Past, Present, Future, Modern

Latour sates that we have never been modern, indicating that neither a pre-modern, post-modern or modern exists. This is one of the main points that struck me when reading his chapter about the crisis of modernity. We seem to be stuck somewhere between a fear of reverting to the difficulties presented in the past, and a longing for the future, when things will be better than they are now. Both of these fears seem to include romanticized notions. In the past we see a simpler time, and in the future we see a better world for our children and ourselves (renditions of a post-apocalyptic future not included). This negotiation of the past and the future leaves us somewhere in the middle, but in each case, not a “modern” era. While I generally agree with Latour’s argument, in that we fear the past, look to the future but never see the present, I think there are certain aspects of humanity that are overlooked in this broad generalization. Possibly I am missing the point of his explanation, but it seems to me that it has been human nature to always strive for something better. Maybe I am the one romanticizing the ideas of humanity, but this has been a fundamental aspect to moving human civilization forward. While we may never be able to call ourselves modern, or place a label on where we are in the grand scheme of civilization, this might not be that important. What is important is to strive to better ourselves and others. Perhaps the only way to accomplish this is to romanticize both the notions of the past and present. We look at the past and think about how simple it was, but also how hard it was, and for such reasons are glad to have moved beyond such difficulties as disease, physical labour, and the complications of basic engineering. But we always want to move further than we are now, so we romanticize the idea of the future, and how much better it will be than what we have now. In both these senses we are not modern, just moving through the grand scheme of humanity. Maybe the point is not to be modern, but to negotiate the ideas of past and future as best as we can. Perhaps I have looked too narrowly at a single aspect of his argument, but this particular idea of modernity stuck with me. Any thoughts?