The classical modernist is dully represented
by Alex Inkless, Robert Bellah, and David McCelland. In his analysis of
Achievement Motivation, McClelland observed that to become a modern society,
the society has to define its goals and aspirations and the mechanism of
achieving the defined goals. A country that does not have achievement
motivation cannot attain a rapid and sustainable modernization. A society
must posses investment drives and culture of entrepreneurship and this is
predicated on the activities of the entrepreneurs who are genuinely committed
to the development of the society (McClelleand, 1080). As precondition
for modernization, society must possess achievement drive.
Alex Inkless (1979) analysis is based on a
research he conducted in some selected countries of the world such as Nigeria,
Pakistan, India and China where he interviewed about 600 men to assess the
impact of modernization on attitude and value of individuals. According
to Inkless (1978), is attached modernization when there is openness and
receptivity to science, change and innovation.
To Robert Bellah (1982), a direct student of
Parsons, there are certain religious sects whose doctrine and value influences
the process of development of society. Focusing mainly on the Tokugawa
religion in Japan, Bellah argued that the Tokugawa religion influenced the
transition of Japan from traditional to a modern society that is technically
advanced. This religion accelerated the transformation of Japan from a poorly
based industrial society to a society with a modern industrial base for
manufacture. The Tokuwa religion for example, revolves around the Samurai, a
warrior society, whose doctrine revolves around discipline, hardwork and
irrevocable commitment to nationalism. This warrior society played a
central role in restoring the emperor of Japan, and mobilized the indigenous
entrepreneurs for productive capital investment.
Thus, as a student of Talcott Parsons,
Bellah's view was stamped with the trade mark of functionalism. His
analysis is clear manifestation of the pivotal role religion with its unique
Values and traits played to foster the transition of Japan as a
classical example of backward feudal society to a modern society. As a
modern society, Japan had acquired the traits of capitalism, individualism,
self-orientation and innovation. The foundation of all these were concretely
laid by the Tokugawa religious sect. Therefore, modernization implies a
process of acquiring new traits, values, skills, capital and culture
entrepreneurship. Both forces internal and external to the system can play a
central role in this process.
Theoretical
Assumption of Modernization
Modernization is multi-disciplinary in
structure and content. At the level of
sociology, modernization maintains that change or transition from
traditionalism to modernity is gradual and achieved through structural differentiation. This is indicated in the functionalist and
evolutionary works of Talcott Parson (1951), Neil Smelser (1964), Emile
Durkheim (1940) Sahlin and Service (1975) etc.
at the level of Economics, the emphases of modernization is on increase
in production and capital investment.
This is also indicated in Walter W. Rowstow’s Stage of Economic
Growth: A non-Communist Manifestor,
among others. At the level of political
science, the highlights of modernization are on the needs to enhance the
capacity of the political system as is indicated in the works of Gabriel Almond
(1987), James Coleman (1965), among others.
Their views include the separation of religion from ideology and how
each has ensured the modernization of human society.
Therefore, modernization is assumed to be a
progressive, irreversible, lengthy and Europeanized/Americanized process.
Modernization has phases and it is homogenous.
The Policy
Implication of Modernization
Modernization theory has some policy
implications for third world development. In the first place, modernization
theory was formulated as a response to the ascendance of the USA to the
position of a super power in the aftermath of the World War II (1939-1945).
Part of this response was to provide explanation for the justification of power
relations between the traditional and modern societies. The modernist also maintained that since the
USA is a modern society, a super power, and the world’s number one police, and
the third world on the other hand is traditional, feudal and backward, the
third world should look up to America as a mentor for their rapid and sustainable
development.
Another policy implication for third world
development is that, modernization identified communism as a threat to
capitalist development in the new nations.
Thus if modernization in the third world has to follow the path of
Europe and America, the path of communism which they considered to be
reactionary, must be discarded and immediately too. Modernist also believe that economic development
is not only by replacing the traditional values with modern values, but also by
institutionalizing the democratic procedures and other forms of reform in the
third world.
As a corollary to the first policy,
implication, modernization helps to legitimize the ameliorating foreign policy. If there is need for modernization of values
and attitudes of the entire third world societies, Europe and America have
enough of such values and can provide aids, loan, experts skills and influence
Direct Foreign Investment (DFI) flow into the third world.
A General
Critique of Modernization
The critics of modernization theory include
Guesfield (1967), Eisenstaft (1967), Nisbet (1986) and Bendix (1974) who argued
that functionalism and evolutionary theories which are the offshoot of
modernization, have some limitations and so cannot provide adequate explanation
for change, growth and development of the third world. For example, critics accused evolutionary
theory of being unidirectional in tits assumption of change and development. For third world to develop there is just one
path to follow, the path of America.
Critics, asked, why is it necessary to the third world to follow this
path to development? It is also critically observed that modernization seems to
have ignored the fact that third world countries have the option to select an
alternative path to development as did Korea, Taiwan and other Asian
countries. The development of Korea and
Taiwan is not a dependent development. This therefore is an indication that the
less developed societies have alternative path to development outside the path
of Europe and America.
