Since the late 1970s, many philosophers and social theorists have argued that the classical, modern temporality (with its linear conception of time, organized around a normative account of progress) no longer is a dominant cultural form. As the discourse of postmodernity entered the stage in the 1980s, it became widely assumed that Western societies have entered into either a second, transformed modernity, or a condition beyond the modern altogether most often referred to as “postmodern.” On the basis of the claim that these societies have indeed transformed themselves more or less radically along such lines, this discourse tried to diagnose, assess, and in various ways spell out the cultural and political implications of this shift. My theme in the following is the temporal dimension held to be central to this new social and cultural formation. I suggest that there are good reasons to think that our temporal understanding has in fact undergone a change – both at the individual and at the larger, collective level. I reject, however, the widespread notion that postmodern culture in various ways is resistant to critique, arguing that an adequate response will have to follow modernism in looking for and analyzing cultural production capable of transcending the various continuities and ideologies provided by this culture. While no doubt highly unfashionable, I will claim that the modernist space – which should not be confused with the failures of modernist architecture, or with the spirit of rationalization and functionalism that pervaded modern city planning and design – continues to provide potentials for anticipating new forms of life existing outside the perimeters of homogeneous temporality.