Has The Twenty First Century Even Started?

Modernism is not thought to have started in the year 1900 and for that matter neither did the twentieth century. History, is of course, a strange little bird and how we interpret it is very subjective. But most of us don't see the twentieth century starting on "day one" of the year 1900. Most of us don't see the Sixties having started on day one of 1960. Nor do we think the Sixties ended on day one of 1970. Normally, the Sixties are thought to either have ended in 1968 or somewhere between 1972 and 1974.

So why should we artificially think that history will view the twenty-first century as beginning in the year 2000? Perhaps, some will contend that it began with the appointment of George Bush Junior. Others may argue that it began on September 11, 2001. Still others may say that it began with the anthrax scare in October of 2001 or perhaps the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But there may be others who will one day contend that the twenty first century did not start during the Bush presidency at all.

It is not an altogether unpopular thought to consider that the twentieth century did not begin until WWI in 1914.

So there's really no telling what will trigger off the birth of the twenty-first century.

I would contend that our present era starts with the birth of modernism. And that most of the issues facing the modernists are very much the same issues that plague today. The postmodern movement in my opinion is just an extension of modernism. And the post-post-modern era is just an extension of modernism as well. The Age of Modernism, which is of course a rather stupid name, is the age in which we find ourselves.

It is an age where human beings are more widely able to examine ourselves and our civilization in a way that has hitherto been improbable. It is an age where our destructive instincts are only matched by our creative instincts. It is an age that began some time ago and is still going.

Whatever bridge to the twenty-first century Bill Clinton "built" for us has since been washed away except in our memory. But the deeper existential questions that were posed and probed throughout the modern era have not been washed away. They have at times appeared more dormant than others, but they have only been latent waiting for their next appearance on the world stage.

Progressives and Conservatives take note: whether Obama, Hillary, or McCain are to be our next president will not mean an end to the "modern" era. The main difference is that each presents some sort of attitudinal shift in how the US and world approach the modern era. And perhaps McCain's terribleness and Obama's hopefulness are enough to do a decent job of shaping attitudes. But they will be in the end, more impermanent than the far more lasting (yet still impermanent) modern age that we are, I believe still in and have been in for well over one hundred years.

In fact, to take this a step further and border on the ridiculous for a moment: perhaps part of the dilemma is that the "Modern Age" is by definition Humanity itself. Perhaps every age prior has simply not had to face the same insecurity and doubt that have come with the close examination of Modernism. Perhaps Modernism is nothing more than an overthinking magnifying glass that has been placed over a humanity that has primarily been the same regardless of the era it has occupied. Perhaps modernism is simply a more direct way to approach humanity than the other eras before it.

Of course, this kind of talk just shows a conceit that comes from living inside an era and being the product of time. But perhaps such a conceit is a useful tool for helping to make manifest the era that you are in. Then again, most self-proclaimed modernists did that constantly. And yet they were a minority living amongst masses that were still intellectually clinging to prior ages without realizing the current awakening that was happening for all of Western civilization.

No matter. Western civilization is oddly becoming a very strange thing as China and India occupy greater importance on the economic stage.

So what of these ramblings? All I can say is that modernism is dormant, not dead. And perhaps it would be useful if Westerners began to consciously become aware of and embrace this fact on a wide scale. But I am really just a fool who does not have the faculty to answer these questions. I can only ask. And ask. And ask again. And for what purpose, I'm not quite sure.

Suffice it to say, the twenty first century has most probably not started in the subjective and silly eyes of historians who have yet to be born.