Sunteți pe pagina 1din 30

Neo-evolutionary,

modernisation and neo-


modernisation
theories of development

Roberts, T.J. and A. Hite (eds) From Modernisation to Globalisation: Perspectives


on Development and Social Change. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000) [ISBN
0631210970] pp.81–156.
Evolutionary
• We also look at the resurgence of modernisation theory
in light of the success of the East Asian newly
industrialising countries. Neo-evolutionist and
Modernisation theories in general refer to a variety of
perspectives applied by non-Marxists to the Third World
in the 1950s and 1960s. The roots of many of these
theories were in classical sociological theories of social
change, such as the ideas of Emile Durkheim, which had
been greatly influenced by nineteenth century
evolutionary thought, for example, the work of Charles
Darwin.
• Evolutionary theories were seen as being able to explain how the First
World (North America and Europe) progressed over time into modern
industrial societies. The important part of the link with nineteenth century
theories of evolution was the view that societies ‘evolved’. Furthermore,
this process was a ‘good thing’: it was natural and it was inevitable.
‘Blockages’ in evolution, why some societies developed, and others did
not, therefore needed more explanation than the process of evolution
itself. Modernisation theories tried to explain and predict how Third World
countries might become ‘modern’. It is worth making the distinction
between modernisation theories in general and neo-evolutionist theories,
which can be seen as closely related to, but not identical to, modernisation
theories. Neo-evolutionism was developed by the US sociologist, Talcott
Parsons, and by others associated with the school of thought that he
created, specifically Smelser and Eisenstadt.
Neo-evolutionism
• The basic argument of neo-evolutionists was that social
change, that is, the Third World becoming more like the
First World, can best be understood and explained as a
quasi-biological process. They saw certain components of
developing countries, such as parts of economic, political
and other social structures, evolving from having simple,
multifunctional characteristics to having complex,
specialised functions, like the organisations and social
structures of First World countries. The way in which this
evolutionary process occurred was called differentiation.
• If Third World countries modelled themselves
on First World countries, then they would
‘progress’ economically, politically, and socially
and eventually achieve First World status. Since
the neo-evolutionist writers in the 1950s and
1960s modified nineteenth century classical
evolutionism in fundamental ways in order to
apply it to poorer countries, they were called
neo-evolutionist rather than just evolutionist.
• In the work of many modernisation theorists,
evolutionism was usually more implicit than
explicit. This shifted in 1964 with the
publication of an edition of the American
Sociological Review, which was devoted to a
review of evolutionary theory. Generally, the
contributors to the volume agreed on the
following:
1. Societies are systems that adapt in order to
survive.
2. They are primarily systems based upon social
norms.
3. Innovation and diffusion are critical in
modernisation.
4. Modern societies are unique, especially in the
extent to which internal differentiation occurs.
• One contributor, Moore, characterised evolution as
unpredictable and inconsistent, using terms like ‘cycles
and swings’ and ‘fluctuation’. Parsons went further.
Drawing parallels from organic evolution and the work of
Charles Darwin, he suggested that in order for societies
to move from the primitive to the modern, several
‘evolutionary universals’ have to be present. By this he
means any organisational development which is so
important to any further evolution that it is likely to be
hit upon by various systems operating under different
conditions.
• Elsewhere, he defines an evolutionary universal as ‘any
complex of structures and processes which so increases the
capacity of living systems to adapt’. What this means in ‘plain
English’ is that in order to survive and develop, societies need
the ability to develop the sorts of cultural attributes and
structures of modern western societies including: a wide
outlook on the world, rewards based on achievement, cities, a
class system, bureaucracy and eventually democracy. Similarly
to the way humans ‘evolved’ from apes, developing societies
‘evolve’ into developed ones, if they have the right qualities
that allow them to adapt and change into more advanced
societies.
