Transmodernity: A New Paradigm1
Rosa María Rodríguez
Magda
(Translation by Jessica Aliaga Lavrijsen)
I do not know if one
can become the owner of words, nonetheless terms emerge, they are coined and
circulate, with greater or lesser success. In this case, since I have made it
the axis of my reflections for more than twenty years, I have developed a
theory about it and I do not know that it has been used before consistently, I
think I can claim the maternity of the concept. Maternity in the open sense
that such a process is: generation within one’s self, childbirth, attention,
care, and finally release of the creature so that it can grow in the various
interactions that the outside world offers.
As I said elsewhere,2 the term arose in a conversation that took place with
Jean Baudrillard at his home in Paris, back in 1987. Reflecting on the
postmodern school, which he refused to ascribe to, I told him that more than a
“post” situation, if we took into account his appreciations on “transpolitique”,
“transexualité”, in line with his theorisations about the empire of simulation
and hyperreality, we might well call our time “Transmodernity”.
With this concept I
have tried to demarcate what, in my view, constitutes a true paradigm shift
that can illuminate gnoseological, sociological, ethical and aesthetic aspects
of our present. And so I started to put it into my book La sonrisa de Saturno. Hacia
una teoría transmoderna [Saturn’s
Smile. Towards a Transmodern Theory],
developing other aspects in El modelo
Frankenstein. De la diferencia a la cultura post
[The
Frankenstein model. From Difference to the Culture of Post], and
concretizing its theorizing in Transmodernidad
[Transmodernity].
Certainly, it is
logical that a denomination composed by the incorporation of a prefix to a
concept like “Modernity”, axis of many debates in the last decades, will emerge
spontaneously and independently in different disciplines and with various
ideological proposals (although, I insist, I have no record that it has used
before I coined it in 1989, as a new theoretical configuration, with a
structured foundation, beyond a mere random and punctual use). However, if we
want to outline the history of the various meanings of the term, we shall quote
my dear friend Enrique Miret Magdalena, who told me that, years ago, he had
used the term in a conference, which was never published, as a way of
exemplifying a new synthetic period. Nevertheless, he did not resume the term
until 2004 in a chapter of one of his books, La vida merece la pena ser vivida
[Life is Worth Living] (2004).
Also Jüri Talvet, Estonian Hispanic Philologist, has also used it occasionally to denominate the present poetry
which seeks to escape the exhausted postmodern canon. I cite these two
coincidences, of the many scattered that have occurred and will no doubt
continue to emerge. However, there are only three authors or schools, who,
after 1989, have tried to apply the concept with theoretical pretensions.
Thus, the Argentine-Mexican philosopher Enrique Dussel, from his book
Postmodernidad,
Transmodernidad [Postmodernity,
Transmodernity] (1999), frames it in
the context of the philosophy of liberation and reflection on Latin-American
identity, taking as transmodern theories those that, coming from the Third
World, claim a proper place facing Western modernity, incorporating the look of
the Postcolonial subaltern other.
With varying meanings,
the notion of “transmodernity” has appeared sporadically in the framework of
meetings related to the culture of peace, intercultural dialogue or the
philosophy of law. Especially, Marc Luyckx has reiterated the concept, using it
from 1998 onwards, since the seminar “Gouvernance et Civilisations”, which he
coordinated in Brussels, organized by The Prospecting Cell of The European
Community, in collaboration with the World Academy of Arts and Sciences.
According to the way he applies it, transmodernity would hope for a synthesis
between premodern and modern stands, constituting a model in which the
coexistence of both is accepted, in order to reconcile the notion of progress
with the respect for cultural and religious difference, trying to stop the
rejection, mainly from Islamic countries, to the Western
view of modernity. Ziauddin Sardar, Etienne Le Roy and
Christoph Eberhard have also used it in this same sense of dialogue between
cultures.
A third area where a
certain theorisation has been developed is architecture. In 2002 the Austrian
Cultural Forum of New York programmed the exhibition: “TransModernity. Austrian
Architects”. And Marcos Novak, who co-managed with Paul Virilio between 1998
and 2000 the Fondation Transarchitectures in Paris, has strengthened the notion
of transarchitecture as the liquid architecture of the new virtual space. The
personal and intellectual closeness of Virilio and Baudrillard are remarkable,
and thus Novak’s use of the term, still focused on a specific area, is more
akin to the worldview I use as a starting point and that I have developed
theoretically.
