Modernization is a concept used in
sociology and
politics. It
is the view that a standard, teleological
evolutionary pattern, as described in the
social evolutionism theories, exists as
a template for all nations and peoples. It should not be confused
with the sociological concept of
rationalization, or the concepts of
urbanization and
industrialization.
Theory
According to theories of modernization, each society would evolve
inexorably from barbarism to ever greater levels of development and
civilization. The more modern states would be wealthier and more
powerful, and their citizens freer and having a higher standard of
living. According to the
Social
theorist Peter
Wagner, modernization can be seen as processes, and as
offensives. The former view is commonly projected by politicians
and the media, and suggests that it is developments, such as new
data technology or dated laws, which make modernization necessary
or preferable. This view makes critique of modernization difficult,
since it implies that it is these developments which control the
limits of human interaction, and not vice versa. The latter view of
modernization as offensives argues that both the developments and
the altered opportunities made available by these developments, are
shaped and controlled by human agents. The view of modernization as
offensives therefore sees it as a product of human planning and
action, an active process capable of being both changed and
criticized.
This was the standard view in the social sciences for many decades
with its foremost advocate being
Talcott
Parsons.
Hegel also viewed it as a
"development of the rational and universal Mind towards
self-conciousness and freedom." This 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. Proponents
of Modernisation lie in two camps, optimists and pessimist.
The former
view what a modernizer would see as a setback to the theory (events
such as the Iranian Revolution or
the troubles in Lebanon
) as
temporary setbacks, with the ability to attain "modernism" still
existing. Pessimists would argue that such non-modern areas
are incapable of becoming modern.
Criticism
This approach has been heavily 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. Technically
modernity 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, this view is accused of being
Eurocentric, as modernization began in Europe
with the
industrial
revolution, the
French
Revolution and the
Revolutions
of 1848, and has long been regarded as reaching its most
advanced stage in Europe (by Europeans), and in Europe overseas
(USA, 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
Notes
- Brugger and Hannan, p. 1–3.
- Dixon, p. 1–4
- Khan, p. 162–164.
- Brugger and Hannan, p. 43.
- Macionis, p. 953.
References
Printed:
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search
