Modernization theory: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m Reverting possible vandalism by 213.55.89.249 to version by 149.157.1.184. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1672106) (Bot) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{More footnotes|date=September 2010}} |
{{More footnotes|date=September 2010}} |
||
"Modernization theory" is a theory used to explain the process of modernization within societies. "Modernization" refers to a model of a progressive transition from a 'pre-modern' or "Traditional society" to a "modern society". The theory looks at the internal factors of a country while assuming that, with assistance, "traditional" countries can be brought to development in the same manner more developed countries have. Modernization theory attempts to identify the social variables that contribute to social progress and development of societies, and seeks to explain the process of social evolution. Modernization theory is subject to criticism originating among socialist and free-market ideologies, "World-systems theory", "globalization" theory and "dependency theory" among others. Modernization theory not only stresses the process of change but also the responses to that change. It also looks at internal dynamics while referring to social and cultural structures and the adaptation of new technologies. |
|||
According to theories of modernization, each society can develop from traditionalism to modernity, and that those that make this transition follow similar paths. More modern states are wealthier and more powerful, and their citizens freer, with a higher standard of living. Developments, such as new data technology or the need to update traditional methods,it is argued, make modernization necessary or preferable. This view makes critique of modernization difficult, since it implies these developments control the limits of human interaction, and not vice versa. It also implies that it is purely up to human being to control the speed and severity of modernization. Supposedly, instead of being dominated by tradition, societies undergoing the process of modernization typically arrive at governance dictated by abstract principles. Traditional religious beliefs and cultural traits usually becomes less important as modernization takes hold. |
|||
Historians link modernization to the processes of urbanization and industrialisation, as well as to the spread of education. As Kendall (2007) notes, "Urbanization accompanied modernization and the rapid process of industrialization. modernization is linked to an overarching process of Rationalization. When modernization increases within a society, the individual becomes that much more important, eventually replacing the family or community as the fundamental unit of society. |
|||
Modernization theory and history have been explicitly used as guides for countries eager to develop rapidly, such as China. Indeed, modernization has been proposed as the most useful framework for [[World history]] in China, because as one of the developing countries that started late, "China's modernization has to be based on the experiences and lessons of other countries."<ref>Qian Chengdan, "Constructing a New Disciplinary Framework of Modern World History Around the Theme of Modernization," ''Chinese Studies in History'' Spring 2009, Vol. 42#3 pp 7-24; in [[EBSCO]]</ref> |
|||
According to theories of modernization, each society can develop from traditionalism to modernity, and that those that make this transition follow similar paths. More modern states are wealthier and more powerful, and their citizens freer, with a higher standard of living. Developments, such as new data technology or the need to update traditional methods,it is argued, make modernization necessary or preferable. This view makes critique of modernization difficult, since it implies these developments control the limits of human interaction, and not vice versa. It also implies that it is purely up to human being to control the speed and severity of modernisation. Supposedly, instead of being dominated by tradition, societies undergoing the process of modernization typically arrive at governance dictated by abstract principles. Traditional religious beliefs and cultural traits usually becomes less important as modernization takes hold.<ref name="HttpwwwbritannicacomEBcheckedtopicmodernization" /> |
|||
The idea of modernization is relatively new. Its basic principles can be derived from the Idea of Progress, which emerged in the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment with the idea that people themselves could develop and change their society. French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet was involved in the origins of the theory with the concept that technological advancements and economic changes can enable changes in moral and cultural values. Condorcet was the first to make the connection between economic and social development connection and that there can be continuous progress and improvement in human affairs. With that said, new advancements and improvements would need to keep pace with a constantly changing world. Furthermore, he encouraged technological processes to help give people further control over their environments, arguing that technological progress would eventually spur social progress. |
|||
Historians link modernization to the processes of [[urbanization]] and [[industrialisation]], as well as to the spread of education. As Kendall (2007) notes, "Urbanization accompanied modernization and the rapid process of industrialization."<ref>Diana Kendall, ''Sociology in Our Times'' (2007) p. 11</ref> In [[sociological]] [[critical theory]], modernization is linked to an overarching process of [[Rationalization (sociology)|rationalisation]]. When modernization increases within a society, the individual becomes that much more important, eventually replacing the family or community as the fundamental unit of society.<ref name="HttpwwwbritannicacomEBcheckedtopicmodernization">[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/387301/modernization modernization - Encyclopedia Britannica]. Britannica.com. Retrieved on 2013-08-17.</ref> {{Citation needed|date=June 2013}} |
|||
Globalization and modernization |
|||
Globalization can be defined as the integration of economic, political and social cultures and, it is argued, is related to the spreading of modernization across borders.With the many apparent positive attributes to globalization there are also negative consequences. The dominant, neoliberal model of globalisation often increases disparities between a society's rich and its poor. In major cities of developing countries there exist pockets where technologies of the modernized world — computers, cell phones and satellite television—exist right alongside stark poverty. Globalists are globalization modernization theorists and argue that globalization is good for everyone as there are benefits for all including vulnerable groups such as women and children. |
|||
Technolog |
|||
== Earliest expressions of the theory == |
|||
New technology is a major source of social change. Since modernization deals with social change from agrarian societies to industrial ones, it is important to look at the technological viewpoint, however new technologies do not change societies by itself. Rather, it is the 'response' to technology that causes change. Frequently, technology is recognized but not put to use for a very long time, for example the ability to extract metal from rock. Although it initially went unused, it later had profound implications for the course of societies. Technology makes it possible for a more innovated society and broad social change. This dramatic change through the centuries that has evolved socially, industrially, and economically, can be summed up by the term modernization. Cell phones, for example, have changed lives of millions throughout the world. This is especially true in Africa and other parts of the Middle East where there is a low cost communication infrastructure. Therefore, widely dispersed populations are connected, it facilitates other business's communication among each other, and it provides internet access, which also gives greater value in literacy. |
|||
[[File:Emile Durkheim.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Émile Durkheim]] |
|||
Criticism |
|||
