This collaborative volume explores changing perceptions of health and disease in
the context of the burgeoning global modernities of the long nineteenth century.
During this period, popular and medical understandings of the mind and body were
challenged, modified, and reframed by the politics and structures of ‘modern
life’, understood in industrial, social, commercial, and technological terms.
Bringing together work by leading international scholars, this volume
demonstrates how a multiplicity of medical practices were organised around new
and evolving definitions of the modern self. The study offers varying and
culturally specific definitions of what constituted medical modernity for
practitioners around the world in this period. Chapters examine the ways in
which cancer, suicide, and social degeneration were seen as products of the
stresses and strains of ‘new’ ways of living in the nineteenth century, and
explore the legal, institutional, and intellectual changes that contributed to
both positive and negative understandings of modern medical practice. The volume
traces the ways in which physiological and psychological problems were being
constituted in relation to each other, and to their social contexts, and offers
new ways of contextualising the problems of modernity facing us in the
The Australian and New Zealand repertoires and fortunes of North American performers Margaret Anglin, Katherine Grey and Muriel Starr
version of The Man Who Came Back.1 But by this decade’s end,
Starr’s popular dramatic vehicles were in a neck-and-neck race with
the exhibition of their screen versions, with both frequently playing the
same centre simultaneously, and the time gap becoming generally ever
As professional workers within globalmodernity, stage actors are
significant coalmine canaries for mapping economic crises and disruptions, and revolutions in the generative practices of creation, mediation
and distribution. In 1908 the popular and accomplished ‘empire actor’
, whether as processes (as Elias and other processual theorists would have it),
as collective representations (for Durkheim) or as active ontologies (Eisenstadt).
Civilisations persist residually as powerful historical presences, but do not contribute to the main energies of the world.
One further sociologist of civilisations and globalisation extends Therborn’s
approach, but casts civilisations as contemporary forces in globalmodernity.
José Mauricio Domingues brings a multidimensional and nuanced account of
globalmodernity from within contemporary critical theory. He
Marie Beauchamps, Marijn Hoijtink, Matthias Leese, Bruno Magalhães, and Sharon Weinblum
M OBILITY TODAY
is regarded as both a condition of globalmodernity and as a source of
insecurity. Not only are people on the move every day and on an
unprecedented scale, but also a multiplicity of non-humans move and are
being moved. Indeed, ‘from SARS and avian influenza to train crashes,
from airport expansion controversies to controlling global warming, from
urban congestion charging to
Dr Williams’ Pink Pills for Pale People and the hybrid pathways of Chinese
West. The forgotten Chinese afterlife of this derided patent pills opens up an alternate version of globalmodernity that develops along hybrid cultural and temporal pathways. Beyond calling into question the sequential connotations implicit in the language of modernity, the deeply site-specific sense of the modern self that emerges in this case study of early twentieth-century China suggests the need to decentralise the role of the West in the historical narrative of modernity. One localised modernity implies the existence of others, each unique in its configuration
model of globalmodernity while recognising real variation (Domingues, 2012).
Eisenstadt’s perspective is distinguished in this field of unfolding pluralities by
the manner in which he delimits the number of modernities by the cultural
ontologies of many civilisations. For Eisenstadt, if there is a special source of cultural ontologies, it is the world religions. In other words, his answer to the question of ‘how many modernities?’ is that the world religions define the number of
cultural ontologies, thereby demarcating the multiple modernities.
Surveillance and transgender bodies in a post-9/ 11 era of neoliberalism
that purport to be more ‘inclusive’.
Mobility is, as the contributions in this volume make
clear, never an innocent enterprise and is always implicated in the
production of power (Cresswell 2010 : 20–1).
While recent conceptualisations of mobility, as both a condition of
globalmodernity and a source of insecurity, can be traced back to the
work of Michel Foucault ( 2007 ), it is also
Melissa Dickson, Emilie Taylor-Brown, and Sally Shuttleworth
disease in the context of burgeoning globalmodernities of the long nineteenth century. The concept of ‘modernity’, often defined exclusively by its Western or European model, is of course a relative term, often predicated on a break with the past across social, cultural, political, and economic institutions, and conferred by historians as a means of determining major shifts in orientation.
L. S. Jacyna, in his recent work on medicine and modernism, contends that historians have typically employed this term in such a
Time and space in family migrant networks between Kosovo and western Europe
, the tight jeans
and shirts which could be bought in the flourishing sector of Western-style shops in
nearby towns, or which had been brought as presents by visiting migrants. Villagers
could now keep in daily contact with those abroad by using Skype, Facebook or
Messenger (see Levitt 1998; Peleikis 2003; Appadurai 2004; Leutloff-Grandits and
Middle-aged migrants living abroad met these changes with astonishment and
criticism. Instead of celebrating the fact that villages were ‘catching up’ with what
could be termed ‘globalmodernity’, they expressed a
Education and development in modern Southeast Asian history
English for the secondary school. It
was deeply rooted in a Javanese context, yet led by individuals deeply aware of
the challenges of a globalmodernity into which they had been thrust irrevocably
by colonial rule.
So much of the history-writing in Southeast Asia, a region where nationalist
master-narratives have held so much sway in shaping perceptions of the past, lies
in recovering its rich intellectual resources, of which Ki Hajar Dewantara is just
one embodiment. Education in Southeast Asia remains imbricated in deep historical patterns. Yet policy debate largely