Postmodernism refers to an obsolete modernism. Even if the two coexist, the relation of succession which binds them is useful. It is however too easy to infer that being obsolete, would be enough, e.g. for CM, to make it modern. Modernity too is a revolution, i.e. rejects as obsolete a past, which may also still survive.

In what is thus CM modern, and in what is it possibly medieval?

What characterizes medieval thinking is specificity. Reality is governed by an immanent order, largely inscrutable, which assigns to everything and everybody its own position, role, and behaviour. The typical medieval data structure is thus the list. Satisfaction is brought by passive contemplation, and accumulation of items, without exerting critical spirit.

Modernity is active: it detects generic features by applying discrimination using explicit and well-defined criteria. Note that it is the criteria which one ought to define, not the categories. The latter are inferred by the application of the law. Modernity too postulates a universal order, but this one is transcendent. Everybody is challenged to find one's role.

CM is medieval in its definition of four independent activities (identification, versioning, auditing, reporting). It is a discipline which didn't yet make its copernician revolution.

It is however modern in its submission to disciplines which have made their own revolution: the theory of management, coming from politics or strategy (of war), and more recently (with the concept of governance) from finance.

Let's state again that SCM must be postmodern, which does not postulate a transcendent order at all! Hence the need for management in a specific (note the antithetic move!) sense. Let's also note that SCM assumes a relationship to philosophy similar but contrary to the allegiance of CM to finance or power ideologies.

-- MarcGirod - 12 Aug 2011