Modernity and Irrationality

Abstract

Th e negative phenomena accompanying modernization have been discussed oft en enough – poverty and hardship within the affl uent society, egoism and ruthlessness, growing crime rates, social confl ict, stress and mental illness, the destruction of natural and socio-cultural lifeworlds, and extreme technological hazards. Th e most common reaction to these negative elements is to see modernization as something that is incomplete. We then expect this Situation to improve as a result of its completion through moral modernization (Habermas 1980, 1984, 1992) or refl exive modernization (Beck 1992, 1993). Th e idea of putting modernity back onto the right track using moral or refl exive regulation is not, in principle, a bad one. Yet the realization of this idea not only produces the desired eff ects, it also constantly creates undesirable ones. An objective look at the course of modernization to date proves this point. We can see that moral modernization itself plays an already considerable, active part in producing the negative elements of modernity. And if refl exive modernization also means bringing a moral dimension into the modernization process then it too plays an active role in creating these negative elements. Even if we understand it in a wider sense still, the secondary, refl exive modernization of primary modernization cannot escape the dilemma of modernity. Whatever goals modernization may have and however moral or refl exive it may be, it continues nevertheless to produce paradoxical eff ects which are contrary to its intentions. Even refl exive modernization is modernization and thus subject to all of its paradoxes.