All these coincidences
in the use of a term, beyond the diversity of meanings, show the same grasp of
the contradictions of modernity and the search for a new model that will
explain the changes that operate in our present. From this common perception, I
will expose my conception of Transmodernity, convinced as I am that we should
not only be alert to the transformations that are operating in the contemporary
scene, but also that it is necessary, beyond disperse and punctual enunciation,
to develop a consistent theory, which will clearly define what, in my view, is
an effective paradigm shift. Reducing Transmodernity to a dialogue of
civilizations or to a model that palliates the weaknesses of Western modernity
represents a voluntarism, no doubt praiseworthy, but still modern. We must
start, abandoning old illusions, from the analysis of the crisis of modernity,
of postmodern criticism, until we arrive at the configuration of the new
conceptual and social paradigm. “Trans” is not a miracle prefix, or the longing
for an angelic multiculturalism; it is not the synthesis of modernity and
premodernity, but of modernity and postmodernity. It constitutes, in the first
place, the description of a globalized, rhizomatic, technologic society,
developed from the first world, confronted with its others, while at the same
time it penetrates and assumes them; and secondly, it constitutes the effort to
transcend this hyperreal, relativistic enclosure. As I have previously written:
“Transmodernity is not an NGO for the third world, and it is good that they
know as soon as possible, just as we should lucidly understand that it is
neither a new technological and happy utopia. It is the place where we are, the
place where the excluded are not present. With that we all will have to deal
with” (Rodríguez Magda,
Transmodernidad 16).
Nevertheless, we must
explain this “not being present” of those who support antimodern stands, for,
if Western modernity excluded certain cultures, peoples, ethnic
and religious groups, modernization itself draws the
map where they emerge, also generating a sort of paradoxical synthesis between
premodernity and postmodernity. Thus, for example, the phenomenon of Islamic
terrorism develops its assets of spectacularity and operational strategy to a
large extent thanks to the media and cybernetic society. Without belittling the
tragedy of the victims, the 9/11 attacks would not have had such a strong
impact without the live broadcasting of the destruction of the Twin Towers, and
the Al-Qaeda reports would not have inoculated the indomitable danger outside
the propagation of encrypted messages that the network’s agility provides. The
challenge to Western society is not exercised from pre and anti-modern
positions, such as Radical Evil; the alien and inassimilable Other, while
holding the domain of the real by its despise of death, circulates
transmodernly through the veins of our transmodern society; it is physically
and specularly structured in the same reticular form, and that is what causes
us a diffuse anguish, an unavoidable terror.
The transmodern culture
that I describe departs from the perception of the present common to various
authors and which they have referred to in different ways, also offering varied
answers, such as Jameson’s “late capitalism”, Bauman’s “liquid modernity”,
Beck’s “second modernity”, Lipovetsky’s “hypermodernity” or Žižek’s “desert of
the real”. While some focus on the elements of rupture with the modern and
postmodern phases, others postulate a continuity that, in my view, tarnishes
the perception of the paradigm shift that should serve to outline the
conceptual weapons with which to face our contemporaneity.
Modernity was intended
to be postulated as an articulated whole, despite its heterogeneity, as a
positioning for consistent rationality and ethical-social progress. Knowledge
adopted the objective and scientific model, validated by experience and the
progressive control of nature, and supported by the development of technique.
