– Natasya Aulia
MODERNITY IS OFTEN understood as a product of European history that was then imposed as a universal standard for the world. This paradigm places the Global South as an entity that is always lagging behind, “less modern,” and must catch up by imitating Western development models. However, an important question that now arises is to what extent the Global South is able to define its own standards of modernity, not only as a critique of Eurocentric modernity, but also as an operational alternative. Through conceptual studies and case studies from Asia, Latin America, and Africa, evidence has emerged of a shift towards contextual plural modernities, although still overshadowed by structural obstacles such as financial and technological dependence (Fikriyah, 2024).
[ Russia based Political Philosopher Alexander Dugin on Global South and Modernity in an exclusive interview with COGGS. ]
Historically, the category of the “Global South” was born not as a geographical description, but as a political construct rooted in the legacy of colonialism and Western-biased modernization. (Fry, 2017) emphasizes that the Global South was shaped by relations of domination that not only deprived it of resources, but also destroyed the value systems, knowledge, and future orientation of societies in the South. Modernity, in this case, cannot be separated from colonialism, which created conditions of “ruination” and ongoing dependency. This understanding shows that the Global South’s efforts to define standards of modernity are essentially an attempt at decolonizing knowledge (decoloniality) that seeks to dismantle old epistemic structures.
The concept of “multiple modernities” developed by Einstadt (2000) offers a theoretical framework for understanding these dynamics. Rather than a single linear path toward Western modernity, modernity can be understood as a plural process rooted in the traditions, institutions, and histories of each society. In the context of the Global South, multiple modernities are evident in the combination of global technology adoption and local values, such as the digitization of public services in India linked to social inclusion, or the solidarity economy model in Brazil that emphasizes distributive justice. In other words, the Global South is not only a consumer of modernity but also a producer of alternative standards.
However, the process of articulating plural modernities in the South is not easy. Structural barriers remain strong. A report (Aynaoui et al., 2023) published by ISPI, ORF, and PCNS shows that although the economies of the Global South now contribute a significant proportion of global GDP, political representation and decision-making capacity in international institutions remain uneven. For example, BRICS, which collectively controls 26% of global GDP, only has 14% of the votes in the IMF, an indication of epistemic and institutional injustice that hinders sovereignty in determining development standards. In these conditions, the discourse on epistemic sovereignty becomes increasingly relevant.
Indonesia and the ASEAN region provide concrete illustrations of how the Global South is attempting to negotiate its own modernity. As a country with a long colonial history, Indonesia has developed a development model that attempts to combine democracy with local cultural plurality. Meanwhile, ASEAN collectively promotes the concept of the ASEAN Way, which emphasizes consensus and non-intervention, a governance model that is often considered “unmodern” by Western standards, but is functional in maintaining regional stability (Fikriyah, 2024). Similarly, India, with its Digital India program, is not simply adopting Western technology, but emphasizing national data sovereignty. Brazil, through its social policies, presents a form of modernity that emphasizes the distribution of welfare, while South Africa seeks to articulate modernity through the discourse of Ubuntu, which emphasizes collectivity.
Although the discourse on the Global South is growing stronger, we must not turn a blind eye to the potential for fragmentation within it. As noted by (Shield, 2021), the term Global South often oversimplifies reality, given that countries included in this category have different political interests, economic orientations, and historical experiences. Differences in attitudes toward global issues, such as responses to the war in Ukraine or the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, demonstrate that solidarity within the Global South is not always linear or consistent. Therefore, when discussing alternative modernity from the Global South, it is important to avoid viewing it as a homogeneous bloc. It is precisely this internal diversity that needs to be taken into account so that the proposed standards of modernity do not lose their legitimacy or relevance.
In the context of policy design and cultural practices, (Fry, 2017) asserts that criticism of Eurocentrism is only the first step. What is more urgent is to build a knowledge ecosystem based on the needs, values, and local realities of communities in the Global South. This means that the Global South must develop a policy architecture that tangibly supports sovereignty standards, whether in the form of technology regulations, digital data governance, or development indicators that are more sensitive to social and environmental contexts. If the Global South has often been in a position of being determined by global actors, now is the time to move towards becoming an active actor that determines its own path, not only in discourse but also in institutional practice.
The concept of sustainment proposed by Fry (2017) is crucial to understanding the new direction of modernity in the Global South. Sustainment emphasizes the importance of maintaining a sustainable relationship between design, modernity, and the survival of the planet. This sustainment-based model of modernity opens up space for the Global South to offer new standards that differ from the Western model of extractive industrialization. Examples can be found in renewable energy programs in Africa that emphasize local community solutions, or in digital economy practices in Asia that expand women’s participation. The report (Aynaoui et al., 2023) also highlights that more and more Southern countries are beginning to link their development agendas to principles of social inclusivity and environmental sustainability, rather than solely economic growth.
Overall, the question “Can the Global South define its own standards of modernity?” can be answered with cautious optimism. There is ample empirical and conceptual evidence showing that Southern countries are moving towards a form of modernity that is more in line with local needs and values. However, significant obstacles remain, ranging from financial dependence on international financial institutions, technological dominance by developed countries, to global knowledge hegemony that places Western theories and experiences as the main benchmark.
Therefore, efforts to build a Global South version of modernity cannot stop at criticizing the West, but must be realized in the form of strong policy development, regulations that favor domestic interests, and an independent knowledge ecosystem. This challenge is also a great opportunity. If successful, the Global South can show that modernity does not have to mean imitating European or American models, but can arise from the historical experiences, cultures, and creativity of Southern societies themselves. In other words, modernity from the Global South has the potential to bring about new standards that are more inclusive, fair, and sustainable for the world.
[ Natasya Aulia is an Indonesian intern at COGGS and student of International Relations.]
