"Often in history there is a combination of continuity and change which looks perplexing because of view of both the old and the new is altered". This is how Jencks starts his article. After reading this article and also reading the other students blogs I think that this quote is the most important aspect of what Jencks is trying to say. History, there is a mixture of what we are use to and also a mixture of a change. Sometimes we are scared about this change. Why are we scared, because it is a mixture of both the new and the old. Sometimes within our society we are scared of the new and changing our lives to new things, but actually those types of things are important to our everyday society. We can't just live our lives like the past always has, or else we would never be changing. But also, we are terrified, especially our older generation of exposing ourselves to the new. For instance, my mom is always terrified to go on the computer, she thinks it is way to technological for her and she is just not living in the type of technological generation we are. Even worse, my grandmother just got an answering machine two years ago after we forced her to install it, and she still uses a rotary phone. yup.
In our society I think a lot of the time people are scared to face the idea of new and better things. But also, we do not want to live in the past. The old is what is altered and also the new is being altered. I truly think that the way that Jencks starts his article is the most important way for us to think about how we view our postmodern society as well as our modern society.
The present to us looks weird and disturbing, but yet also so does the romantic age when we look at it. So is there a happy middle? Who knows.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a good blog. I like the way to talk about the old and the new, and how they are both somewhat interrelated. You make a very interesting point saying how we should accept our postmodern and out modern society - we have two? I'd love to see how you would ellaborate on that, while bearing in mind Habermas and Lyotard.
Smiley Face :)
Post a Comment