Bartolomé de las Casas and his critique of modernity

Abstract

We first want to make the distinction between what a critique of modernity entails from a critique of modernity. A very brief philological demonstration is worthwhile: in the "critique of modernity" the preposition that unites is de, which denotes belonging; In contrast, the "critique of modernity" the preposition that unites is a, which denotes the mode of action. But more weight has the political and ontological distinction. For better or for worse, we are all children of modernity, political and ontological criticism depends on where we stand with respect to it. The critique of modernity emanates from it, from the positionality of being, thus demonstrating that modernity has the capacity for self-criticism, either to culminate, as Jürgen Habermas would say. On the other hand, the critique of modernity emanates from exteriority, from the positionality of not being. Criticism in both directions is complex and there is no rigid way to distinguish exactly one from the other, many times they complexly feed each other. The precision of language will contribute much to criticism if we want to make it conceptually substantive. We will briefly see the statements of Enrique Dussel (2007) and Immanuel Wallerstein (2007) about the critique of modernity and universalism by Bartolomé de las Casas.