Theory –
Modern society is characterized by time-space distantiation and disembedding mechanisms. Traditional society is based on direct interaction between people living close to each other. Modern societies stretch further and further across space and time using mass media and interactive media. Disembedding mechanisms such as money, symbolic means, English as the lingua franca and the Internet help to lift out and activities in an abstract or online form that were once embedded in particular material goods and in places.
Benjamin Barber tried to explain the clash of Western and non-Western cultures of the world in his Jihad versus McWorld: How the Planet is both Falling Apart and Coming Together (1996).
This theme of the combination of unification and fragmentation in society and in media use also is present in the work of Meyrowitz (1993) – See Medium Theory- and van Dijk (1993, 1991/1999). Van Dijk tries to explain the rise of the new media such as computer networks and mobile telephony as important tools for modern life. They enable scale reduction and scale extension, a unitary and a fragmented world and, finally, a world that is both social and individualized (network individualism).
Globalization & Modernization-
Globalization can be defined as the integration of economic, political and social cultures and is related to the spreading of modernization across borders. It theorizes the development of a global economy in the sense that the world is moving in the direction of more efficient use of resources and the means of production.
Mass tourism could not have developed without air travel. 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. Economic development can often initially highlight the 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. This often begets an acute awareness of those in society initially or chronically left behind by economic progress.
Modernization theorists often saw traditions as obstacles to economic growth. Furthermore, while modernization might deliver violent, radical change for 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. Others point to improvements in living standards, physical infrastructure, education and economic opportunity to refute such criticisms.
Orientation-
A macro-theory with a historical and sociological inspiration. Developed in large-scale historical research investigating the effects of the modernization process on human communication. Modernization means the appearance of ‘modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence’(Giddens, 1991). Modernization theories explain the changing ways of communication and media use in traditional and (post)modern societies.
Modernization theory has evolved in three waves. The first wave appeared in the 1950s and 1960s. One made the attempt to explain the diffusion of Western styles of living, technological innovations and individualist types of communication (highly selective, addressing only particular persons) as the superiority of secular, materialist, Western, individualist culture and of individual motivation and achievement (Lerner, 1958), Schramm, 1964).
This first wave of theory produced three variants (McQuail, 2000: 84): Most of these theories have been discredited because of their pro-Western bias.
The second wave of modernization theory is a part of the critical theory that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s. It does not support but criticize the influence of Western modernization. This is held to be a case of Western cultural and economic imperialism or dominance (Schiller, 1976).
One of the theories concerned is media dependency theory. Peripheral (developing) countries are assumed to be dependant on mass media in the core (the Western world).
The third wave of modernization theory rising in the 1990s is the theory of late-, high- or post modernity. It tries to be more neutral, being not in favor or against Western modernization. Rather it attempts to unearth the contradictions in the modernization process and to explain the consequences of modernity for individuals in contemporary society (Giddens, 1991a, 1991b). Giddens showed
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. 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 need to update traditional methods, which 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.
The 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.
Modernization emerged in the late 19th century and was especially popular among scholars in the mid-20th century. One foremost advocate was Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons. 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. 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, with the ability to attain "modernism" still existing. Pessimists argue that such non-modern areas are incapable of becoming modern.
Historically, 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 economical changes can enable changes in moral and cultural values. Condorcet was the first to make the economic-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. In addition to social structure and the evolution of societies, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim developed the concept of 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 their surrounding environments, but they interact with other societies which further contribute to their 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'.
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 will have 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 in order 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 capitalist economy can better arise, resulting in increased productivity supporting the internal modernization of society.
Practice:
The 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.
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.
Many historians have emphasized the central importance of a German Sonderweg or "special path" (or "exceptionalism") as the root of Nazism and the German catastrophe in the 20th century. According to the historiography by Kocka (1988), the process of nation-building from above especially during the period of the German Empire (1871–1918), in the following Weimar era, had very grievous long-term implications, historians have argued. In terms of 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, 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 twentieth century to frustrate any movement toward democracy. They played an especially negative role in the 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 elites, in the business, financial, and professional worlds, tended to accept the values of the old traditional elites. The German 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 socialists, Catholics, and reformers, and on the other hand to a highly aggressive foreign policy. For these reasons Fritz Fischer and his students emphasized Germany’s primary guilt for causing World War I.
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.
The historiographical concept of a German Sonderweg has had a turbulent history. Nineteenth century scholars 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 social welfare state. In the 1950s, historians in West German argued that the Sonderweg lead 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 nineteenth 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.
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. 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. The book was widely praised, but was criticized by some 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 late 19th century, and China and India in the late 20th century. For example, the process of borrowing science and technology from the West has been explored.
Modernizers in 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'.
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.
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.
Democracy-
Scholars have long 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. In the 1960s some critics said the link each was too much based on European history, neglecting the Third World. Recent demonstrations of the emergence of democracy in South Korea, Taiwan and South Africa have tended to bolster the thesis.
The historical problem case has always been 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.".
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.
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.
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.
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. New technologies do not change societies by itself. Rather, it is the response to technology that causes change. Frequently, technology will be recognized but not put to use for a very long time. Take for example the ability to extract metal from rock. It was not just a new technology at one time, but one that had profound implications for the course of societies. It was always there, but went unused for a great period of time. As Neil Postman has said, "technological change is not additive; it is ecological. A new technology does not merely add something; it changes everything". People in society are always coming up with new ideas and better ways of making life easier and more enjoyable. Technology makes it possible for a more innovated society and broad social change. What becomes of this is a dramatic change through the centuries that has evolved socially, industrially, and economically, 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. In addition to technology being a great social and economic advancement, it also grants these more dependent societies to become more modernized despite internal conflicts or repressive governments, allowing them to reap the benefits of such technological advancements.
Throughout the world new technology has also helped people recover after the impact of natural disasters. In Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami many people lost their livelihoods. A new technology in the coir industry has helped them get back on their feet. According to Zack Taylor of USAID, this new technology has brought the indigenous industry into the modern age. Coir products are made from fibrous husks of the coconut. Using a decorticator, workers can extract coir fiber in a single day. In the past they had to soak the coconut husks in salt water for 6–8 months until they are soft enough to be separated by hand. This project is being funded by USAID.
Among the scientists 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 Rostivian 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. David McClelland (The Achieving Society, 1967) approached this subject from the psychological perspective, with his motivations theory, arguing that modernization cannot happen until a given society values innovation, success and free enterprise. 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. Dward Said's "Orientalism" interpret modernization from the point of view of societies that are quickly and radically transformed.
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. 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.
