Karl Jaspers’s axial age thesis refers to a demythologizing revolution in worldviews that took place in the first millennium bce. Although his philosophy has been pejoratively described as ‘Werk ohne Wirkung’, this idea has attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years. This article aims to critically engage with the very notion of the axial age by looking first at contextual issues, then at the key claims Jaspers makes, before examining the actuality of the thesis and the problem of its characterization (...) as an ‘age’. The conclusion is that Jaspers’s attempt to unify the complex processes of demythologization under the notion of the axial age has produced a myth, and that this continues to have consequences today. (shrink)

Debates over the causes and consequences of the “Axial Age” – and its relevance for understanding and explaining “modernity” – continue to rage within and across a wide variety of academic disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, archaeology, history, social theory, and cognitive science. We present a computational model that synthesizes three leading theories about the emergence of axial civilizations. Although these theories are often treated as competitors, our computational model shows how their most important conceptual insights and empirically based causal claims (...) can be integrated within a single computational architecture. The plausibility of the latter is supported by the results of our simulation experiments, which were able to simulate the emergence and growth of an axial civilization. The model shows how the relevant theories can be rendered consistent, while challenging the claims of any one to comprehensiveness. (shrink)

As a master narrative for understanding the emergence of the modern world, the concept of a seventeenth-century scientific revolution has been central to the history of science. It is generally believed that this key analytical framework was created in Europe and became widely used for the first time during the Cold War through the writings of Herbert Butterfield and Alexander Koyré. This view, however, is mistaken. The scientific revolution is largely a product of debates about social reconstruction in the United (...) States in the aftermath of World War I. Promoted in a pioneering book by the Austrian immigrant Martha Ornstein, highlighted in a provocative bestseller by the historian James Harvey Robinson, the scientific revolution was taught in thousands of interwar high schools and colleges. Based on John Dewey’s advocacy of “the scientific method” and on evolutionary psychology and anthropology, the concept underpinned campaigns for women’s rights, racial equality, secular humanism, and global peace. These progressive political ambitions were abandoned after World War II, when the scientific revolution became fundamental not only to forging the history of science as a discipline but also to redefining what it meant to be “modern” during an era of decolonization and the consolidation of global capitalism. (shrink)

This article elucidates some connections and divergences between S.N. Eisenstadt’s work on multiple modernities and critical reflections on ‘African modernity’ presented by Africanist scholars. It argues that there is more cross-over between these discussions than is commonly thought when both are seen as parallel responses to the shortcomings of post-war modernization theory. Eisenstadt’s work can inform debates in African Studies concerning the effective power of tradition in postcolonial African societies, and on African interpretations of the ‘cultural programme’ of modernity. The (...) article also discusses some weaknesses in Eisenstadt’s theorizing which arise from an extension of the multiple modernities framework to African societies, namely, an underappreciation of the various modalities of colonial imperialism and racialization, as well as the institutional constraints placed on postcolonial societal elites. It claims that these can be offset via a dialogue with the work of scholars in African Studies. Moreover, it is argued that the paradigm of multiple modernities can more satisfactorily shed light on African trajectories of modernity via the retrieval of tenets of Eisenstadt’s ‘heterodox’ modernization theory and work on post-traditionality, outlined in the 1960s and the 1970s, which include specific reflections on African societies. (shrink)

To adopt the least contentious of several definitions, the currents of thought and motifs in the arts that we associate with the Renaissance had their beginnings in fourteenth-century Florence. By the end of the fifteenth century they had spread out to other Italian cities while, during the sixteenth century, the Renaissance became a cross-European phenomenon. But was there also a “Renaissance beyond Europe”?

The article concerns history, its origins, goals, and end. The article focuses on two concepts of historical development. One is the concept of the “end of history” by Francis Fukuyama. The article’s authors consider in detail the main provisions of this concept. However, the main emphasis is on the critical reception of this concept within the framework of the philosophy of liberation (represented by Arturo Andrés Roig). Roig’s criticism reveals the Eurocentrism inherent in this concept and shows that it carries (...) the main features inherent in the European worldview and European mentality, which is why it is initially perceived as unsuitable for the Latin American continent. The second concept of historical development analyzed in this article is the earlier concept of the “Axial Age” by K. Jaspers. This concept is often perceived as one of the most striking anti-Eurocentric concepts. At the same time, Jaspers himself is regarded as the founder of the dialogue of cultures and intercultural philosophy and a supporter of civilizational pluralism. The article consistently analyzes three aspects of this concept - the motivation for its creation (presented by Jaspers himself), the criteria for identifying historical and prehistoric cultures (and the associated identification of three centers of the axial period), and the question of the possibility of a new axial age. The article argues that Jaspers’ concept can rightly be called Eurocentric rather than anti-Eurocentric, since both in the initial motivation for creating this concept and in the process of its development and vision of the prospects for the possibility of a new axial age, Jaspers proceeds from the presuppositions characteristic of the European worldview, which is universalized by him and presented as objective and the only correct ones. Ultimately, the study shows that the fight against Eurocentrism is a logical continuation of the latter and carries all the main features of the European mentality. (shrink)

This paper argues that the relative stability of ancient Egyptian society during the Middle Kingdom (c.2055 – 1650 BC) can in part be explained by referring to the phenomenon of hermeneutical injustice, i.e., the manner in which imbalances in socio‐economic power are causally correlated with imbalances in the conceptual scheme through which people attempt to interpret their social reality and assert their interests in light of their interpretations. The court literature of the Middle Kingdom is analyzed using the concepts of (...) hermeneutical injustice and ideology. It is argued that while it is true that there was room for maneuver and for internal critique, the efficacy of internal critique was hindered by the structure of the intellectual discourse of Middle Kingdom Egypt. This intellectual discourse was suitable for the interpretation of social reality in a way that allowed the elites to assert their interests, but it was not suitable for the interpretation of social reality in a way that accorded with the interests of the exploited peasantry. (shrink)

In 1873, 75 years before Karl Jaspers published his theory of the Axial Age in 1949, unknown to Jaspers and to contemporary scholars today, Scottish folklorist John Stuart Stuart-Glennie elaborated the first fully developed and nuanced theory of what he termed “the Moral Revolution” to characterize the historical shift emerging roughly around 600 BCE in a variety of civilizations, most notably ancient China, India, Judaism, and Greece, as part of a broader critical philosophy of history. He continued to write on (...) the idea over decades in books and articles and also presented his ideas to the fledgling Sociological Society of London in 1905, which were published the following year in the volume Sociological Papers, Volume 2. This article discusses Stuart-Glennie’s ideas on the moral revolution in the context of his philosophy of history, including what he termed “panzooinism”; ideas with implications for contemporary debates in theory, comparative history, and sociology of religion. It shows why he should be acknowledged as the originator of the theory now known as the axial age, and also now be included as a significant sociologist in the movement toward the establishment of sociology. (shrink)