The idea of modernization is relatively new. Its basic principles can be derived from the [[Idea of Progress]], which emerged in the 18th-century [[Age of Enlightenment]] with the idea that people themselves could develop and change their society. French philosopher [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was involved in the origins of the theory with the concept that technological advancements and economic changes can enable changes in moral and cultural values. Condorcet was the first to make the connection between economic and social development connection and that there can be continuous progress and improvement in human affairs. With that said, new advancements and improvements would need to keep pace with a constantly changing world. Furthermore, he encouraged technological processes to help give people further control over their environments, arguing that technological progress would eventually spur social progress. |
|||
Modernization theory has been criticized, mainly because it conflated modernization with Westernization.In this model, the modernization of a society required the destruction of the indigenous culture and its replacement by a more Westernized one. By one definition 'modern' simply refers to the present, and any society still in existence is therefore modern. Proponents of modernization typically view only Western society as being truly modern arguing that others are primitive or unevolved by comparison. This view sees unmodernized societies as inferior even if they have the same standard of living as western societies. Opponents of this view argue that modernity is independent of culture and can be adapted to any society. Japan is cited as an example by both sides. Some see it as proof that a thoroughly modern way of life can exist in a non-western society. Others argue that Japan has become distinctly more western as a result of its modernization. |
|||
In addition to [[social structure]] and the evolution of societies, the French [[sociologist]] [[Émile Durkheim]] developed the concept of [[Functionalism (sociology)|functionalism]], which stresses the interdependence of the institutions of a society and their interaction in maintaining cultural and social unity. His most famous work is [[The Division of Labour in Society]], which described how [[social order]] was to be maintained in a society and how primitive societies might make the transition to more economically advanced industrial societies. Durkheim suggested that in a capitalist society, with a complex division of labour, economic regulation would be needed to maintain order. He stressed that the major transition from a primitive social order to a more advanced industrial society could otherwise bring crisis and disorder. Durkheim furthermore developed the idea of [[social evolution]], which indicates how societies and cultures develop over time—much like a living organism—essentially saying that social evolution is like biological evolution with reference to the development of its components. Like organisms, societies progress through several stages generally starting at a simplistic level and then developing into a more complex level. Societies adapt to surrounding environments—but also interact with other societies, which further contributes to progress and development. |
|||
Modern sociology evolved in part as a reaction to the problems associated with [[modernity]], such as [[industrialization]] and the process of [[rationalization (sociology)|'rationalization']]. |
|||
It has also been criticised empirically, as modernization theorists ignore external sources of change in societies. The binary between traditional and modern is unhelpful, as the two are linked, and often interedependent; whilst 'modernization' does not come as a whole. |
|||
Modernisation theory emerged further in the late 19th century and was especially popular among scholars in the mid-20th century. One foremost advocate was Harvard sociologist [[Talcott Parsons]] ''Mandarins of the Future'' (2003) The theory stressed the importance of societies being open to change and saw reactionary forces as restricting development. Maintaining tradition for tradition's sake was thought to be harmful to progress and development.<ref name="khan 162-164">Khan, p. 162–164.</ref> Proponents of modernization lie in two camps, optimists and pessimist. The former view holds that what a modernizer sees as a setback to the theory (events such as the [[Iranian Revolution]] or the troubles in [[Lebanon]]) are invariably temporary setbacks,<ref>Brugger and Hannan, p. 43.</ref> with the ability to attain "modernism" still existing. Pessimists argue that such non-modern areas are incapable of becoming modern.<ref name="Macionis 953">Macionis, p. 953.</ref> |
|||
== State theory == |
|||
Accordingly, internal situations in societies immediately affect the processes of modernization. A state in which favorites are rewarded and governmental corruption is prevalent causes the state to suffer in terms of modernization. This can repress the state's economic development and productivity and lead money and resources to flow out to other countries with more favorable investment environments. Such mechanisms slow the process of modernization and lead to the need to sort out internal conflicts so as to aid the process of modernization. |
|||
State theory is said to be mixed with internal politics, and that each country has its own unique pathway to development. For a country to become more developed it is said that stability both inside and outside the country is essential. The State theory essentially implies that for modernization to grow and for societies to become more developed the state must be tamed and power to arbitrarily seize private property curtailed. From the taming of the state, a [[capitalism|capitalist]] economy can better arise, resulting in increased productivity supporting the internal modernization of society. |
|||
== Globalization and modernization == |
|||
[[Globalization]] can be defined as the integration of economic, political and social cultures and, it is argued, is related to the spreading of modernization across borders. |
|||
Annual trans border tourist arrivals rose to 456 million by 1990 and are expected to double again, to 937 million per annum, by 2010 (Knowles, 1994: FT,7 January 1997: V11). Communication is another major area that has grown due to modernization. Communication industries have enabled capitalism to spread throughout the world. Telephony, television broadcasts, news services and online service providers have played a crucial part in globalization. |
|||
With the many apparent positive attributes to globalization there are also negative consequences. The dominant, neoliberal model of globalisation often increases disparities between a society's rich and its poor. In major cities of developing countries there exist pockets where technologies of the modernized world — computers, cell phones and satellite television—exist right alongside stark poverty. Globalists are globalization modernization theorists and argue that globalization is good for everyone as there are benefits for all including vulnerable groups such as women and children. |
|||
== Modernisation theory and democratisation == |
|||
There is lively academic debate over the relation between democracy and modernization. Whilst some scholars argue democratization follows modernization, others have also disputed this claim. |
|||
Some scholars have argued that democracy follows modernization, perhaps with a time lag. As [[Seymour Martin Lipset]] put it, "All the various aspects of economic development—industrialization, urbanization, wealth and education—are so closely interrelated as to form one major factor which has the political correlate of democracy."<ref>Seymour Martin Lipset, ''Political Man'' (1963), p. 41. The argument also appears in Walt W. Rostow, ''Politics and the Stages of Growth'' (1971); A. F. K. Organski, ''The Stages of Political Development'' (1965); and David Apter, ''The Politics of Modernization'' (1965)</ref> In the 1960s some critics said the link each was too much based on European history, neglecting the Third World.<ref>Andre Gunder Frank, ''Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution'' (1969)</ref> Recent demonstrations of the emergence of democracy in South Korea, Taiwan and South Africa have tended to bolster the thesis. |
|||
One historical problem with this thesis has always been [[German Empire|Germany]], in which economic modernization in the 19th century came long before the move to democracy after 1918. Berman, however, concludes that a process of democratization was underway in Imperial Germany, for "during these years Germans developed many of the habits and mores that are now thought by political scientists to augur healthy political development.".<ref>Sheri E. Berman, "Modernization in Historical Perspective: The Case of Imperial Germany," ''World Politics'' v.53#3 (2001) 431-462 quote at p 456</ref> |
