Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures

Living Edition
| Editors: Helaine Selin

Polycentered History of Science

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_10008-1
How to cite

It used to be a commonplace in modernist studies and regrettably remains one still in philosophical historiography that modernity is something that happened first, and uniquely, in Europe. Attempts were made to convert the supposition into a tautology through definitions of modernity that exclude non-European histories and geographies (e.g., in terms of capitalist modes of production, the emergence of nation-states and nationalist collective identities, the industrial revolution, and secularization). Progress of sorts occurred with the acknowledgment of the existence of alternative regional modernities, but the acknowledgment was tied to a center/periphery model and to an associated ideology of European diffusionism. Shmuel Eisenstadt, for instance, is willing to acknowledge “multiple modernities” but only insofar as these new modernities imitate and copy a first modernity centered in Europe (Eisenstadt, 2000). Postcolonial writers such as R. Radhakrishnan have struggled with what...

Keywords

Majority Vote Public Knowledge Deliberative Democracy Mutual Engagement Epistemic Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Balcerowicz, P. (2001). The logical structure of the naya method of the Jainas. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 29(3), 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, H. F. (2011). How modern science came into the world: Four civilizations, one 17th-century breakthrough. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  5. Freidman, S. (2001). Definitional excursions: The meanings of modern/modernity/modernism. Modernism/Modernity, 8(3), 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freidman, S. (2006). Periodizing modernism: Postcolonial modernities and the space/time borders of modernist studies. Modernism/Modernity, 13(3), 425–443. 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ganeri, J. (2001a). Philosophy in classical India: The proper work of reason (pp. 134–137). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ganeri, J. (2001b). Argumentation, dialogue and the Kathāvatthu. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 29(4), 485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ganeri, J. (2002). Jaina logic and the philosophical basis of pluralism. History and Philosophy of Logic, 23, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kathāvatthu [Elements of Dialogue], ed. Arnold C. Taylor. Pali Text Society, text series nos. 48, 49. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Vol. I, first published 1894, Vol. II, first published 1897); trans. S.Z. Aung and C.A.F. Rhys Davids, Points of Controversy, or, Subjects of Discourse: Being a Translation of the Kathāvatthu from the Abhidhammapiṭaka. Pali Text Society, translation series no.5. (London: Luzac & Co. Reprint 1960).Google Scholar
  11. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  13. Malliṣeṇa, Syādvādamañjarī of Malliṣeṇa with the Anyayoga-vyavaccheda-dvātriṃśikā of Hemacandra, ed. A. B. Dhruva (Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series No. 83, Bombay, 1933), 167.9–18; trans. Balcerowicz, P. (2001). The logical structure of the naya method of the Jainas. Journal of Indian Philosophy 29.3, 379–403, 395.Google Scholar
  14. Needham, J. (1969). The grand titration: Science and society in East and West. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  15. Priest, G. (2008). Jaina logic: A contemporary perspective. History and Philosophy of Logic, 29(3), 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Radhakrishnan, R. (2002). Derivative discourses and the problem of signification. The European Legacy, 7(6), 783–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Subrahmanyam, S. (1998). Hearing voices: Vignettes of early modernity in South Asia, 1400–1750. Daedalus, 127(3), 75–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SussexFalmerUK