At the same time, an achievable horizon of emancipation of individuals, freedom
and social justice was needed. In this sense, Modernity affirms the necessity
and legitimacy of global or systemic discourses. The postmodern crisis will
denounce the impossibility of such postulates. As is well known, Lyotard, in The Postmodern Condition, proclaimed the
end of the Grand Narratives of unitary paradigms, showing the present as the
space for microtechnologies, heterogeneity, fragmentation and hybridity. Under
the birth of the French Théorie and
of Cultural Studies, great propagandists from American postmodern trends, ideas
spread in the academic world and the media, following simplified readings, such
as: discourse is power (Foucault), textuality (Derrida), subject of desire
(Deleuze), and everything,is simulacrum (Baudrillard). It only needed to be
joined by Fukuyama proclaiming the end of history. Literary criticism spreads,
as a school dogma, from the 80s until nowadays, what the post-structuralist
philosophy had elaborated, with greater strength, years before.3
But when thought
becomes scholastic and commonplace, it betrays the critical impulse that leads
to the emergence of novel conceptualizations. It seems it is time to evaluate
not the rupture that postmodernity represented, but its own bankruptcy, this
is, the crisis of crisis. Can we today, as we enter the 21st century, continue to repeat without self-criticism
all the rhetoric of the post that was
a rupture more than twenty years ago? The foundational thesis of post theorizations was the impossibility
of the Grand Narratives, of a new theoretical totality. Postmodernity meant the
emergence of multiplicity, fragmented and centrifugal, and joyfully
irreconcilable. And yet, in recent times, this myriad of dispersed particles
appear to have regrouped into a chaotic, totalizing whole, emerging a New Grand
Story, of previously unprecedented proportions: Globalization. A New Grand
Story, which does not accept the theoretical or social emancipation of modern
metanarratives, but to the unexpected effects of communication technologies,
the new dimension of the markets and geopolitics. Economic, political,
technological, social, cultural, ecological globalization... where everything
is interconnected, configuring a new fluctuating diffuse magma, but impregnably
all-embracing. It is clear that I am referring not to a certain neoliberal
discourse, which others have called monolythic thinking, but to a real
situation, which in fact includes and surrounds both the incipient
theorizations in its favour as well as the anti-globalization mobilizations:
the totalizing locus in which the
real conditions of our present and its explanatory connate emerge.
This “polycentric world
politics”, in the definition by Rosenau, at the same time also global, is
characterised, according to Beck, by the emergent presence of the following elements:
transnational organizations (from the
World bank to multinational companies, from NGOs to the Mafia...), transnational problems (monetary crises,
climate change, drugs, AIDS, ethnic conflicts...), transnational events (wars, sports competitions, mass culture,
solidarity mobilizations...), transnational
communities (based on religion,
generational lifestyles, ecological responses, racial identities...), transnational structures (labour,
cultural, financial...). From all this it seems that we can conclude the
following: The postmodern affirmation of the impossibility of Grand Narratives
results out-dated; there is a new Grand Narrative, or rather a new Grand Fact,
which must launch innovative theoretical devices: Globalization. Therefore it
would be convenient to contemplate the configuration of the present with the
modifications from a New paradigm. To characterize the new situation, rather
than the prefix “post”, the most appropriate prefix is “trans”, since it
connotes the current form of transcending the limits of modernity; it speaks to
us of a world in constant transformation, based, as we have pointed out, not
only on transnational phenomena, but also on the primacy of the
transmissibility of information in real time, impregnated in transculturality,
in which creation refers to transtextuality and in which artistic innovation is
thought as transavantgarde.
Therefore, if modern culture corresponded to industrial society, and postmodern
society to postmodern culture, a globalized society corresponds to the type of
culture I call transmodern.
To outline the
characteristics of this new paradigm, I will return to some of the views
already set forth in my book La sonrisa
de Saturno. Transmodernity prolongs, continues and transcends Modernity; it
is the return, the copy, the survival of a weak, reduced, light Modernity. The
contemporary area is transited by all trends, memories, possibilities;
transcendent and all-appearance at the same time, voluntarily syncretic in its
“multichrony”. A distanced, ironic return that accepts its useful fiction.
Transmodernity is the postmodern without its innocent breaking-the-rules; it is
image, series, Baroque fugue and self-reference, catastrophe, loop, fractal and
inane repetition; entropy of the obese, bruised data inflation; aesthetics of
the full and of its disappearance, entropic, fatal. Its key is not the post, the break, but the
transubstantiation of paradigms through communicating vessels. Transmodernity
is not a desire or a goal; it is simply there, as a strategic situation,
complex and non-eligible, random; it is neither good nor bad, neither
beneficial nor unbearable... and it is everything together... It is the
abandonment of representation, the realm of simulation, of the simulation that
is known to be real (Rodríguez Magda, La
sonrisa de Saturno. Pp. 141-42).
The primacy of the virtual
places us, after the death of old metaphysics, in the challenges of a new
cyberontology, of the hegemony of digital reason. But it is not the festive
celebration, without any ethical and political commitment, of a supposed death
of reality, but rather of the necessary consideration of how material reality
has been amplified and modified by virtual reality. This cannot shut ourselves
up in the realm of signs; after the contributions of semiotics, which read
reality as a set of signifiers, a whole field must be opened up to a demiurgy
on signs4 or an analysis of how
signs generate reality, developing a “simulocracy”, that is, the study of how
simulacra produce spaces and effects of power.
