>>85543modernism concerns a period in art, modernity is the concept we talk about
change ≠ progress progress is implicit in change though, progress means a certain change, maybe even accumulative change, for example of knowledge, freedom whatever
>the boundless concept of progress appears symptomatic of the world we currently inhabit
debatable. While surely people still believe in progress(es) of various kind, there is also a lot of pessimism or ideas of decay that seems to describe our world better, according to certain people the schizo is a good example
Change on the other hand would be symptomatic since we live in accelerated times. Modernity is the historic period, in which technology killed distance and made time 'rapidly accelerated' physical time is physical time, before somebody wants to comment on the social construction of time being fashionable nonsense because hurr physical time exists, yeah it does but that is not up for debate
>but if we approached the pace of change found in pre-modern society would we hold to our beliefs of progress or what-have-you?
don't understand this sentence/question, maybe it is the slang ending that is the barricade here.
>might have always existed to some extent but have become an 'of course' because the change and revolution actually happened.
Well, as a set of socio-cultural norms, probably not. Yeah, ancient greeks had scientific interests and systematization, but they did not have the technology, no mass society and industrialization and their democracy and politics were also not the same democracy and politics we have today. For the middle ages, I already mentioned that "god forbids" a progressive attitude.
Changed always happened, yes. But how was that change understood (as a progression towards something? I don't know but that is a modern mindset and I don't think that it was really understood as progress but differently), was it always revolutionary change? What is a revolutionary change and what is just change of whatever different sort? revolution as 1. The radical break with the existing political or social order and the constitution of a new and lasting political or social order 2. The progression towards freedom 3. The question of violence, whether it is needed or not, in what form, etc. ... how does that fit to occurrences in the past? I can only think of slave revolts in ancient times and the German peasant's war, but I think none of them were successful so it wasn't a revolutionary change I'd say, albeit a change nonetheless.
>Todays Moscow delenda est being viewed in the far future as merely part of German civilisation's 800 year mission to civilise the East.
History changes, so maybe in future historians will turn back to this more or less originally 19th century understanding of history (Hegel's teleological understanding of history (as progress towards something)).
>It falls into the trap that such societies lack agency and must have modernisation imposed upon them rather than it obviously being a dynamic between economic/urban/whatever centres imposing reality upon the outer society
Well, while the dynamic between x,y,z is true for Europe, the European colonialism exported the results of this dynamic with very different outcomes or "bifurcations" to non-european countries. A country like China has a different history than a country on the coast of West Africa and thus the colonialism and modernization turned out different and similar. You don't subtract all agency of these people when pointing out that Europeans ruled the colonies, after all a rule or government is exactly defined by a regulation of agency of individuals (degree, modality, reach etc. is different from case to case ofc). Yuk Hui in his essay pints out that different modernities are possible and that exactly former colonized cultures might provide different understanding of modernities, that is basically new cosmotechnics --> different/other cosmologies than western one that could provide a different approach to technology and its application in the world
> Or in the case of hour/minute/second time keeping, it being a really useful technology to both administrators and people that we now take for granted but which was a technology that fundamentally changed our perception of reality.
Yes, it changed our perception if reality and our reality then. But this happened first in Europe, on a large scale, and is part of modernity rationalization (of time) is such a norm that belongs to modern thinking
>No colonialism involved, you hand two hunter-gatherers a watch each and they schedule a rendezvous on it.
That is not what I said in that post. I said modernity as a set of norms develop in Europe and these have been exported (and imposed, lets be frank here) in colonies. Perhaps and most probably in colonies you never used watches and the days weren't quantified into h/min/s for better control and planning and it is a problematic thought to think that people will simply (have) adapt(ed) to this, because even Europeans resisted the introduction of watches on a large scale, the famous article here is this one https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/projects/anthropos-and-the-material/Intranet/economic-practices/reading-group/texts/thompson-time-work-discipline-and-industrial-capitalism.pdf