|||
Inglehart, and Welzel (2009) contend that the realization of democracy is not based solely on an expressed desire for that form of government, but that democracies are born as a result of the admixture of certain social and cultural factors. They argue the ideal social and cultural conditions for the foundation of a democracy are born of significant modernization and economic development that result in mass political participation.<ref>Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, "How Development Leads to Democracy," ''Foreign Affairs'' Mar/Apr2009, Vol. 88 Issue 2, pp 33-48</ref> |
|||
Peerenboom (2008) explores the relationships among democracy, the rule of law and their relationship to wealth by pointing to |
|||
examples of Asian countries, such as Taiwan and South Korea, that have successfully democratized only after economic growth reached relatively high levels and to examples of countries such as the Philippines, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia and India that sought to democratize at lower levels of wealth but have not done as well.<ref>Randall Peerenboom, ''China Modernizes: Threat to the West or Model for the Rest?'' (2008) p, 63. He suggests China will grant democracy human rights when it is as modern and as rich as the West per capita.</ref> |
|||
[[Adam Przeworski]] and others have challenged Lipset argument. They say political regimes do not transition to democracy as per capita incomes rise. Rather, democratic transitions occur randomly, but once there, countries with higher levels of gross domestic product per capita remain democratic. Epstein et al. (2006) retest the modernization hypothesis using new data, new techniques, and a three-way, rather than dichotomous, classification of regimes. Contrary to Przeworski, this study finds that the modernization hypothesis stands up well. Partial democracies emerge as among the most important and least understood regime types.<ref>David L. Epstein, et al., "Democratic Transitions," ''American Journal of Political Science'' 2006 50(3): 551-569</ref> |
|||
Highly contentious is the idea that modernization implies more human rights, with China in the 21st century being a major test case. |
|||
== Technology == |
|||
New [[technology]] is a major source of social change. Since modernization deals with social change from agrarian societies to industrial ones, it is important to look at the technological viewpoint, however new technologies do not change societies by itself. Rather, it is the ''response'' to technology that causes change. Frequently, technology is recognized but not put to use for a very long time, for example the ability to extract metal from rock. Although it initially went unused, it later had profound implications for the course of societies. Technology makes it possible for a more innovated society and broad social change. This dramatic change through the centuries that has evolved socially, industrially, and economically, can be summed up by the term modernization. Cell phones, for example, have changed lives of millions throughout the world. This is especially true in Africa and other parts of the Middle East where there is a low cost communication infrastructure. Therefore, widely dispersed populations are connected, it facilitates other business's communication among each other, and it provides internet access, which also gives greater value in literacy. |
|||
== Contributors == |
|||
Among the academics who contributed much to this theory are [[Walt Rostow]], who in his ''The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto'' (1960) concentrates on the [[economic system]] side of the modernization, trying to show factors needed for a country to reach the path to modernization in his [[Rostovian take-off model]]. [[David Apter]] concentrated on the [[political system]] and [[history of democracy]], researching the connection between [[democracy]], good [[governance]] and efficiency and modernization. [[Seymour Martin Lipset]] in "Some Social Requisites of Democracy" (1959) argued that economic development sets off a series of profound social changes that together tend to produce democracy. [[David McClelland]] (''The Achieving Society'', 1967) approached this subject from the [[psychology|psychological]] perspective, with his [[motivation]]s theory, arguing that modernization cannot happen until a given society values innovation, striving for improvement and entrepreneurship. [[Alex Inkeles]] (''Becoming Modern'', 1974) similarly creates a model of ''modern personality'', which needs to be independent, active, interested in public policies and cultural matters, open for new experiences, rational and being able to create long-term plans for the future. [[Edward Said]]'s "Orientalism" interprets modernization from the point of view of societies that are quickly and radically transformed. |
|||
== Development and modernisation theory == |
|||
Development, like modernization, has become the orienting principle of our time. Countries that are seen as modern are also seen as developed, and that means that they are generally more respected by institutions such as the [[United Nations]] and even as possible trade partners for other countries. The extent to which a country has modernized or developed dictates its power and importance on the international level. |
|||
Modernization of the health sector of developing nations recognizes that transitioning from '[[traditional]]' to 'modern' is not merely the advancement in technology and the introduction of Western practices; implementing modern healthcare requires the reorganization of political agendas, and in turn, an increase in funding and resources towards public health. However, rather than replicating the stages of developed nations, whose roots of modernization are found with the context of [[industrialisation]] or [[colonialism]], underdeveloped nations should apply proximal interventions to target rural communities and focus on prevention strategies rather than curative solutions. This has been successfully exhibited by the Christian Medical Commission and in China through '[[barefoot doctors]]'. Additionally, a strong advocate of the de-emphasis of medical institutions was [[Halfdan T. Mahler]], the [[WHO]] General Director from 1973 to 1988. Related ideas have been proposed at international conferences such as [[Alma Ata Declaration|Alma-Ata]] and the “Health and Population in Development” conference, sponsored by the [[Rockefeller Foundation]] in Italy in 1979, where selective primary healthcare and [[GOBI-FFF|GOBI]] were discussed (although they have both been strongly criticized by supporters of comprehensive healthcare). Overall, however, this is not to say that the nations of the Global South can function independently from Western states; significant funding is received from well-intentioned programs, foundations, and charities that target epidemics such as [[HIV/AIDS]], [[Malaria]], and [[Tuberculosis]] that have substantially improved the lives of millions of people but also impeded future development.<ref>Cueto, Marcos. 2004. The ORIGINS of Primary Health Care and SELECTIVE Primary Health Care. Am J Public Health 94 (11):1864-1874.</ref> |
|||
Modernization theorists often saw traditions as obstacles to economic growth. Furthermore, while modernization might deliver violent, radical change for [[Traditional society|traditional societies]] it was thought worth the price. Critics insist that traditional societies were often destroyed without ever gaining promised advantages if, among other things, the economic gap between advanced societies and such societies actually increased. The net effect of modernization for some societies was therefore the replacement of traditional poverty by a more modern form of [[misery]], according to these critics.<ref>Majid Rahnema, ''Quand la misère chasse la pauvreté'', Arles: Actes Sud 2003</ref> Others point to improvements in living standards, physical infrastructure, education and economic opportunity to refute such criticisms. |
|||
== Case studies == |
|||
===United States=== |
|||
[[File:American progress.JPG|thumb|300px|This painting (circa 1872) by [[John Gast (painter)|John Gast]] called ''American Progress'', is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Here [[Historical Columbia|Columbia]], a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west; she holds a school book. The different stages of economic activity of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation. The Native Americans and wild animals flee.]] |
|||
