JOH Habermas

Greetings,
In discussing Daniel Bell and aesthetic modernity, Habermas states:

"Modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the life-world is infected by modernism. Because of the forces of modernism, the principle of unlimited self-realization, the demand for authentic self-experience and the subjectivism of a hyperstimulated sensitivity have come to be dominant" (100-101).

The tone here seems mixed, as modernism is expressed as an infection, yet is the impetus for unlimited self-realization and such. Unless of course u.s-r here is a bad thing. A little further down H refers to Bell's assertion that "Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and the virtues of everyday life" (101). Now we're beginning to feel the intention here. Connecting this notion to "economic and administrative imperatives," H expresses discontent with such thinking, referring to the lacking state of avant-garde (101).

I wonder if modernity hasn't brought with it (at least in America) a tinge of haste and self-indulgence. Though avant-garde was "out there!" during its heyday, it did open some channels, providing flexibility and, at least, offering the initial glimpse of different so that what was to come in PoMo expression would not be wholly rejected. *I say this with near-complete ignorance regarding knowledge of early PoMo expression and its acceptability. Does modern culture really "stir up hatred?" That's heavy. Now, people do tend to hang on to their notions of tradition, familiar convention, and personal virtue - but does one hate the growing changes in trend or acceptability? The striking line in this segment of reading is the assertion "Modernism is dominant but dead" (101). Dominant but dead? I am not sure that I get this, yet it seems to be a measured statement. When I think of dominance, I think of thriving. Of growing, etc. Is H reluctant to invest in PoMo?