The prefix “trans”
connotes not only the aspects of transformation that I have been pointing out,
but also the necessary transcendence of the crisis of modernity, taking up its
outstanding ethical and political challenges (equality, justice, freedom...),
but assuming postmodern criticism. Post-political statements or postduty cannot
be solved in nihilism, but in the formulation of a horizon that assumes the
ontological vacuum as a rational, creative and committed challenge. For this we
do not need the firm soil of the noumenon,
whose inaccessibility Kant had already noted; the realm of fundamentals can be
replaced by a phenomenology of absence, which nevertheless, factually, is not
muddled in the inaction of relativism. It can also be replaced by a regulative,
formal use of values and ideas, without recurrence to a metaphysical
essentialism, deliberation and choice of the rules of the game for the various
practices, a strategically-situated subject, the assumption of the ontological
commitment of the individual’s defence, a certain sceptical irony towards the
new clashes of fundamentalisms, but without undermining the Enlightment’s
democratic ideal as a required horizon.
Such was the proposal
already developed in my book El modelo
Frankenstein. De la diferencia a la
cultura post. Transmodernity takes up the open challenges of Modernity after the collapse of the
Enlightment’s project. Nowadays, not giving up theory, History, Social Justice
and the autonomy of the Subject, assuming postmodern criticism, means
delimiting a possible horizon for reflection that escapes nihilism, without
compromising with outdated projects, but without forgetting them. It is
necessary to recover values, after the loss of their metaphysical basis, as
regulative ideals, operational simulacra agreed upon for the necessary
pragmatics, logical and social. These are values of a public nature, perhaps
not universal, but universalizable. We are talking, then, of social
transformation, of transcendence of mere practical management, of argumentative
transactions, of the questioning that they go through, transforming and
transforming, the rational (Rodríguez Magda, El modelo Frankenstein,
18).
Globalization
introduces us to the primacy of simultaneity, the territoriality is replaced by
cyberspace, where the global and the local coexist, shaping the “glocal” (in R.
Robertson’s accurate expression), offering a panorama which is not post or
multi but transculcultural, beyond the reactive postcolonial drift that seems
to return to a premodern identity. To left and right the darts appear to be
sharpened by a weak thinking that would have relativised the criteria. But I
think we should be cautious; postmodern criticism evidenced a whole series of
fallacies and unquestioned pretensions. The need of solid criteria cannot make
us forget these precautions and lead us to the point of departure, nor
fundamentalisms, nor tradition, nor theology, nor naturalism nor
communitarianism can offer an alternative. It is not about reaction, but about
the future.
Transmodernity shows
itself as a hybrid formula, totalizing, dialectic synthesis of the modern
thesis and the postmodern antithesis. There is no rupture (hence the necessary
abandonment of the prefix post), but
a fluid return of a new configuration of the previous steps. A comparison of
the characteristics of the three moments as an approximate propaedeutic, even
at the risk of simplifying, can give us a more intuitive view of the process
and of our current time.