The [[Progressive Era|Progressives in the United States in the early 20th century]] were avid modernizers. They believed in [[science]], technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society's weaknesses. Characteristics of progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind's ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention.<ref>John D. Buenker, and KABASO.S.MUYA. ''Progressivism'' (1986); Maureen Flanagan, ''America Reformed: Progressives and Progressivisms, 1890s-1920s'' (2007); Modernization theory exerts a "powerful influence" on historians dealing with the 1896-1916 era, asserts Martin J. Sklar, ''The United States as a developing country'' (1992) p. 54</ref> |
|||
Paul Monroe, a professor of history at Columbia University, was a member of [[The Inquiry]]—a team of American experts at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. He drew on his experience in the Philippines to assess the educational needs of developing areas such as Albania, Turkey and central Africa. Presenting educational development as instrumental to nation-building and socioeconomic development, Monroe recommended the implementation of a progressive curriculum - with an emphasis on practical, adult, and teacher training - in a national system of education, as a basis for self-development, except in Africa. His approach shaped American cooperation with developing countries in the 1920s and modernization efforts during the 1920s-1930s.<ref>David M. Ment, "Education, nation‐building and modernization after World War I: American ideas for the Peace Conference," ''Paedagogica Historica,'' Feb 2005, Vol. 41 Issue 1/2, pp 159-177</ref> |
|||
===Germany's "Sonderweg"=== |
|||
{{main|Sonderweg}} |
|||
Many historians have emphasized the central importance of a German ''[[Sonderweg]]'' ("special path") or "exceptionalism" as the root of [[Nazism]] and the German catastrophe in the 20th century.<ref>Sheri Berman, "Modernization in Historical Perspective: The Case of Imperial Germany," ''World Politics,'' Volume 53, Number 3, April 2001, pp. 431-462 {{doi|10.1353/wp.2001.0007}}</ref> According to the historiography by [[Jürgen Kocka|Kocka]] (1988), the process of nation-building from above especially during the period of the [[German Empire]] (1871–1918), in the following [[Weimar Republic|Weimar]] era, had very grievous long-term implications, historians have argued. In terms of [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary democracy]], Parliament was kept weak, the parties were fragmented, and there was a row file level of mutual distrust. The Nazis built on the [[Illiberal democracy|illiberal]], anti-pluralist elements of Weimar's political culture. The Junker elites (the large landowners in the east) and senior civil servants, used their great power and influence well into the 20th century to frustrate any movement toward democracy. They played an especially negative role in the [[Weimar Republic#Decline (1930–1933)|crisis of 1930-1933]]. The emphasis by [[Otto von Bismarck]] on military force amplified the voice of the officer corps, which combined advanced modernization of military technology with reactionary politics. The rising [[Upper middle class|upper-middle-class]] elites, in the business, financial, and professional worlds, tended to accept the values of the old traditional elites. The MUYA Empire was, for [[Hans-Ulrich Wehler]], a strange mixture of highly successful capitalist, industrialization and socio-economic modernization on the one hand, and of surviving pre-industrial institutions, power relations and traditional cultures on the other. Wehler argues that it produced a high degree of internal tension, which led on the one hand to the suppression of [[Socialism|socialists]], [[Catholicism|Catholics]], and reformers, and on the other hand to a highly aggressive foreign policy. For these reasons [[Fritz Fischer]] and his students emphasized [[Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles|Germany’s primary guilt for causing World War I]].<ref>Jürgen Kocka, "German History before Hitler: The Debate about the German 'Sonderweg.'" ''Journal of Contemporary History,'' Jan 1988, Vol. 23#1, pp 3-16 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/260865 in JSTOR]</ref> |
|||
[[Hans-Ulrich Wehler]], a leader of the [[Bielefeld School]] of social history, places the origins of Germany's path to disaster in the 1860s-1870s, when economic modernization took place, but political modernization did not happen and the old Prussian rural elite remained in firm control of the army, diplomacy and the civil service. Traditional, aristocratic, premodern society battled an emerging capitalist, bourgeois, modernizing society. Recognizing the importance of modernizing forces in industry and the economy and in the cultural realm, Wehler argues that reactionary traditionalism dominated the political hierarchy of power in Germany, as well as social mentalities and in class relations (Klassenhabitus). The catastrophic German politics between 1914 and 1945 are interpreted in terms of a delayed modernization of its political structures. At the core of Wehler's interpretation is his treatment of "the middle class" and "revolution," each of which was instrumental in shaping the 20th century. Wehler's examination of Nazi rule is shaped by his concept of "charismatic domination," which focuses heavily on [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>Wehler, ''Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte: Vom Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges bis zur Gründung der Beiden Deutschen Staaten 1914-1949'' (2003) is the fourth volume of his monumental history of German society. None of the series has yet been translated into English. A partial summary appears in Hans-Ulrich Wehler, ''The German Empire, 1871-1918'' (1997)</ref> |
|||
The historiographical concept of a German Sonderweg has had a turbulent history. Scholars of the 19th century who emphasized a separate German path to modernity saw it as a positive factor that differentiated Germany from the "western path" typified by Great Britain. The stressed the strong bureaucratic state, reforms initiated by Bismarck and other strong leaders, the Prussian service ethos, the high culture of philosophy and music, and Germany's pioneering of a [[Welfare state|social welfare state]]. In the 1950s, historians in West Germany argued that the Sonderweg led Germany to the disaster of 1933-1945. The special circumstances of German historical structures and experiences, were interpreted as preconditions that, while not directly causing National Socialism, did hamper the development of a liberal democracy and facilitate the rise of fascism. The Sonderweg paradigm has provided the impetus for at least three strands of research in German historiography: the [[long 19th century]], the history of the bourgeoisie, and comparisons with the West. After 1990, increased attention to cultural dimensions and to comparative and relational history moved German historiography to different topics, with much less attention paid to the Sonderweg. While some historians have abandoned the Sonderweg thesis, they have not provided a generally accepted alternative interpretation.<ref>Helmut Walser Smith, "When the Sonderweg Debate Left Us ," ''German Studies Review,''on May 2008, Vol. 31#2 pp 225-240</ref> |
|||
===19th-century France=== |
|||
In his seminal book ''Peasants Into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural [[France]], 1880–1914'' (1976), historian [[Eugen Weber]] traced the modernization of French villages and argued that rural France went from backward and isolated to modern and possessing a sense of French nationhood during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.<ref>Joseph A. Amato, "Eugen Weber's France" ''Journal of Social History,'' Volume 25, 1992 pp 879–882.</ref> He emphasized the roles of railroads, republican schools, and universal military conscription. He based his findings on school records, migration patterns, military service documents and economic trends. Weber argued that until 1900 or so a sense of French nationhood was weak in the provinces. Weber then looked at how the policies of the Third Republic created a sense of French nationality in rural areas.<ref>Eugen Weber, "The Second Republic, Politics, and the Peasant," ''French Historical Studies'' Vol. 11, No. 4 (Autumn, 1980), pp. 521-550 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/286349 in JSTOR]</ref> The book was widely praised, but was criticized by some<ref>Ted W. Margadant, "French Rural Society in the Nineteenth Century: A Review Essay," ''Agricultural History,'' Summer 1979, Vol. 53 Issue 3, pp 644-651</ref> who argued that a sense of Frenchness existed in the provinces before 1870. |
