| Revision as of 23:34, 6 January 2006 edit24.83.101.207 (talk) updated definition← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:57, 7 June 2017 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,802,620 editsm +{{Redirect category shell}} using AWB |
| (354 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
#REDIRECT ] |
|
Modernization could be defined as an interlocking set of social, economic, political, and cultural processes and relationships that emergyed in the past from the European view of modern life that we see developing from the 17th century, until by the mid 20th century, it was widely regarded as a global north to which all states would advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell|1= |
|
Modernization is closely aodieasde linked to ]. The concept of modernization comes from a view of societies as having a standard ]ary pattern, as described in the ] theories. According to this 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. This was the standard view in the social sciences for many decades with its foremost advocate being ]. This theory stressed the importance of societies being open to change and saw as reactionary forces restricting development. Maintaining tradition for tradition's sake was thought to be harmful to progress and development. |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
This approach has been heavily criticized, mainly because it conflated modernization with ]. In this model, the modernization of a society required the destruction of the indigenous ] 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 ] 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 and has long been regarded as reaching its most advanced stage in Europe (by Europeans), and in Europe overseas (USA, Canada, Autralia, New Zealand etc). |
|
|
|
{{Authority control}} |
|
|
|
|
According to the Social theorist ], 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
== See also == |
|
| ⚫ |
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
{{unreferenced}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|