IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v14y2009i5p124-136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Apocalypse in the Long Run: Reflections on Huge Comparisons in the Study of Modernity

Author

Listed:
  • John R. Hall

Abstract

Methodologies of historical sociology face research problems centered on the instability of historical referents, their historical non-independence, and the privileging of objective time of the clock and calendar. The present essay, by reflecting on an analysis of the apocalyptic in the long run (Hall 2009), proposes the potential to solve these problems by way of a phenomenology of history, which analyzes the enactment and interplay of multiple social temporalities. Whereas high-modern theories of modernity tended to portray a secular trend toward the triumph of rationalized social order centred in diachronic time, analysis of the historical emergence of apocalyptic times in relation to other temporalities - especially objective (or diachronic) temporalities, the here-and-now, and the collective synchronic - reveals that the apocalyptic has survived within modernity through the articulation of rationalized diachronic time with the sacred strategic time of apocalyptically framed ‘holy war.’ Overall, the ‘empire of modernity’ is a hybrid formation that bridges diachronic and strategic temporalities. Despite diachronic developments that tend toward what Habermas described as the colonization of the lifeworld, a phenomenological analysis suggests the durability of the here-and-now and collective synchronic times. These analyses unveil a research agenda that deconstructs the high-modern ‘past’ versus ‘present’ binary in favour of a model that analyzes the interplay of multiple social forms, and thus encourages a retheorization of modernity as ‘recomposition’ encompassing multiple temporalities.

Suggested Citation

  • John R. Hall, 2009. "Apocalypse in the Long Run: Reflections on Huge Comparisons in the Study of Modernity," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(5), pages 124-136, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:14:y:2009:i:5:p:124-136
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.2022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.2022
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.2022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:14:y:2009:i:5:p:124-136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.