3089: Modern

Modern

|< < Prev #3089 (May 14, 2025) Next > >|

Title text: Scholars are still debating whether the current period is post-postmodern or neo-contemporary.

|< < Prev Random Explanation Next > >|

Explanation

This strip references a perennial naming problem where academic jargon and everyday language meet. Shortly after the industrial revolution (or perhaps the Renaissance) contemporaneous things were significantly different and labeled "modern" by historians, whether it's labor relations, art, economic organization, literature, architecture, etc. The "modern" political movements emphasize optimizing society in different ways. The further development of culture to reject the idea you can optimize society, or that trying to do so is a bad idea, became known as post-modernism.

However, in standard English, modern retains its meaning of "contemporaneous" or "current era", so one can end up discussing a 'modern' era of stuff that comes after the rise of a Post-Modern (from an academic context) era of stuff, which doesn't really sound sensical. One can thus have a movie called "Modern Times", from 90 years ago, which describes a world which is very different from today's modern times.

The problem has arisen because once an era is named it is difficult or impractical to rename it later. The term "Modern" first began being used to describe an era in the early 20th century, especially to refer to art, and then in relation to that "Early Modern" was retrospectively applied to the period before it that were related to it. Once things had moved beyond that then "post-modernity" was a natural way of modifying the name. "Mid-century Modern", was again, a retrospective modification not used at the time. However, things have now moved so far beyond even post modernity, that further words are needed. This is itself a relatively 'modern' problem that possibly arose from the Victorian scholarly desire to allocate names to periods (Classical, Romantic, Renaissance etc.) based upon the perceived societal trends of the individuals, and often across greater periods of time, rather than any single monarch or period of succession.

Prior to that historians would have discussed a time period based on the ruler at the time, and for a given region of influence, as those in charge were believed to be the most important factor, not the masses. Hence 'Ming dynasty' (China, 1368-1644), 'Tudor period' (England and Wales, 1485 and 1603), 'The Commonwealth' (Republican British Isles, 1649-1660), 'Napoleonic' (France and beyond, ~1804-1815), 'Victorian' (British Empire and related lands, 1837-1901) and 'Soviet Era' (USSR, 1922-1991). Though, depending upon the context/comparison being made, all these potentially overlapping terms and more ('19th Century', 'The Interbellum', 'The Depression', 'The Swinging Sixties') may still be considered apt.

Transcript

[At the bottom of the panel a timeline is shown. It consist of two lines, one a bit above the other, and they are both open in both ends with two dots continuing both before and after the solid lines. There are ticks along the bottom of the two lines, and every tenth tick is longer and connects with the top line. There are four of these which are all labeled with a year written under the bottom line. The first tick is one of those connecting to the upper line, but after the last of those there are four more small ticks.]

1850 1900 1950 2000

[Above the timeline there are five brackets indicating segments on the time line, each of them covering a segment from the previous to the next, and the first and last are open with a few dots indicating hey continue before or after the time line. Each of them has a sharp pivot in the middle of the bracket pointing up to a label for that period of time. In the fourth case the pivot is very high to make room for the text, as it would else conflict with the previous text. The entire timeline is thus divided into these five segments. The length of each bracket varies a lot, with the middle of the five by far the shortest. But the two at the ends are open and the entire length of these cannot be determined. The labels and the time period their brackets cover:]

[Before 1850 until 1880:]

Early Modern

[1880 until 1945:]

Modernist

[1945 until 1965:]

Mid-century modern

[1965 until 2000:]

Postmodern

[2000 until past 2020:]

Modern

[Caption below the panel:]

The use of the word "modern" to refer to a bunch of specific historical periods is a fun prank by historians.

Trivia

Eleven days after the publication of this comic, SMBC published Sylph, a strip in which he mentions that Early Modern English starts in 1500.

