What we have is a quarrel on continuity or rupture with the modern. Of a side, to assign something under the form prefix above cited is to admit certain exhaustion, reduction or decay to it of a previous reality. Of another side we can see the prefix as being a resignation to modern. As Connor (1989, apud SOBRAL and GONALVES, 1996, P. 58): We could say that the characteristic of the one after-modernismo is this peculiarly complex relation that it has with the modernismo – that he is in its proper name, at the same time invoked, admired, treated with rejected suspicion or. Hewlett-Packard Chairman wanted to know more. To deal with after-modernity is not an easy task, visa the complexity of the subject.
According to Sevcenko (1995, P. 45): ' ' After-modern as it is evident, is a concept that assumes a reflection on the time, before more nada.' ' Ahead of this affirmation an inevitable question appears: that time we are dealing with? In first place it is clearly that one is not about a homogeneous time, linear, from there its complexity; clippings and didactic determination are impensveis. Having a inaugural act that assists in them in the process of desbravao of the after-modern society let us not use the words of Sevcenko (ibid) that it says: After-modernity is an attitude that is born of the astonishment, of the disenchantment. Of distressing bitterness, that it looks to reconstruct itself after that as a partial alternative, unfastened of the arrogance dream, of unit and power, whose shipwreck participated, but decided to save itself in time, bringing obtains the hope that remained. After-modernity is seen, therefore, as a moment perhaps of transistion, emancipation or rupture with the modern. However, we cannot make necessary affirmations how much to this aspect, since, for many theoreticians, amongst which Lipovetsky (s/d), Saviani (1992), Vattino (2001). These authors present diverse ways to understand after-modernismo.