Modernity after Modernity

A strategy for the second modernization raises, beyond objectives, a series of epistemicresponsibilities. It is known that modernization stemming from the Enlightment had, among other things,the pretense that it is a project which is self-legitimating. Its profound rationales are the only justification.Referential self-centering proved to be the one that made possible a practice of the new. Modernizationhaving the function of renouncing myth – meaning an eliminatory formula for the past – and thefixation in the opportunity and potentiality of the present, seemed to close an insoluble but extremelyengrossing problem: that of a propensity towards utopia, of the risky escape towards the future. Thetraditionalization of the new constitutes a support for the daring to break out of the captivity of themoment.Modernization becomes the experience of combining the new which, thus, creates a succession ofpresent times. The future is no longer the result of fantasy, but a system’s direct expression to combine thenew. Therefore the future is an option for one or another model of the present, often tested previouslysomewhere else. In a non-metaphysical way, the future can be seen, touched, tried, lived by simplegeographical movement. The sense of evolution has de-temporalized taking the form of the concomitant,parallel, enclosed, neighboring space. We just have to be in the trend, to evolve in the context.Globalization defines the context and its conception – as a project of the second modernity – showsus the trends. The problem is how to understand the context in order to find the sense of the trend. Are wethe load the sense with the values of the first modernity or will we have to turn to the values of anothermodernity? Why do we have to move away from the significance of the processes which made up the firstmodernity? How do we relate to the content of the new context in which the structural trends of today’sworld are taking place? What is the key to understand both the context and the trends