|||
===Asia=== |
|||
Many studies of modernization have focused on the [[history of Japan]] in the [[Meiji period|late 19th]] century,<ref>Shuzo Teruoka, ed. ''Agriculture in the Modernization of Japan, 1850-2000'' (2008); Cyril Black, ''The Modernization of Japan and Russia'' (1975)</ref> and [[China]] and [[India]] in the late 20th century.<ref>Russell H. Jeffries, ''China's Agricultural Modernization'' (2009); June Grasso, Jay Cornin, and Michael Kort, ''Modernization and Revolution in China: From the Opium Wars to the Olympics'' (2009)</ref> For example, the process of borrowing science and technology from the West has been explored. |
|||
====China==== |
|||
China has been attempting to modernize ever since the [[Xinhai Revolution|Revolution of 1911]] and the end on the [[Qing Dynasty]], the last dynasty of China. Before the Qing Dynasty was overthrown, it attempted to reform from 1902 to 1908 to save itself and instigated reforms in infrastructure, transportation, and government. These reforms were based on Western models and even included aspects of democracy, which are often associated with the process of modernization. However, these reforms were largely unsuccessful and resulted in the Revolution of 1911. Following the Revolution of 1911, other movements such as the [[May 4th Movement]] of 1919 advocated for modernization, [[iconoclasm]], and a rejection of foreign influence and [[imperialism]]. From the beginning of the 20th century until the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China has been delayed in efforts to modernize due to an era of warlordism, the [[Second Sino-Japanese War]], and civil war between the [[CCP]] and [[KMT]].<ref name="Prentice Hall">{{cite book|title=Revolution and Its Past: Identities and Change in Modern China|year=2011|publisher=Prentice Hall|location=Upper Saddle River, NJ|edition=Third Edition|editor=R. Keith Schoppa}}</ref><ref name="Gardels 2011 61–64">{{cite journal|last=Gardels|first=Nathan|title=The West No Longer Owns Modernity|journal=New Perspect|year=2011|volume=28|issue=3|pages=61–64|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|location=Malden, MA}}</ref> |
|||
When the communist party came to power in 1949, [[Mao Zedong]] used the Soviet Union as China’s example for modernization. [[The Great Leap Forward]] from 1958-1961 was Mao’s version of the Soviet Union’s [[Five-Year Plans for the National Economy of the Soviet Union|Five year Plan]], and its goals were to create a modern communist society through industrialization and collectivization. Mao Zedong aimed to become a world power without foreign, mainly western, involvement, ideas, or capitalism and preached the idea of self-reliance. Mao did contribute to the modernization of China, however The Great Leap Forward is regarded as a failure and the [[Cultural Revolution]] from 1966 to 1976 further prohibited much progress.<ref name="Prentice Hall"/> [[File:Shanghai-pudong panorama.jpg|thumb|The Modern Chinese City of [[Shanghai]]]] |
|||
The economic reforms of Chinese Supreme Leader [[Deng Xiaoping]] are attributed to China’s economic success in the 21st century. Deng focused on four modernizations: agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology. The West was used as an example for several of these modernizations, however their management was completely Chinese. Deng began de-collectivization and allowed [[Township and Village Enterprise]]s (TVE), [[Special Economic Zone]]s (SEZ), foreign investment, profit incentive, and even privatization. |
|||
While Mao advocated self-reliance, Deng generated foreign exchange to finance modernization. His famous quote is, "It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." Post Deng Reforms continued on this path, which is acknowledged as a shift from the [[iron rice bowl]] to the porcelain rice bowl, or government owned to privatized. Although China’s economy has shifted towards privatization and capitalism, the PRC remains an authoritative regime, which is contradictory in comparison to other examples of countries that have modernized. Democracy is the political characteristic that has defined modernized nations in the past and the modernization theory suggests democracy follows with the development of a modernized state.<ref name="Gardels 2011 61–64"/> China was late in modernization and has thus had many other countries as examples to base its model of modernization off of.<ref name="Prentice Hall"/> |
|||
The [[One-Child Policy]] has also been a technique to contribute or even force the modernization of China. Instigated in 1978, the one-child policy has created a generation known as "singletons" or "little emperors" (''xiao huangdi'').<ref name="Little Emperors">{{cite book|title=Feeding China’s Little Emperors:Food Children and Social Change|year=2000|publisher=Stanford University Press|location=Stanford, CA|editor=Jun Jing}}</ref> "The Chinese state enforced a rapid fertility transition designed to cultivate a generation of "high-quality" people with resources and ambition to join the global elite."<ref name="One-Child Policy">{{cite book|last=Fong|first=Vanessa|title=Only Hope: Coming of Age under China’s One-Child Policy|year=2004|publisher=Stanford University Press|location=Stanford, CA|page=17}}</ref> These little emperors are expected to compete with the first-world countries having no siblings to compete with for parental investment. Normally with modernization and urbanization smaller or [[nuclear family|nuclear families]] evolve as the result. China has switched this logic, hoping that creating the culture of the nuclear family with the one-child policy it will produce modernization.<ref name="One-Child Policy">{{cite book|last=Fong|first=Vanessa|title=Only Hope: Coming of Age under China’s One-Child Policy|year=2004|publisher=Stanford University Press|location=Stanford, CA}}</ref> |
|||
At the beginning of the 21st century, China is still in the process of modernization. In 2010 it had the third greatest GDP and GDP (PPP) in the world with the world’s largest labor force, and is acknowledged as the world’s second largest economy.<ref name="Gardels 2011 61–64"/><ref name="CIA World Fact Book">{{cite web|title=CIA|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html|work=East and Southeast Asia: China|accessdate=7 December 2011}}</ref> In 2010 its economy was still increasing in growth at 10.3%.<ref name="CIA World Fact Book"/> China has also successfully joined the largely Western international arena with its membership of the [[United Nations|UN]] in 1971, the [[World Trade Organization|WTO]] in 2001, and hosted the [[2008 Summer Olympics|Olympics]] in 2008. China’s goal is to continue modernizing until it joins the first-world and becomes the core instead of the semi-periphery or periphery, from the [[core-periphery| core-periphery model]].<ref name="Prentice Hall"/><ref name="One-Child Policy"/> |
|||
The modernization of China through urbanization, industrialization, and economic policy has benefited the country economically as it rises as a world power in the 21st century. However it now is experiencing the problems associated the other modern countries and capitalism. These problems include the growing disparity between the rich and poor, urban vs. rural and migration, and ecological issues.<ref>{{cite book|last=Rowntree|first=Lester|title=Diversity Amid Globalization: World Regions, Environment, Development|year=2008|publisher=Prentice Hall|location=Upper Saddle River, NJ|isbn=0-13-600554-3|edition=Fourth Edition}}</ref> |
|||
====South Korea==== |
|||
Modernizers in [[South Korea]] in the late 19th century were torn between the American and the Japanese models. Most of the Koreans involved were educated Christians who saw America as their ideal model of civilization. However, most used Japan as a practical model - as an example of how a fellow East Asian country, which 30 years before was also backward, could succeed in civilizing itself. At the same time, reformists' nationalist reaction against the domineering, colonial behavior of the Japanese in Korea often took the form of an appeal to international (Western) standards of civilization. The Western-oriented worldview of the early Christian nationalist reformers was complex, multilayered, and often self-contradictory - with 'oppressive' features not easily distinguishable from 'liberational' ones. Their idealized image of the West as the only true, ideal civilization relegated much of Korea's traditional culture to a position of 'barbarism'.<ref>Vladimir Tikhonov, "The 1890s Korean Reformers' View of Japan - a Menacing Model?" ''International Journal of Asian Studies'' 2005 2(1): 57-81.</ref> |