Modernisation
• Modernisation theories were less holistic, and tended to
emphasise the importance of the transmission of modern
attitudes and values for the success of development. Daniel
Lerner was one example of a modernisation theorist who
argued that it was modern techniques of communicating
ideas, which made the difference in making the transition
from a traditional to a modern society, in key institutions
such as education and the mass media. Tradition and
modernity were seen as completely different and even
antagonistic forms of social organisation. In crude terms
then tradition was ‘bad’ and modernity was ‘good’.
Inkeles and Smith
• Modernisation theorists, Inkeles and Smith, expressed
the goal of development as ‘making men modern’ (sic).
This male-oriented idea will be important to remember
when we consider the criticism that women have been
left out of the development process. ‘Making men
modern’ is, in many ways, the essence of
modernisation theory. ‘Modern Man’ has become
modern when ‘he’ has changed as an individual.
Modernity is indicated in the presence of a distinct set
of attitudes, which include:
• a readiness for new experience and an openness to innovation
• an interest in things other and those of immediate relevance
• a more ‘democratic’ attitude towards the opinions of others
• an orientation to the future rather than the past
• a readiness to plan one’s own life
• a belief that we can dominate our environment and achieve our goals
• an acceptance that the world is ‘calculable’ and therefore controllable
• an awareness of the dignity of others, for example, women and children
• a faith in the achievement of science and technology, albeit a somewhat
simple faith
• a belief in ‘distributive’ justice.
• While most modernisation theorists tended to
underestimate the disruption caused by
processes of development, one writer,
Eisenstadt, who edited a book called Readings
in Social Evolution and Development (1966),
drew attention to these conflicts from within
the general modernisation paradigm.
Rostow’s stages of economic growth
• An American economist, Walt Rostow, wrote a well-
known book that combined a variety of strands within
modernisation and neo-evolutionary theory called the
Stages of Economic Growth with the sub-title a Non
Communist Manifesto. He argued that economic
development takes place in well-defined stages, and
mapped the process out more clearly than the earlier
work of Talcott Parsons. Rostow argued that
development is only possible where the socio-economic
conditions that promote money saving among the
population exist.
• This is based on his study of Western economic development.
In Rostow’s first stage, traditional society, economic output is
limited because of a lack of scientific and technological
expertise. People’s values are fatalistic, that is, they believe that
the future is predetermined and they cannot control it. Political
power has not been centralised, as in a modern state. A new
outlook and institutions mark the second stage, what Rostow
called ‘the preconditions for take off’. People begin to support
economic advancement. Connected to this, education, free
enterprise and economic institutions are developed further.
The society invests in transportation, communication and raw
materials and this stimulates business.
• At the same time as modern institutions and production
techniques begin to emerge, aspects of traditional society
remain. Rostow classified this as a ‘dual society’, the example
of this situation is a colonial state. The third stage of
economic growth is labelled take off. This stage is manifested
in the defeat of traditional barriers to growth. This could
occur through the appearance of new politically active
groups, that prioritise economic growth and expansion, or
through the development of new technologies such as new
ways to produce goods that represented the beginning of
the industrial revolution in Britain.
• There is rapid economic expansion at this point and the middle class
begins to emerge. Agriculture is commercialised, and output that meets
the needs of growing cities increases swiftly. Stage four is referred to as
the ‘drive to maturity’ when 10 to 20 per cent of national income is
invested and the economy is nearly ‘developed’. The economy begins to
advance beyond heavy industry, and technology gets more sophisticated.
National production and consumption moves from meeting basic needs,
to the ability to choose goods and services. The last stage is called ‘high
consumption’ and is based on increasing ability to produce high value
consumer items like cars, refrigerators, televisions and computers, the
economy also becomes more service oriented. At this point, people’s
basic needs are satisfied, and the state focuses on social welfare and
security. For Rostow, reaching this stage in the USA coincided with the
mass production of automobiles.
Responses to neo-evolutionary and
modernisation theories
• From the late 1960s to the late 1980s, neo-evolutionary and
modernisation theories were intensely criticised from various
perspectives within sociology, such as Marxist sociology. At the
same time, if you were to look at the activities and programmes
of major development organisations such as the World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, and United States Agency for
International Development, you would find that their policies
have always been based on the principles of modernisation and
neo-evolutionary theories. Criticisms of neo-evolutionary and
modernisation theories have come from within academic
sociology and activist groups rather than from mainstream
development organisations.
