If we define a century by its actions, then the 21st Century will only truly begin when it finishes, n'est-ce pas?
But obscure definition aside...
It seems you are defining centuries in terms of eras, as opposed to the numerical definition. The 20th century as a parallel to the enlightenment or postmodernism.
I suppose this kind of definiton is tempting to work with - we see the 20th century as one of massive progress, the ninteenth as one of industry (I'm obviously being rather americo-euro centric).
But these 'era style' definitions come after the fact. We could say that the twentieth century truly started with the first world war, or with the development of the moving image, or perhaps the automobile.
However, we are making these choices after the fact, and based on a 'theme' of how the past century has been perceived. I might choose the first world war if I see the C20th as an era of massive war and genocide, or I might choose the moving image if I see it as the era of media and entertainment, or the automobile if it's an era of expansive movement, migration and exploration...
So the choice if how to define it is based upon various options - is the C21st an era of the crumbling of masssive power structures (9/11), or of the strengthening of said power (Iraq, 'war against terror'), or of the cult of celebrity (Brangelina)?
But so soon in the century, it would probably be jumping the gun a bit (fun though gun-jumping can be) to try to pinpoint the defining-features-to-be of our century, rather like the amusing accounts of people who declared a forthcoming era of peace, prosperity and oneness for all at the turn of the last century.
Personally, I think the century will only start when we have teleporters, or when a giant monolith is found on the moon...
Does that answer anything? |