  Add comment        Create topic (use sparingly)       Refresh 

Discussion

Hate to be that guy, but wow, it’s empty Broseph (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This strip reminded me of the comments in 3063. Historians / historiographers typically define (early) "modernity" to begin around 1500. early modernity 172.71.182.126 19:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

A similar problem exists, where a recent version of the Bible is known as the New Revised Standard Version. It will be a bit awkward when it is not new, revised, or standard. BobcatInABox (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It's already happened. 162.158.41.167 06:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming it (and the NRSVue) is still at least a version, though. And one, or even both, also an edition. ;) 172.68.229.139 08:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Tru dat. But the NRSV can no longer be considered "new" (assuming editorial and not, say, geological, time scales) or "standard" (that title has passed to the NIV, at least as measured by sales and by usage in English-language Protestant denominations). As for "revised", the original Standard (= King James) Bible was first published in 1611, with the "Standard" revision in 1769. The "Revised [Standard] Version" debuted in 1881. The NRSV, 1989, and the NRSVue, 2017. On this trajectory, by the end of the century, AI will be producing a new version every 30 seconds or so. 172.71.147.85 15:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not the only one that sees NRSV and instinctively think it's an unmanned submersible of some kind. RegularSizedGuy (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Not unmanned, no. Personally, it's seaQuest NRSV... ;) 172.70.90.198 17:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The US Military has a similar problem: naming a system "Next-Gen [X]" but then the "Next Gen" item eventually becomes the current generation, and is eventually moving towards being obsolete and you need a successor (next-next gen?).172.69.6.111 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess the phone companies got it right with the 3G, 4G, 5G naming. Barmar (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Except for that 10G glitch. And Dilbert predicted people copyrighting "8G" years before that. 104.23.172.75 20:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a (not always consistent) "n^th generation" classification system that is quite developed. The F-22 Raptor is a 5^th Generation fighter, for example, with the (next-)next-gen ones being designed for the next decade being 6^th. Though, yes, "Next Gen" still pops up (currently the programs I know of are mostly aimed at the solutions for #6, of course). 141.101.99.129 22:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

See the Army's now-laughably-named "Command Post of the Future", which wasn't that futuristic even when it debuted in 2004. 172.71.250.103 07:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't there an earlier strip describing a similar problem on Wikipedia edits, maybe tied to the recency bias? There's the idea that every more recent slice needs a new, relevant name. It also seems to work going backwards, where humanity's genus, tribe, subfamily, and family are "homo", "hominini", "homininae", and "hominidae" respectively. We seem to crave a name for every arbitrary slice that is relevant for a particular researcher. And now I'm thinking of Futurama's "New New York". I'm surprised there's not already a New New York somewhere. 162.158.233.117 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Eventually, there'll be a New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New York...

Anyway, I actually live not far from a(nother) New York, and am also a regular visitor to (old) York. So I may not have been to New York, New York, on my travels, but I've got it covered on both sides. (I have been to both new Boston and the old one, but only been to the old Washington, both the original Richmond and its first copycat (but none of the US copycopyⁿcats), etc.) 162.158.216.175 22:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've a suspicion I know who you are.

I'm gonna say...you ain't heavy? Yorkshire Pudding (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, no. Sorry, I'm not aware of any fraternal relationship. Not just not with you, but not with anyone. ;) Nice to know there are potentially more of you out there, though.

I also forget where I think you're exactly from, from past information, but I do know that it's a different corner from me. Though I think you wisely left it vague, and I'm happy to be even vaguer (hence why I supplied multiple possibilities)... I think it's only rather specific (sort-of-)local knowledge that even let guess what more exacting info I think I know about you. West Riding, for starters, but I'm not going to narrow you down further. :p 172.70.86.134 22:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, no, it was not a suspected fraternal connection, though I imagined that phrasing would imply it – not being heavy was something of a shibboleet.

And yes – had there still been a West Riding, my origin would have been within it. Yorkshire Pudding (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I know where you live now /j Commercialegg (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

...to within 3 million acres or so, sure... ...maybe! /jj 172.69.43.221 05:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

687. I'm surprised how often people confuse linear and areal dimensions. I think I've seen people use acres as a measure of distance twice in the last week. 172.69.109.89 18:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 ? It's "somewhere within a nominal area of a given size", shirley? 172.70.90.8 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep. An acre of spaghetti could be 4,000 km x 1 mm. "I know where you live within an acre" could mean "I know where you live within 4,000 km." That, multiplied by 3,000,000 takes you 80 AU away, well past the Kuiper Belt. 172.71.90.30 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Where do I post site suggestions?¿?¿?¿?¿ Aprilfoolsupdate! (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

