| Revision as of 14:52, 8 April 2006 edit144.136.173.160 (talk) →See also← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:54, 8 April 2006 edit undoCambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators253,177 editsm Reverted edits by 144.136.173.160 (talk) to last version by YurikBotNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| ==External links== | |||
| * | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 14:54, 8 April 2006
Modernization could be defined as an interlocking set of social, economic, political, and cultural processes and relationships that emerged 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.
Modernization is closely linked to classical liberalism. The concept of modernization comes from a view of societies as having a standard evolutionary pattern, as described in the social evolutionism 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 Talcott Parsons. 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.
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 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).
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.
See also
References
 | This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Modernization" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) |