Gusfield’s critique
• The clearest and most persuasive conceptual critique of neo-evolutionary and
modernisation theories of the 1950s and 1960s, though some of its substantive
examples are dated, is the article by Gusfield. His analysis focuses on the ways
in which the concepts of ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’, which are central to many
of the theories, misrepresent the sociological realities that exist in First and
Third World countries. He points out that ‘tradition’ and ‘innovation’ are not
necessarily in conflict or opposed. Furthermore, neo-evolutionary and
modernisation theories make Western political forms either inevitable or
superior outcomes of political processes in developing countries, as seen in
Parsons’ evolutionary universals. In this, he is questioning the linearity of many
of these arguments, as in the Darwinian argument that a society ‘evolves’ in a
straight line from a pre-modern or ‘traditional’ society to a ‘modern’ or
essentially (North American or European) society. In particular, he focuses on a
number of assumptions that these theories make, which he labels false.
• First, he contends that it is wrong to suggest that traditional society is
untouched by modernity. Neo-evolutionary and modernisation
theories tended to ignore the fact that developing societies had been
strongly influenced by their histories of foreign domination and
colonialism. In the case of India, these influenced and changed
important parts of society, including family life, religious belief and
practice, and social structure. The concept of India as a non-
industrialised and agricultural society only ready for modernisation in
the mid-twentieth century is problematic. The decline of industries in
India in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Gusfield
argues, was a result of the British protection of their own textile
manufacturers that were important in the Industrial Revolution
happening there at that time.
• Second, he argues that traditional culture is not homogeneous.
Hindu philosophical and religious teaching, for example, is
consistent with a number of diverse orientations to life. The
importance of this is that so called ‘traditional culture’ is not
resistant to change; it can actually allow for a wide variety of
behaviours. In addition, in contrast to modernisation and neo-
evolutionary theorists, Hinduism is compatible with capitalism
and economic development, for example, there is labour
mobility within the caste system. He suggests that many neo-
evolutionary and modernisation theorists were overly
influenced by Weber’s thesis in The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism.
• Third, he suggests that modern ideas or practices do not always
replace traditional ones. They may increase the range of options
people have in developing countries. Tradition and modernity are
not always in conflict. For example, in Japan ‘feudalism’ and
industrial growth have ‘fused’ to promote economic development.
Tradition and modernity are not mutually exclusive systems.
Instead, Gusfield argues, they are often mutually reinforcing. Some
theorists argued that development of industrialisation was only
compatible with the reduction over time, from large extended
families to small nuclear families based only on two parents and
their children. Industrial growth was also compatible with large
family size among certain groups in India.
• The last criticism is that modernising processes do not weaken
traditions. He suggests that increased transportation, technologies,
and the spread of ideas benefits tradition as well as modernity. For
example, the traditional Muslim pilgrimage to the holy site of Mecca
in Saudi Arabia is greatly facilitated by the access that many people
now have to aeroplane travel. As a result, there are far more
pilgrimages to Mecca than there ever were before the aeroplane.
Thus, Gusfield concludes that the common practice of neo-
evolutionary and modernisation theorists to pit tradition and
modernity against each other as paired opposites tends to overlook
the real world’s complexities. Some, but not all, of the points raised
by Gusfield remain valid about modernisation theory today. An
example of this follows.
Crenshaw
• The analysis proposed by Crenshaw et al. (2000) attempts to surpass
criticisms regarding the problematic ways in which tradition and modernity
are used or reified18 in modernisation and neo-evolutionary theories of
the 1950s and 1960s. Crenshaw et al., similar to Parsons, define social
change in any society as adaptation that follows conflict. However, unlike
Parsons, they do not refer to value-laden terms such as ‘evolution’, ‘stages
of growth’, ‘progress’, ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’. They emphasise
‘transitions’ that occur resulting from changes in social and organisational
circumstances when looking at issues such as human reproduction and its
link to modernisation. Their model therefore focuses on mechanisms that
produce social change, such as instituting family planning programmes,
rather than prescribing solutions that treat the social and economic values
and structures of Western countries as the evolutionary ideal for which
Third World countries must strive.