|||
The self-image of Koreans was formed through complex relationships with modernity, colonialism, Christianity, and nationalism. This formation was initiated by a change in the notion of 'civilization' due to the transformation of 'international society' and thereafter was affected by the trauma of Japanese colonization. Through the process of transition from a traditional Confucian notion of civilization to a Western notion of acceptance and resistance, Koreans shaped their civilization as well as their notions of the racial, cultural, and individual modern self. Western Orientalism, in particular, accompanied the introduction of the Western notion of civilization, which served as the background for forming the self-identity of Koreans. The fact that the Japanese version of [[Orientalism]] emerged from the domination of Korea by Japan played a critical role in shaping the self-identity of Koreans. Consequently, Korea still maintains an inferiority complex toward Western culture, ambivalent feelings toward Japanese culture, and biased - positive or negative - views of their own cultural traditions. Thus both modernization and colonization have shaped the formation or distortion of self-consciousness of non-Western peoples.<ref>Yong-hwa Chung, "The Modern Transformation of Korean Identity: Enlightenment and Orientalism," ''Korea Journal'' 2006 46(1): 109-138</ref> |
|||
The US launched a decades-long intensive development starting in 1945 to modernize South Korea, with the goal of helping it become a model nation-state and an economic success. Agents of modernization at work in Korea included the US Army, the Economic Cooperation Administration, the UN Korean Reconstruction Agency, and a number of nongovernmental organizations, among them the Presbyterian Church, the [[YMCA]], Boy Scouts and the [[Ford Foundation]]. Many Koreans migrated to California and Hawaii, and brought back firsthand accounts of modern business and governmental practices that they sought to adapt to Korean conditions.<ref>David Ekbladh, "How to Build a Nation," ''Wilson Quarterly'' 2004 28(1): 12-20.</ref> |
|||
====Japan==== |
|||
Japan quickly went through a lot of changes concerning modernization after their defeat. This happened starting with United States quickly intervening with Japan internally. Surprisingly, American demilitarization and democratization was somewhat accepted by the people of Japan without strong resistance. |
|||
Under the occupation of United States, SCAP([[Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers]]) was established, which was an institution in charge of formulating policies. The goal of SCAP was to dissolve the army and navy, and also to punish responsible leaders, and it established the New constitution of 1946.<ref name="Modern Japan">{{cite book|title=A history of Modern Japan|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford}}</ref> SCAP could not function without the assistance of Japanese government because the language barrirer was too high. However, this actually helped make bigger changes in creating demilitarization and democratization. SCAP helped people to gain freedoms of speech, press and the right to organize labor or farmer unions. |
|||
As such, the new constitution created by SCAP granted civil and political rights to the people; consequently, leading to modernization. It also allowed freedom of speech and association, right to organize labor association and movements, or create unions, and implemented grounds for incredible civil right for women. |
|||
Nevertheless, the government also held an important role in modernizing Japan. Japan concentrated on their industry and technology to achieve growth. For that, the state gave assistances to several industries and adopted protectionism policies. Government stepped in as lender, as facilitator of access to foreign exchange, raw materials, or technology licenses, and as rescuer when problems arise.<ref name="Modern Japan">{{cite book|title=A history of Modern Japan|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford}}</ref> To illustrate, the most important guiding agency was the [[MITI]](Ministry of International Trade and Industry). In addition, through the 1960s, Japanese government used economic policies such as tariffs to obstruct imports and protect Japanese firms from foreign competitors in domestic market to become a modernized country. |
|||
====Turkey==== |
|||
[[Turkey]], under [[Kemal Atatürk]] in the 1920s and 1930s, engaged in a systematic modernization program [[Atatürk's Reforms|called "Kemalism"]]. Hundreds of European scholars came to help. Together with Turkish intellectuals they developed a successful model of development.<ref>Craig C. Hansen, "Are We Doing Theory Ethnocentrically? A Comparison of Modernization Theory and Kemalism," ''Journal of Developing Societies'' (0169796X), 1989, Vol. 5 Issue 2, pp 175-187</ref><ref>Murat Ergin, "Cultural encounters in the social sciences and humanities: western émigré scholars in Turkey," ''History of the Human Sciences,'' Feb 2009, Vol. 22 Issue 1, pp 105-130</ref><ref>Arnold Reisman, ''Turkey's Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Atatürk's Vision'' (2006)</ref><ref>Robert Ward and Dankwart Rustow, eds. ''Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey'' (1964).</ref> |
|||
====Greece==== |
|||
The modernizing force of the post-civil war Greek society came primarily as a result of the European and US geopolitical strategy for the region of eastern Mediterranean. Greece ought to be a modern capitalistic state to counter the proximity of several eastern and third world bloc countries and the strong [[Communist Party of Greece|national communist movement]]. According to [[Truman doctrine]] and with the support of local elites, a great economical leap forward took place along with the severe repression that led to the 1967 coup d'état.<ref>Theodore A. Couloumbis, Greece in the Twentieth Century</ref><ref>Kostis Moskof, Isagogika shri istovia ton kinimatos tis evgatis taxis</ref> |
|||
This dramatic change covered the long standing cultural divide of greek academia, comparing modern and [[neo-greek]] to ancient and traditional identities. Music, art and [[cinema of greece|cinema]], influenced by the pioneers of American and European tendencies thrived,<ref>Lydia Papadimitriou and Yannis Tzioumakis, Greek Cinema</ref> until the milestone of 1967, in contrast to the [[authoritarian]] and [[tradition]]alist military and paramilitary structures. This dimension is vital as it reveals the process of modernization under the western directives in all social levels that came in fact in opposition to the political directives of the same source.<ref>A. Papachelas, The rape of greek democracy: The American Factor, 1947-1967</ref> |
|||
===Latin America=== |
|||
Since independence, modernization has been a driving force for [[Chile]]'s political elites. Ree (2007) analyzes projects of modernization that have been implemented from above since 1964. Despite their ideological differences and very different understandings of what modernity is, these projects shared key characteristics in their construction and implementation, such as the use of developmental theories, their state-orientation, the prominent role of technocrats and state-planning, and the capacity of adaptation in sight of civil unrest. These projects have produced patterns of modernity that have proven particularly stable.<ref>Gerard Van Der Ree, "Modernisation in Chile: from the 'Revolution in Liberty' to 'Growth with Equity'," ''Bicentenario: Revista De Historia De Chile Y America'' 2007 6(2): 39-69</ref> |
|||
===Africa=== |
|||
Modernization has been attributed with creating positive development around the world, but in Modern times its ability to promote development, specifically in [[Africa]], has been less than so. Modernization that has taken place in Africa can be described as something that has yet to benefit most of the African countries. |
|||
Modernization through development has led to problems in [[Nigeria]] by bringing in private, foreign owned oil companies that have been exploiting the natural resource wealth of the country. Because the oil companies are generally owned by a different nation, the profits are mostly being exported from Nigeria with only one fifteenth of the wealth produced in the region returning to it. Shell, the oil company operating in Ogoniland, Nigeria has helped the country develop and industrialize on a small scale, but it has primarily challenged the sovereignty and autonomy of Nigeria.<ref>{{cite book|last=Rogowski|first=edited by Patrick O'Neil, Ronald|title=Essential readings in comparative politics|year=2010|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|location=New York|isbn=978-0-393-93401-4|edition=3rd ed.}}</ref> |