MODERNITY
|
POSTMODERNITY
|
TRANSMODERNITY
|
|||
Reality
|
Simulation
|
Virtuality
|
|||
Absence
|
Presence
|
Telepresence
|
|||
Homogeneity
|
Heterogeneity
|
Diversity
|
|||
Centre
|
Dispersion
|
Network
|
|||
Temporality
|
End of History
|
Instantaneous
|
|||
Reason
|
Deconstruction
|
Monolythic thinking
|
|||
Knowledge
|
Skeptical antifundamentalism
|
Information
|
|||
National
|
Postnational
|
Transnational
|
|||
Global
|
Local
|
Glocal
|
|||
Imperialism
|
Postcolonialism
|
Trans-ethnic
|
|||
|
|
cosmopolitanism
|
|||
Culture
|
Multiculture
|
Transculture
|
|||
End
|
Game
|
Strategy
|
|||
Hierarchy
|
Anarchy
|
Integrated chaos
|
|||
Innovation
|
Security
|
Risk society
|
|||
Economy
|
Economy
|
New economy
|
|||
Industrial
|
Post-industrial
|
_
|
|||
Territory
|
Extraterritoriality
|
Transboundary
|
|||
|
|
ubiquitous
|
|||
City
|
Suburbs
|
Megacity
|
|||
People/class
|
Individual
|
Chat
|
|||
Activity
|
Exhaustion
|
Static connectivity
|
|||
Public
|
Private
|
Obscenity of privacy
|
|||
Effort
|
Hedonism
|
Caring or empathic
|
|||
|
|
individualism
|
|||
Spirit
|
Body
|
Cyborg
|
|||
Atom
|
Quantum
|
Bit
|
|||
Sex
|
Eroticism
|
Cybersex
|
|||
Male
|
Female
|
Transsexual
|
|||
High culture
|
Popular culture
|
Customized popular
|
|||
|
|
culture
|
|||
Avant-garde
|
Postavant-garde
|
Transavant-garde
|
|||
Orality
|
Writing
|
Screen
|
|||
Work
|
Text
|
Hypertext
|
|||
Narrative
|
Visual
|
Multimedia
|
|||
Film
|
Television
|
Computer
|
|||
Press
|
Media
|
Internet
|
|||
Gutenberg Galaxy
|
McLuhan Galaxy
|
Microsoft Galaxy
|
|||
Progress/Future
|
Past revival
|
Final Fantasy
|
|||
(Rodriguez Magda, Transmodernity
34)
When we look at
the three columns, we perceive in the first the impulse of strong modern
thinking; in the second the heterogeneous rupture, and in the third a change of
record, which recasts both in the fulfilment of an incongruous, fictitious, but
real whole. It is not, I insist, a proposal, but a description. It is a matter
of considering what is unique in the present situation, of perceiving how it
shapes a different paradigm. It is the previous step for our understanding, its
analysis and its subsequent transformation.
Let’s take a closer
look at the process.
Modern thinking did not
question reality, but considered it to be dynamic and susceptible of being
transformed by the social actors. The postmodern linguistic shift strengthened
the semiotic sphere; the sign acquired predominance over the referent, the
world looked like a series of painless simulacra for consumers. Transmodernity
offers us a synthesis between material and fiction. Virtual reality is
without existence, it is not reduced to mere fictionalization, but it becomes
true reality. The subject is no longer bogged down in the physical, but it is
not relegated to its passive attenuation in the face of the excess of data
either; it is telepresent and in this way interactive. The Empire of the Same
with its systemic modern motivation will break into the post fragmentation of
the heterogeneous, to finally be converted into assimilable diversity,
identities reappear as specific consumer groups. Is the own cyber-media
universe that gives them visibility, be they ethnic or sexual minorities,
anti-globalization movements or terrorist organizations.
Faced with the idea of
a founding centre, postmodern critique intended itself as rhizomatic,
dispersed, irreconcilable; the transmodern present articulates itself around
the metaphor of the network, which institutes a kind of equilibrium, unstable
but interconnected. Modern temporality was progressive and linear. To this, the
“end of history” opposed. Today celerity becomes quasi-static; instantaneity is
a permanently updated present.
The Enlightenment
bequeathed us a self-critical but strong Reason; Postmodern thinking underwent
a meticulous deconstruction; in these moments, the postmetaphysical era seems tempted
by the equivocal totalization of monolythical thinking. The ideal of modern
knowledge based on reason attempted to reach universality. The criticism of
“post” thrived on relativism and contextualism. Transmodernity seeks to
redirect the myriad of information calling itself “knowledge society”. Modern
states were national. Their fracture generated firstly postnationality, beyond
rupture, the panorama that we find today is decidedly transnational. The economy,
culture, communication, the future of the environment are conceived nowadays as
an interdependent whole.
The modern State has a
simple global imaginary, that is, a universalist longing for its culture, and
an imperialist vocation as to its political expansion: it seeks to consolidate
its territory and project beyond itself. This simple global imaginary was
harshly criticized by postmodern thinking. The momentary attraction for the
local is assumed in this surrounding set that includes the specific, the
Glocal. Modern imperialism was answered by the creation of a postcolonial
thought, which becomes more and more stalled in communitarianist
differentialism, while social reality imposes a transcultural transethnicity
that must still build its own cosmopolitanism.