What kind of suggestion? (And, for that matter, what kind of site?!?) Though I would probably start by clicking on the Community Portal link in the side navbar over <- there (and up a bit?). Might also be worth seeing if your potential suggestion already has something like it, rather than add a new section the repeats one (or more) past subheader(s). Also might help you find which sub-page suits your particular input. 172.69.43.221 05:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I remember as a kid asking my parents: "Why does the New Testament look so old?". 162.158.245.161 06:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

In German it makes sense, sort of - "modern" can also be a verb, meaning "to rot" :-) 162.158.245.137 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Some Gideon-types (maybe not actual Gideons, but of the same mind) came to my school one day (possibly they did it every year for each new age of students, never checked) and did a bit of basic god-bothering stuff with us. Either separate from the actual Religious Education class (which might have had more abrahamic=>judeo-christian=>christian=>protestant stuff, at times, but actually did properly cover other religions and wider belief systems) or as a once-only replacement for it (adjourning from the usual classroom, at its usual time, and instead meeting these 'missonaries' in one of the non-classroom rooms).

...anyway... we were given handy-sized NTs. (Probably I still have mine, somewhere, because I rarely get rid of any book, of any kind, but I know other classmates probably were happily scattering them to the four winds as soon as the fancy took them.) My most immediate impression was the disappointment that it was just the NT. Whatever I thought about the ultimate veracity of either (not much, even at that age), I already knew that all the actual exciting stuff was in the OT. All the 'New' stuff basically boils down to "Be excellent to each other, dudes!" (as paraphrased by Bill and Ted) and a mixed bag of minor peril and miscarriage of justice. Whereas the 'Old' bits has various cities being destroyed, various multigenerational soap-opera plots and two completely different explanations for how everything began! They don't write 'em like that any more. Well, they do, but between The Book Of Mormon (the Joseph Smith one, not the Broadway one) and the various works of L. Ron Hubbard ("Mission: Earth" was even more escapist than "Battlefield Earth", and would have been even easier to badly make into a movie!) there's a lot of variation. ;)

Though given how much might have been lost in translation, maybe I also ought to try reading everythihg in the original Klingon... 172.68.229.139 08:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Ever notice how the words modern and modem can resemble each other when presented in the correctly chosen typeface, point size and kerning? We could have had a 56k modern if we squinted sideways. 172.71.30.251 11:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Me when the New Super Mario Bros. series is over a decade old at this point lmao. Also, not willing to delete Incase I'm wrong, but what is this bit about communism and fascism?172.69.70.13 12:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe it's being suggested that these particular two 'different' philosophies (not necessarily, though, if one believes they just aimed for the same basic result from different directions) were developed in reaction to the more monarchical systems of government, both given impetus from the experiences of The Great War (though not just that) to create a different form of figurehead-dominated politics that was considered, by their proponents, a "modern" solution. Over time, various 'problems' were identified (not least WW2, that revealed Fascism's nature, though Communism temporarily ended up in a better position). Much of the rest of the world ended up moving on from the vestiges of 'traditional monarchy' over this time, too, but not the same way (and, arguably, with different problems - many still quite real or possibly getting worse). There are those who may think that Fascism/Communism actually could still work (perhaps if done properly!), but the original eras of these are now more retro than modern so perhaps (unless you're good at rewriting history) not under those particularly poisoned names.

Or so I understood it. Not sure I'd say it like that, or consider it an apt addition to this article, but then I'm not a professional (political-)historian and don't have the in-depth expertise to judge its accuracy in full. 172.70.86.157 13:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Both 'isms mentioned here have roots a fair bit older than The Great War. The bundle-of-sticks-ism is possibly the oldest form of governance there is, if you define it loosely. (Please note that that is more of a condemnation than endorsement.) --DW 172.69.74.237 14:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Definitely (and I nearly mentioned that Germany copied Italy's model, while Japan joined in from a still Imperial perspective). Though the pressures of fighting WW1 catalysed Russia's revolution (mid-fight) and many other systems (e.g. Italy) developed both -isms to some degree or other; both the Red Flags and the Black Shirts were plentiful enough in Britain, at times, too, interbellum, arguably held off by Churchill (along with other far more dodgy things) before he even had to deal with the next coming war. Spain became the "rehersal" for the various factions. For post-Kaiser Germany, the resulting defeat plus post-Verseilles demands fuelled drives for both forms of 'socialism' (the 'national' type ending up in total control, now on an Italy+ track such that most people often forget poor old Benito's part in inspiring it), setting up circumstances for the next bout. Not sure that such things could have been avoided, without WW1, but it definitely forced matters and shaped the 'modern' world differently from how it might have done if the First Great War had only boiled over later. (With different personalities, a few of the same original errors, probably a smattering of more advanced mil-tech or lost opportunities to have learnt from earlier (less effective) wide-area weaponry/long-range weaponry against both enemy and civilian targets - a rich vein for alternate history!)