Neo-modernisation theory
• The revival of neo-evolutionist and modernisation theories in the
late 1980s had to do with the changes in Eastern Europe and the
demise of the Soviet Union as well as the apparent end of socialism
and the introduction of the market into many parts of the new
Second World, the former socialist countries. Some of the neo-
evolutionist and modernisation theorists have argued that changes
in these countries support their general theory. This has led to
renewed interest in the area of modernisation in particular, and a
new approach to development called ‘neo-modernisation’. The
theorists have also tried to transform the ideas to explain the
substantial increase in industrialisation seen in some Third World
countries, particularly in East Asia,19 since the 1960s.
• Two schools of neo-modernisation theory have emerged in
recent years. One emphasises the convergence of values
resulting from ‘modernisation’. Similar to the idea of ‘making
men modern’ (sic) above, it emphasises the decline of
traditional values and the replacement of ‘modern’ values. The
other school emphasises the persistence of traditional values
despite economic and political change. This school assumes
that values are independent of economic conditions. It
therefore argues that convergence around a set of ‘modern’
values is unlikely, and traditional values will continue to exert
an independent influence on the cultural change that results
from economic development.
Ingelhart and Baker
• In contrast to theorists of the 1950s and 1960s, most contemporary
modernisation theorists support the view that traditional values persist despite
economic and political change. Ingelhart and Baker suggest, as does Gusfield,
that modernisation does not follow a linear path, in contrast to, for example,
Walt Rostow. Economic collapse can also reverse the effects of modernisation as
in the case of the return to traditional values in the former Soviet Union.
Furthermore, although economic development transforms people’s attitudes in
societies in predictable ways, such as secularisation in the early stages of
capitalist industrialisation for example, the process and path of change varies.
Therefore, predictions about changes in societies need to be based on the
historical and cultural context of the country in question. Samuel Huntington,
likewise moved from a model that emphasised the linear and universal
expansion of Western values through convergence, later stressed the
fragmentation which occurs in an era of globalisation where there is conflict
between different civilisations and cultures.
Kim
• Kim tries to bring together the ideas of conflict and
convergence in order to understand the ways developing
societies deal with modernisation. For him, the economic,
technological and military power of more developed societies
forced less developed societies to ‘receive’ their values,
institutions, and other cultural attributes. The response from
the ‘receiving’ societies that encountered the ‘intruding’
societies has been varied. The extent to which the receiving
society is familiar with the values of the ‘intruding’ societies is
what can be called ‘cultural preparedness’. The level of cultural
preparedness determines how people in the receiving societies
will react to values of the intruders.
• Usually, traditional societies have been resistant to foreign
invaders or their ideas. This could have been due to inadequate
understanding of them, because of differing cultural outlooks or
internal struggles within the traditional society. Therefore, the
nature of the response is connected with the cultural flexibility of
the ‘receiving’ society. If the receiving culture and institutions are
flexible, then it is more likely that adaptive change will take place
with a small degree of social conflict. Once contact between the
two societies is made, and the initial response from the receiving
society is made, the relative strengths of both societies in terms of
economic resources, technology, and military ability determines
the relationship between the two cultures.
• This can decide whether the outcome of the encounter results in
complete control, colonisation, brief occupation, creation of
diplomatic relations, or whether other types of relationship are
established. There is an element of choice, or ‘cultural selectivity’ in
the process of taking on cultural aspects of the intruding society. If
the receiving society is especially flexible, it may be able to absorb
new elements easily, but with selectivity, may adopt some aspects
rather than others. Selection also occurs in the political arena since
there must be a decision about what type of adaptation will take
place and how it will occur; this is called political selectivity.
Therefore, the interaction of political and cultural selectivity leads to
an understanding of the process of how developing societies adapt
to modern values.

S-ar putea să vă placă și