The modern project
delimited its goals of optimistic progress, the disenchantment of the “post”,
cradled among the cottons of the welfare state, enthroned the happy Yuppie
style of hedonistic individualism. The present gives us a more insecure and
precarious panorama, instability must be managed strategically. Scientific
innovation no longer guarantees the safety of its sustainability, transmodern
contemporaneity is a “risk society”, from the difficult geopolitics between the
East and the West regarding the threat of climate change.
If the modern era was
contemporaneous with the industrial revolution, the postindustrial society
changed the concepts of production, consumption, class, social actor; but
nowadays it is the “new economy” based on financial globalization and new
communication technologies that which sets up a new stadium. The determination
of its own territory, the settlement of modern national states, has even ceased
being a palpable fact. The city becomes a megacity and the spatial model of the
centre/periphery is no longer an alternative or an accommodated lifestyle or an
analysis of power. The ubiquity of transfrontiers establishes a new
cartography.
The notion of citizenship struggles to prolong the
modern formula of political action. But beyond the postmodern individual locked
in his or her hedonistic bubble, exhausted and indifferent, the announced
dangers of autism have remained annulled by new forms of relationship, social
networks (such as chatting sites, Facebook, Twitter), a style of static
connectivity, through which groups communicate and interact. Again we find a
random transmodern synthesis in which action and subject acquire an unsuspected
face, sometimes trivial, others supportive or combative. Reality is not
circulation of goods, objects, and information (bites). The spirit is replaced
postmodernly by the rhetoric of the body, it is converted by means of cyborg technology and sex, beyond
eroticism in cybersex, completing the passage from culture and counterculture
into cyberculture. It is a consumption à
la carte in which the Internet meets a qualitative leap, true hegemony of
the screen, of a process that, when it was born with photography, acquired a
new dimension with the apparition of cinema and later with television. It
passes from the Guttemberg Galaxy of a modernity that revolves around the
printing press to the McLuhan Galaxy, postmodern symbol of the mass media, and
it finally arrives at the cyber-technological empire of what we could today
call the Microsoft Galaxy.
Globalization as an
all-encompassing whole thus constitutes a new situation that requires a renewed
conceptual paradigm. We are no longer in the post but in the trans. It
is a perverse dialectical fulfilment that includes all the attempts to situate
themselves outside, from anti-globalization discourses to fundamentalist
terrorism. There is no “outside”, as in this world everything happens and with
the strategies and instruments that the present gives us. Accepting it is the
first step to think about its geostrategic, economic, cultural complexity. The
archaic bursts, premodern or countermodern appeals are also the shrapnel of
this multiform Chaos. Death, destruction, challenge...
they are on the Internet as well. This is the
condemnation, but also the challenge that Transmodernity will offer us, the
sharpening of the weapons of reason, our sole bastion.
_____________________
1 Published originally
in 2011. Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural
Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(1). Also available
at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/57c8s9gr
2 2004. “Introduction”, Transmodernity.
3 For more on this see
François Cusset’s excellent book French
Theory. Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze & Cía. Y las mutaciones de la vida intelectual en Estados Unidos (2005).
4 Rodriguez Magda uses
the word “semiurgia”, creating a neologism based on the words “sema” (sign) and
“demiurg”.
Works cited
Beck, Ulrich. ¿Qué es la globalizacción? Barcelona:
Paidós, 1998.
Cusset, François. French
Theory. Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze & Cía. Y las mutaciones de la vida intelectual en Estados Unidos.
Barcelona: Melusina, 2005.
Dussel, Enrique. Postmodernidad,
transmodernidad, postmodernidad y transmodernidad.
Puebla: Universidad Iberoamericana, 1999.
Lyotard, Jean-François. La condición postmoderna [The
Postmodern Condition]. Madrid: Cátedra, 1984.
Miret Magdalena,
Enrique. La vida merece la pena de ser
vivida. Madrid: Espasa, 2004. Rodríguez Magda, Rosa María. El modelo Frankenstein. De la diferencia a
la cultura
post. Madrid: Tecnos, 1997.
______. La
sonrisa de Saturno. Hacia una teoría transmoderna. Barcelona: Anthropos,
1989.
______. Transmodernidad. Barcelona: Anthropos,
2004.
Rosenau. James, Turbulence in World Politics. Brighton:
Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990.