But I say this only to help with 5he "what is this about...?", which I took to mean not quite knowing how (in their time) they were considered modern answers to age-old questions, only to become different (and eventually dated) problems on the way to today's (still problematic) future. The old "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" thing applies in spades, here... 172.69.224.169 15:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that seems out of place and not pertinent to the comic itself. It is true that those and other 'isms arose because of societal upheavals associated with various [adj]modern things, but that's trivially true of... almost everything. --DW 172.69.74.237 14:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess that those phrases are there as a segue to explain post-modernism? But the wording is kinda janky and those 2 schools of thought may not be the best examples for this --anon 162.158.79.56 17:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please delete the whole phrase, "and evolved into Communism, and its counter Fascism" since that statement is altogether false. Communism and Fascism are both a form of Marxist totalitarianism. They only differ in implementation and not in ideology. Communism forbids all private ownership, while fascism allows only that private ownership that subjects itself to control by the state. Possibly, the whole section about labeling political movements unrelated to the comic since it doesn't match the categories and time periods depicted in the comic. I vote to take it all out. Rtanenbaum (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

You are way off. A one-dimensional take on social structures like yours is rarely accurate. (I agree that the whole thing needed to be deleted cause it wasn't pertinent to the explanation, though.) Transgalactic (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Modern just means "current". I think the text makes it seem like the fact that the name "modern" as a technical term and the normal use of the word are different meanings of the same word is just a coincidence, as if the term "modern" was extended to refer to contemporary events from its use to describe contemporary philosophy and the like. Instead, "the fault", so to say, lies with those who used the word "modern" to describe the philosophy and the like in the first place. From what I can tell, "modern" does originally mean "current" or something close to it. To use it as a descriptor for things that will not stay "modern" is the ultimate cause. While this can be read into the current article, I think the overall feeling of the article on that issue goes in the wrong direction. Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree: The term "modern" is a modern phenomenon. The expectation that society "develops", "improves" or "progresses" in a linear way, and that whatever is "new", "novel", "innovative", etc. is likely better only emerged during modernity. Medieval Europe imagined the world as static, some cultures interpret it as circular (if you grew up thinking that progress is natural, think about how every human goes through life in a fundamentally similar way from birth to death, with each person all over again). Some think it's due to the rise of an anthropocentric world view (where you imagine that you shape the world in a significant way), some think it's due to capitalism (where the economy isn't based on maintaining life, but on maximizing the profits of those who own and invest capital). So if we still associate "modern" with "current, fashionable, chic, interesting, improved, good", that could just be a symptom that some things haven't changed much since the European 16th century. Transgalactic (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Correction of "postmodern" in the explanation: Postmodernism is a much more nuanced philosophical stance than "belief in progress is futile or harmful", though that's probably where you can pinpoint the transition from one era to the other best: the combined horror of the Nazis' industrial system of murder and the nuclear explosion on August 6th 1945 ended modernism. But postmodernism still believes in human development (though in a less linear, more wandering and tangled way), it's still strongly based on modern stances against aristocracy / class society / hereditary privileges, and just like modernism it certainly still tries to overcome blind faith in traditions. Anyone feeling up to writing a nice short sentence in the explanation? Transgalactic (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem myself. Surely once you're past 'pre-modern' you're just back to 'archaic' or something in the cycle? 172.70.85.4 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

According to the nGram viewer, modern peaked in 1928, continued relatively strongly until 1955, then fell off a cliff for the next four decades or so. I blame Marty McFly. RegularSizedGuy (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't we all! -- B1FF 17:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Who can ever forget the Star Trek Next Generation episode, "A Fistful of Datas", where they ran the holodeck program on the "Ancient West"? Mr. I (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I remember one of my English teachers referred to a certain 4th-wall break in a Shakespeare play as "proto-postmodernism".

StapleFreeBatteries (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
        Add comment