção desde dentro, por seus próprios meios, sem necessidade de ajuda externa; (c) a redução da dinâmica constitutiva e caracterizadora da modernidade como correlação, separação e tensão-contradição entre modernidade cultural e modernização econômico-social, com o silenciamento sobre o e o apagamento do colonialismo como movimento, princípio e consequência do processo de modernização ocidental; (d) a compreensão restritiva do caminho constitutivo e evolutivo da modernidade-modernização ocidental, como um processo reto, direto e linear que vai da Europa moderna ao Primeiro e Segundo Mundos, mais uma vez silenciando-se sobre e apagando o Terceiro Mundo enquanto parte constitutiva e consequência da modernidade-modernização ocidental como um todo; e, finalmente, (e) a correlação de modernidade cultural (enquanto universalismo-globalismo pós-metafísico via racionalidade cultural-comunicativa) com/como o gênero humano, do gênero humano como um grande processo de modernização e de cada sociedade-cultura particular como uma proto-modernidade, o que sustenta e respalda exatamente a modernidade-modernização ocidental como ápice da evolução humana e, assim, seu sentido e sua vocação universalistas-globalistas, característica negada ao outro da modernidade.Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia2019-10-15info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPeer-ReviewedEvaluados por los paresAvaliados pelos paresapplication/pdfhttp://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/127710.31977/grirfi.v19i3.1277Griot : Revista de Filosofia; v. 19 n. 3 (2019); 74-1042178-1036reponame:Griot : Revista de Filosofiainstname:Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB)instacron:UFRBporhttp://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/1277/765Copyright (c) 2019 Leno Francisco Danner, Fernando Danner, Julie Dorricoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDanner, Leno FranciscoDanner, FernandoDorrico, Julie2020-06-30T18:13:45Zoai:seer.www.ufrb.edu.br:article/1277Revistahttp://www.ufrb.edu.br/griot/PUBhttp://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/oai||griotrevista@gmail.com2178-10362178-1036opendoar:2020-06-30T18:13:45Griot : Revista de Filosofia - Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking Pensamento indígena brasileiro como crítica da modernidade: sobre uma expressão de Ailton Krenak |
title |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking |
spellingShingle |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking Danner, Leno Francisco Pensamento Indígena Brasileiro; Discurso Filosófico-Sociológico da Modernidade; Autorreferencialidade; Colonialismo; Outro da Modernidade. Brazilian Indian Thinking; Philosophical-Sociological Discourse of Modernity; Self-referentiality; Colonialism; Other of Modernity. |
title_short |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking |
title_full |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking |
title_fullStr |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking |
title_full_unstemmed |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking |
title_sort |
Brazilian indian thinking as criticism of modernity: on an Ailton Krenak’s talking |
author |
Danner, Leno Francisco |
author_facet |
Danner, Leno Francisco Danner, Fernando Dorrico, Julie |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Danner, Fernando Dorrico, Julie |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Danner, Leno Francisco Danner, Fernando Dorrico, Julie |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Pensamento Indígena Brasileiro; Discurso Filosófico-Sociológico da Modernidade; Autorreferencialidade; Colonialismo; Outro da Modernidade. Brazilian Indian Thinking; Philosophical-Sociological Discourse of Modernity; Self-referentiality; Colonialism; Other of Modernity. |
topic |
Pensamento Indígena Brasileiro; Discurso Filosófico-Sociológico da Modernidade; Autorreferencialidade; Colonialismo; Outro da Modernidade. Brazilian Indian Thinking; Philosophical-Sociological Discourse of Modernity; Self-referentiality; Colonialism; Other of Modernity. |
description |
In this paper, we will develop the Ailton Krenak’s criticism to Western modernity-modernization as a monoculture of ideas that constitutes itself as a self-referential, self-subsistent, endogenous, autonomous and self-sufficient structure which does not need the help and the critic by the other of modernity. Using the notion of colonialism as theory of modernity, we will identify five fundamental problems that permeates the construction of Jürgen Habermas’ theory of Western modernity-modernization, problems that justify this Ailton Krenak’s criticism, namely: (a) the modernity as a society-culture marked by an absolute singularity as post-metaphysical universalism-globalism from cultural-communicative rationality, entirely different of the rest of societies-cultures as traditionalism in general based on essentialist and naturalized foundations; (c) the comprehension of the constitution and development of European modernity as an endogenous, autonomous, self-sufficient and closed movement-principle relatively to the other of modernity, totally capable of self-comprehension, self-reflexivity and self-correction from inside, by its own means, with no necessity of external help; (c) the reduction of the constitutive and distinctive dynamics of Western modernization to the notion of correlation, separation and tension-contradiction between cultural modernity and social-economic modernization, with the silencing about and the erasing of the colonialism as movement, principle and consequence of the process of Western modernization; (d) the restrictive comprehension of the constitutive and evolutionary way of Western modernization as a straight, direct and linear process which goes from modern Europe towards the First and Second Worlds, again silencing about and erasing the Third World as a constitutive part and consequence of the Western modernity-modernization as a whole; and, finally, (e) the correlation of cultural-modernity (as post-metaphysical universalism-globalism from cultural-communicative rationality) with/as humankind, the humankind as a big process of modernization, and each society-culture as a proto-modernity, which sustains and supports exactly the idea of Western modernization as the apogee of human evolution and, therefore, its universalist-globalist sense and vocation, a characteristic that is denied to the other of modernity. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-10-15 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Peer-Reviewed Evaluados por los pares Avaliados pelos pares |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/1277 10.31977/grirfi.v19i3.1277 |
url |
http://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/1277 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.31977/grirfi.v19i3.1277 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/1277/765 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2019 Leno Francisco Danner, Fernando Danner, Julie Dorrico info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2019 Leno Francisco Danner, Fernando Danner, Julie Dorrico |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia; v. 19 n. 3 (2019); 74-104 2178-1036 reponame:Griot : Revista de Filosofia instname:Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB) instacron:UFRB |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB) |
instacron_str |
UFRB |
institution |
UFRB |
reponame_str |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia |
collection |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia - Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||griotrevista@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1754732699902279680 |