|||
A lot of scholars view modernization as a sort of westernization where western institutions such as national parks and industries are brought into existing cultures where their use does not make as much sense. Along with modernization comes a loss of culture and society, and the individual is strengthened. An African tribe known as the Ik was forced to change their habits due to modernization and the creation of individual countries caused by colonialism. Nationalization, as a tool of modernization, was imparted on Africa by colonialists who wanted to westernize and modernize tribal Africa. The creation of individual countries made life for the tribal Ik more difficult because they were forced out of their nomadic lifestyle into a settlement based around a newly founded national park that practically destroyed their livelihood by restricting their hunting grounds to specific non-park areas. The creation of national parks have increased cultivation, which can be seen as good development because people no longer depend solely on livestock. This creation of a new sort of livelihood has mixed improvements, because the tribal setting is not removed, but is put into a single place.<ref>{{cite book|last=Turbull|first=Colin M.|title=The Mountain People|year=1972|publisher=Simon and Schuster|location=New York}}</ref> |
|||
== Criticism == |
|||
Modernization theory has been criticized, mainly because it conflated modernization with [[Westernization]].<ref name="brugger 1-3">Brugger and Hannan, p. 1–3.</ref> In this model, the modernization of a society required the destruction of the indigenous [[culture]] and its replacement by a more Westernized one. By one definition ''modern'' simply refers to the present, and any society still in existence is therefore modern. Proponents of modernization typically view only Western society as being truly modern arguing that others are primitive or unevolved by comparison. This view sees unmodernized societies as inferior even if they have the same standard of living as western societies. Opponents of this view argue that modernity is independent of culture and can be adapted to any society. Japan is cited as an example by both sides. Some see it as proof that a thoroughly modern way of life can exist in a non-western society. Others argue that [[Japan]] has become distinctly more western as a result of its modernization. |
|||
As Tipp has argued, by conflating Modernization with other processes, with which theorists use interchangeably (democratization, liberalization, development), the term becomes imprecise and therefore difficult to disprove. |
|||
It has also been criticised empirically, as modernization theorists ignore external sources of change in societies. The binary between traditional and modern is unhelpful, as the two are linked, and often interedependent; whilst 'modernization' does not come as a whole (See Tipp). |
|||
Modernization theory has also been accused of being [[Eurocentrism|Eurocentric]], as modernization began in Europe with the [[industrial revolution]], the [[French Revolution]] and the [[Revolutions of 1848]],<ref name="Macionis 953" /> and has long been regarded as reaching its most advanced stage in Europe (by Europeans), and in Europe overseas (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.). Anthropologists typically make their criticism one step further generalized and say that this view is [[ethnocentric]], not being specific to Europe, but Western culture in general. |
|||
== See also == |
|||
<!--Alphabetical:--> |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=15em}} |
|||
* [[Bielefeld School]] |
|||
* [[Consumerism]] |
|||
* [[Dependency theory]] |
|||
* [[Development criticism]] |
|||
* [[Ecological modernization]] |
|||
* [[Globalization]] |
|||
* [[Timeline of the Gwangmu Reform|Gwangmu Reform timeline]] |
|||
* [[Idea of Progress]] |
|||
* [[Mass society]] |
|||
* [[Modernity]] |
|||
<!--Self-reference by redirect: * [[Modernization]]--> |
|||
* [[Progressive Era|Progressive Era (USA, early 20th century)]] |
|||
* [[Postmodernism]] |
|||
* [[Postmodernity]] |
|||
* [[Rationalization (sociology)]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
== References == |
|||
=== Notes === |
|||
{{reflist|30em}} |
|||
=== Bibliography === |
|||
* {{cite journal|last=Bernstein|first=H.|year=1971|title=Modernization theory and the sociological study of development|journal=Journal of Development Studies}} |
|||
* [[Jean Berlie|Berlie, Jean A.]], ed. ''Islam in China, Hui and Uyghurs: between modernization and sinicization'' (Bangkok, White Lotus Press, 2004) ISBN 974-480-062-3 |
|||
* Black, Cyril. ''The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History'' (1966) |
|||
* Black, Cyril. ''The Modernization of Japan and Russia'' (1975) |
|||
* Blokland, Hans, and Nancy Smyth Van Weesep, eds. ''Modernization and Its Political Consequences: Weber, Mannheim, and Schumpeter'' (2006) |
|||
* Brown, Richard D. ''Modernization: The Transformation of American Life, 1600-1865'' (1976) |
|||
* Brown, Richard D. "Modernization and the Modern Personality in Early America, 1600-1865: A Sketch of a Synthesis" ''Journal of Interdisciplinary History'' (1972 Win) 2:201-28 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/202285 in JSTOR] |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Brugger|first=Bill|coauthors=Kate Hannan|title=Modernization and revolution|publisher=Routledge|year=1983|isbn=0-7099-0695-1}} |
|||
* Chin, Carol C. ''Modernity and National Identity in the United States and East Asia, 1895-1919'' (Kent State University Press; 2011) 160 pages; An intellectual history of American, Chinese, and Japanese views of modernity. |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Dixon|first=Simon M.|title=The modernisation of Russia, 1676-1825|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1999|isbn=0-521-37961-X}} |
|||
* Eisenstadt, S. N. ed. ''The Protestant Ethic and Modernization: A Comparative View'' (1968) |
|||
* {{cite journal|last=Gavrov|first=Sergey|year=2005|title=The phenomenon of modernization|journal=Filozofia bliższa życiu: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania in Warsaw|isbn=83-88953-76-1}} |
|||
* Gilman, Nils. ''Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America'' (2003). 329 pp |
|||
* Hua, Shipping, and Yang Zhong, eds. ''Political Civilization And Modernization in China: The Political Context of China's Transformation'' (2006) |
|||
* Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel. ''Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Modernization-Cultural-Change-Democracy-Development/dp/0521609712/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238621781&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search], euses comparative political science; emphasizes importance of having a modern personality |
|||
* Jensen, Richard. ''Illinois: A History'' (2001), modernizers, traditionalists and post-moderns make state history |
|||
* Jensen, Richard. "On Modernizing Frederick Jackson Turner: The Historiography of Regionalism" ''Western History Quarterly'' (1980) 11:307-22 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/967565 in JSTOR] |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Khan|first=Joel S.|title=Modernity and exclusion|publisher=SAGE|year=2001|isbn=0-7619-6657-9}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|last=Leroy|first=Peter|coauthors=Jan van Tatenhove|year=2000|title=Political modernization theory and environmental politics|journal=Environment and Global Modernity}} |
|||
* Lipsett, Seymour Martin, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of Democracy'' (4 vol. 1996) |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Macionis|first=John J.|coauthors=Ken Plummer|title=Sociology|publisher=Pearson Education|year=2008|edition=4th|isbn=0-13-205158-3}} |
|||
* McGuigan, Jim. ''Modernity and postmodern culture'' (2006) 200 pages |
|||
* Marshall, T.H., and Seymour Martin Lipset, eds. ''Class, Citizenship, and Social Development'' (1965) |
|||
* Mazlish, Bruce. ''Conceptualizing Global History.'' Westview Press, 1993. |
|||
* Mergel, Thomas: [http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0159-2011050927 ''Modernization''], Mainz: [http://www.ieg-mainz.de/likecms/index.php Institute of European History], 2011, retrieved: July 11, 2012. |
