NewYorker - Habermas

From what I think I understood of Habermas, I don't think I agree with him on all his views.
He says, "Some writers restrict this concept of modernity to the Renaissance, but this is historically too narrow. People considered themselves modern during the period of Charles the Great in the twelfth century, as well as in France of the late seventeen century..." (98). I do agree with him here, that we must look at history before the Renaissance in terms of modernity. During any time period, someone is more than likely going to think of themselves as modern. I think of myself as being modern right now - but I also thought I was modern in middle school, and looking back at pictures, I look rediculuous. Since times and styles change, looking back, anything that is "out" is going to look funny to us at the present moment when we reflect back. Further, "...whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic" (99) whether that be a painting, photograph, a car, or an article of clothing.
I'm not quite sure though if I agree when he says, "Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative," (100). Even though modern means being present, and up-to-date, I don't think anyone can easily dismiss tradition and the past. Traditions last so long because there's something they do that works, that fits, or makes sense. I think revolt is too much of a strong word. I would maybe say that modernity thrives (strives?) off of tradition, and history because you have to know the past to move to the future and look ahead. Of course there are parts that do get left behind, thus emerging something new - which would then be considered modern.