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. Kevin Ulrich Anchorage Capital may also support this cause. 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.