|||
* Misa, Thomas J., Philip Brey, and Andrew Feenberg, eds. ''Modernity and Technology'' (MIT 2004) [http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9213 excerpt and text search] interdisciplary approaches |
|||
* Rodgers, Daniel T. "Tradition, Modernity, and the American Industrial Worker: Reflections and Critique," ''Journal of Interdisciplinary History'' 1977 Spring 7:655-81 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/202886 in JSTOR] |
|||
* So, Alvin Y. ''Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency and World-System Theories'' (1990) 288pp textbook [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0803935471/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link excerpt and text search] |
|||
* Tipps, Dean C. "Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical Perspective" ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' (1973) 15:199-226 influential criticism [http://www.jstor.org/stable/178351 in JSTOR] |
|||
* Gavrov, Sergey. (2004). ''[http://books.google.ru/books?printsec=frontcover&id=Xk_2XdutUVcC#v=onepage&q=&f=false Modernization of the Empire. Social and cultural aspects of modernization processes in Russia]''. ISBN 978-5-354-00915-2 |
|||
* Gilman, Nils. (2004) Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America. Johns Hopkins University Press. |
|||
* Jaquette, Jane S. (1982). "Women and Modernization Theory," ''[[World Politics]]'' '''34''' (2): 267-273. |
|||
* Linden, Ian. (2003). ''A New Map of the World.'' Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd. London, UK. ISBN 0-232-52442-4 |
|||
== External links == |
|||
{{Wikibooks}} |
|||
* {{Wiktionary inline}} |
|||
* {{Commons inline}} |
|||
{{Globalization}} |
|||
[[Category:Development]] |
|||
[[Category:Globalization-related theories]] |
|||
[[Category:Theories of history]] |
|||
[[Category:Sociocultural evolution]] |
|||
[[Category:Sociological theories]] |
|||
[[Category:Sociology index]] |
|||
Revision as of 23:25, 27 January 2014
 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (September 2010) |
"Modernization theory" is a theory used to explain the process of modernization within societies. "Modernization" refers to a model of a progressive transition from a 'pre-modern' or "Traditional society" to a "modern society". The theory looks at the internal factors of a country while assuming that, with assistance, "traditional" countries can be brought to development in the same manner more developed countries have. Modernization theory attempts to identify the social variables that contribute to social progress and development of societies, and seeks to explain the process of social evolution. Modernization theory is subject to criticism originating among socialist and free-market ideologies, "World-systems theory", "globalization" theory and "dependency theory" among others. Modernization theory not only stresses the process of change but also the responses to that change. It also looks at internal dynamics while referring to social and cultural structures and the adaptation of new technologies.
According to theories of modernization, each society can develop from traditionalism to modernity, and that those that make this transition follow similar paths. More modern states are wealthier and more powerful, and their citizens freer, with a higher standard of living. Developments, such as new data technology or the need to update traditional methods,it is argued, make modernization necessary or preferable. This view makes critique of modernization difficult, since it implies these developments control the limits of human interaction, and not vice versa. It also implies that it is purely up to human being to control the speed and severity of modernization. Supposedly, instead of being dominated by tradition, societies undergoing the process of modernization typically arrive at governance dictated by abstract principles. Traditional religious beliefs and cultural traits usually becomes less important as modernization takes hold.
Historians link modernization to the processes of urbanization and industrialisation, as well as to the spread of education. As Kendall (2007) notes, "Urbanization accompanied modernization and the rapid process of industrialization. modernization is linked to an overarching process of Rationalization. When modernization increases within a society, the individual becomes that much more important, eventually replacing the family or community as the fundamental unit of society.
The idea of modernization is relatively new. Its basic principles can be derived from the Idea of Progress, which emerged in the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment with the idea that people themselves could develop and change their society. French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet was involved in the origins of the theory with the concept that technological advancements and economic changes can enable changes in moral and cultural values. Condorcet was the first to make the connection between economic and social development connection and that there can be continuous progress and improvement in human affairs. With that said, new advancements and improvements would need to keep pace with a constantly changing world. Furthermore, he encouraged technological processes to help give people further control over their environments, arguing that technological progress would eventually spur social progress.
Globalization and modernization
Globalization can be defined as the integration of economic, political and social cultures and, it is argued, is related to the spreading of modernization across borders.With the many apparent positive attributes to globalization there are also negative consequences. The dominant, neoliberal model of globalisation often increases disparities between a society's rich and its poor. In major cities of developing countries there exist pockets where technologies of the modernized world — computers, cell phones and satellite television—exist right alongside stark poverty. Globalists are globalization modernization theorists and argue that globalization is good for everyone as there are benefits for all including vulnerable groups such as women and children.
Technolog
New technology is a major source of social change. Since modernization deals with social change from agrarian societies to industrial ones, it is important to look at the technological viewpoint, however new technologies do not change societies by itself. Rather, it is the 'response' to technology that causes change. Frequently, technology is recognized but not put to use for a very long time, for example the ability to extract metal from rock. Although it initially went unused, it later had profound implications for the course of societies. Technology makes it possible for a more innovated society and broad social change. This dramatic change through the centuries that has evolved socially, industrially, and economically, can be summed up by the term modernization. Cell phones, for example, have changed lives of millions throughout the world. This is especially true in Africa and other parts of the Middle East where there is a low cost communication infrastructure. Therefore, widely dispersed populations are connected, it facilitates other business's communication among each other, and it provides internet access, which also gives greater value in literacy.
Criticism
Modernization theory has been criticized, mainly because it conflated modernization with Westernization.In this model, the modernization of a society required the destruction of the indigenous culture and its replacement by a more Westernized one. By one definition 'modern' simply refers to the present, and any society still in existence is therefore modern. Proponents of modernization typically view only Western society as being truly modern arguing that others are primitive or unevolved by comparison. This view sees unmodernized societies as inferior even if they have the same standard of living as western societies. Opponents of this view argue that modernity is independent of culture and can be adapted to any society. Japan is cited as an example by both sides. Some see it as proof that a thoroughly modern way of life can exist in a non-western society. Others argue that Japan has become distinctly more western as a result of its modernization.
It has also been criticised empirically, as modernization theorists ignore external sources of change in societies. The binary between traditional and modern is unhelpful, as the two are linked, and often interedependent; whilst 'modernization' does not come as a whole.