Modernization theory is also Eurocentirc and
racist in outlook. For example, nearly
all the modernization researchers were either Americans or Europeans. They were born and raised in the western
tradition. They believe that their
cultural values are natural, God ordained and the best in the world. Therefore, Western Countries represent the
future of the third world . thus
concepts such as ‘primitive’ ‘advance’ traditional, modern, etc are mere
ideological cliché used to justify the superiority of either America or western
societies. Also modernization theory is
too optimistic. For example, if the
western societies had developed through this model, what makes modernization
thinks that the less developed societies can as well develop if they follow the
same path of Europe to development? There is possibility argued critics for
modernization to break down. Ethiopia
and Somalia represents a classical example of this, where the people faced with
starvation and near extinction had to reverse the process and path of
development. This is an indication that
change or modernization is reversible contrary to the general assumption of
modernization, that change is irreversible to the effect that once change
starts, nothing stops it, it is progressive, continuous and harmonious.
Post
Modernism
The preceding section argues that
modernization is a process of change that is not radical or violent but
gradual, piecemeal, harmonious and progressive.
Post modernism is another
position taken by the neo-modernists and Marxists such ad David Harvey (1990),
Jean – Francois Layotard (1984), jean Baudrillard (19983) etc, to explain
change and advancement in since and technology.
They observed that sine this remarkable change has taken place, the old
sociological theories can no longer provide adequate explanation for the
structure of modern society. Both
language and culture today have no boundaries.
An individual has a choice to travel anywhere and can choose to interact
with any person, irrespective of sex, age or colure. Language becomes a major factor in the
dissemination of knowledge and advert on the television, newspaper and
radio. There is need therefore to
formulate or reformulate new theories in the age of post-modern societies that
would consider the new value and trends.
Thus since 1980s, post-modern perspectives have become increasingly influential
in sociological enterprise.
Marxism
and Dependency
While modernization views development from the
American or Western perspective, dependency theory views development from the
perspective of the third world.
Dependency school represents the voices from the third world. Also, dependency theory emerged to challenge
the intellectual hegemony of the European school of modernism. Originally, the theory developed as a
response to the bankruptcy of the programme of United Nation’s Economic
Commission for Latin America (UN-ECLA) in the early 1960s. In the said period, many populist regime in
Latin America tried the UN-ECLA induce programme of protectionism and
industrialization via Import Substitution Industrialization strategy. Consequently, many social researchers had
high optimism for a trend toward economic growth, welfare and democracy. However, the brief economic expansion which
resulted from the implementation of the UN-ECLA programme turned into high
pessimism, characterized by economic stagnation with unemployment, inflation,
currency devaluation, declining terms of trade and many other economic problems
as consequences. Violent protests and
revolt followed immediately with the collapses of these populist regime and the
subsequent establishment of repressive and authoritarian regime. Thus, many researchers become disillusioned
with both UN-ECLA programme and modernization which failed to offer a better
explanation for economic stagnation, political repression and the widening gap
between the rich and the poor countries.
The second reason for the emergence of
dependency theory is that the theory developed as a response to the crises of
orthodox Marxism. Marxism argued that
the societal process of evolution must follow the path of slavery, feudalism,
capitalism, socialism and finally to communism.
But the events in Cuba, Russia and China proved this wrong.
The orthodox Marxism believed that counties of
the world have to pass through the Bourgeois Industrial Revolution (BIR) before
wagging a proletarian socialist
revolution. However, this view was
contrary to what was obtained in China (1949), Cuba (1959) and Russia (1917). These countries skipped the Bourgeoisie’s
Industrial Revolution to wage the proletarian socialist revolution, that is,
these countries did not experience capitalism as Marx predicated before
transiting from feudalism to capitalism.
Therefore, it is justifiably argued that if these countries had skipped the stage of bourgeois
industrial revolution, other third world countries could as well follow. From Latin America, this view spread to North
America. Andre Gunder Frank, a Brazilian
economist was said to be responsible for disseminating the idea of dependency
to the English Speaking World (SO, 1990).
The Dual
Economic Thesis
The dual economic thesis or Economic dualism
is another theory that is crucial to understanding of the process of
development in the third world. The dual
economic thesis is hinged on the premise that in the third world societies, a
dual economy is transformed by the coexistence of peasant subsistence
agriculture and cash production of basic commodities or industrial goods for
the international markets. It is further
argued that because the peasant or rural economy is spate from the urban
industrial economy, the penetration of capitalist mode of production into the
rural economy would transform the entire rural economy.
However, it is critically argued that rural
economy does not get transformed entirely with the penetration of
capitalism. There are certain aspect of
rural economies that are preserved to serve capitalism. On the issues of two separate economies
existing side by side one another, it is observed that there is neither
difference between rural and urban economies nor between capitalism and peasant
economies. Both economies are
organically linked to one another. This is indicated in the economic recession
which Europe experiences and the extension of same to the third world. The rural economy supplies all the necessary
industrial raw materials to the urban and metropolitan cities.
However, the peasant economy continues to
survive under the capitalist economy because labour is generated from the
family and is not commercialized. Production is oriented away from the market
and there is little dependence on modern equipment for production such as
tractor, harvester, fertilizer among others.
LIKELY
EXAM QUESTIONS:
1. How has
the Parsonian AGIL provided key to understanding the processes of development
of Nigeria?
2. Distinguish
between the Sociological and Economic approaches to Modernization as a subject
of Development.
Reference:
Otaki, O. (2006) Sociology of Development:
Kaduna, Nigeria.
No comments:
Post a Comment