1

Modernization Theory: A Critical Analysis

In the changing world situation after the post 1945 era, the development of

modernization theory in order to modernise the rest of the world in line with

American development is interestingly significant in the history of development

studies. However, the way modernization theory suggests for development and

modernity proved to be controversial soon after its development as a theory. This

essay will advance the idea that even though modernization as an idea is still

relevant, the basic notions and objections attached to the modernization

approach are highly debatable. To explore these issues, the essay will first attempt

to highlight the meaning of the term modernization from different perspectives,

which is then followed by a discussion of the context in which the theory

developed. Then it will focus on some basic objections embedded in the theory

that offer critiques from many development studies scholars. Finally it will

conclude with the concrete argument that it does not work.

The term ‘modernization’ has been defined from various perspectives along with

its original meaning. One orientation to the term ‘modernization’ conceives it as

a process of social change (Huntington 1968, Inkeles 1969, Lerner 1958, Levy 1966,

Schwartz 1972) while another orientation considers modernization not only as a

change but also as a response to change (Eisenstadt 1966). According to

Huntington (1968), modernization is a multidimensional process that includes

transformation of human views and activities. However, Halpern (1966) who notes

2

modernization as a response to change, focusses on the capacity of institutions to

manage those changes effectively. Combining these two views into one,

Eisenstadt (1966) argues modernization as a process of change and at the same

time he stresses on the capacity of institutions to control or adjust to changes.

Similarly, the American economic historian Rostow (1960) presented a model,

considered as the blueprint for modernization approach, signposting development

as series of stages such as underdevelopment, transition and modernity. This

blueprint of modernization approach implies that, in order to be modern like

modern America, traditional countries must go through these stages of

development. Modernization is implicitly meant in the model as the associations

of production and standard of living characteristic of the western countries such

as America. Conversely, considering the Chinese modernization that includes

family bondage, tradition, rural life and culture , Li (2009) Argues that scholars

have reached consensus that modernization is a functional change of traditional

societal arrangement. Therefore, modernization is a process of changing societies

from pre-modern (traditional, pastoral and agricultural) to modern (industrialized,

secular and urban).

Having considered the meaning of the term ‘modernization’, the context of

modernization theory now needs to be taken into account. The theory emerged

when development became an urgent issue after the Second World War in a

context of international changing economic and political realities. The whole world

3

was sharply divided into two blocks-capitalist and socialist, making a cold war

situation. New countries were emerging from the decolonization of western

colonies. Development for these new economies became an urgent issue of

priority. Specifically, modernization theory is the historical outcome of three main

events in the post second world war period. First is the rise of America as a super

power to challenge the growth of the global communist movement. The second

event is the development of a worldwide communist movement led by Russia and

later on China and the third is the decolonization of western colonies in Asia and

Africa.

To supplement the above contextual discussion, Tipps (1973) perfectly argues

that modernization theory developed as a response of the American political

leaders and scholars to the post second world war period context. The Rostow

model of economic development, as cited above, is a suitable example of what

Tipps (1973) call the response of the American scholars. This model makes it clear

that the implicit purpose of modernization theory is to shape the development of

the emerging countries from the western colonies, sliding them towards the

capitalist block. The context in which the theory was developed is particularly

suitable to that culture, not necessarily suitable for others.

This contextual emergence of the theory gave birth to doubts of the objectivity of

modernization approach. For example, the theory has been accused of being

ethnocentric. This question of ethnocentrism becomes apparent when a leading

4

proponent of modernization theory, Eisenstadt (1966), explicitly explains

modernisation as a process of societal change towards western model of

development. The Rostow model and Parsons theory of variables along with other

modernization theorists perhaps inaccurately suggest westernization for

modernization of the non-western countries (Parsons 1964, Rostow 1960). This

can possibly be compared with the Macaulay’s nineteen century suggestion to

make the Indian Civil Service members as Indian by appearance but English in

heart as a strategy. Finding connections between political modernization theory

and social Darwinism, Mazrui (1968) perhaps correctly argues that the

ethnocentric notion of the theory involves the economic, cultural and political

interests of modern America.

In addition to the above, disproving the suitability or applicability of a western

model for development of non-western countries , the challengers such as Li

(2009) strongly argues that modern society rises from the leaving of previous

social arrangement, not from the replacement with a so-called western model.

Arguing China’s development as the glaring example of this view, he goes on to

explain that China’s modernization includes traditions such as family bondage,

rural life and culture, ethnic interpersonal connections while these were

completely absent in the western oriented modernization theory. It is, therefore,

proved that modernization is something different from westernization as in the

case of China’s modernization. The story of a prince (of one of the Middle East

states) and his wish to have skiing (only possible in the snow falling western

5

countries) in his country to make the country modern actually demonstrates how

irrelevant western type of modernization is to the non-western countries as a

prescription (Malik 2009).

When this western model of development is proved to be irrelevant to traditional

societies, much of debate around modernization theory is based on its

conceptualization that development is a linear process (Rostow 1960) with a pre-

set ultimate aim. The contemporary development icons of the modern world were

conceived as the only expected goals of the pre-modern countries. Parsons (1964),

heavily drawing upon Max Weber, presented his renowned theory of variables

that implies if pre-modern countries want to be modern, they must follow the

countries that are already modern. The idea that learnings from the already

modern world are applied in the pre-modern world basically overlooks the truth

that human history is a complex one (Menou 2008) rather than being linear.

However, modernization theorists were able to notice later that different

countries have different sets of needs as every society is unique but the fact is that

they understood the fact not because of the modernization theory but because of

their own theory (Gilman 2003). Therefore, modernization theory leads to a ‘one-

size-fits-all’ approach failing to take into consideration the context of the western

society in which it developed and that of the pre-modern countries.

This notion of linearity of modernization theory is completely unable to explain

the non-linear human development phenomenon of the world. In a world where

6

human development is considered as an integral part of development (Sen 1999),

countries such as Greenland opted out of the European Union and similarly Iran

enacted laws against freedom of speech. Any guideline to deal with such non-

linear aspects of human development is noticeably absent in the theory and,

therefore, the modernization approach fails to encapsulate the notion of linearity

of modernization. The theory must consider the situations virtually of all countries

to be a theory of strongest merit in any debate regarding human development.

Similarly, the theory completely overlooks some crucial issues of humanitarian

aspects making the approach problematic. For example, while issues such as equal

income distribution, public health and environmental concerns are important

considerations for development (Dreze and Sen 1999, Sen 1999), they are

completely missing in the theory. Interestingly, the exclusion of these issues

makes countries appear more modern than they are supposed to be since

modernity does not consider equality and other issues but considers only the

average national income. Although Christoff (1996) argues that the ecological

modernization school of thought includes environmental aspects into

development thinking, evidence is not seen to combine them in the modernization

approach. As these are mostly the twenty first century issues, it is probably a

threat to the theory’s relevance today.

Beside the notion of linearity being problematic, the dichotomization of modernity

and tradition offers serious critiques for the modernization approach.

7

Modernization theorists characteristically view western countries as perfectly

modern while undermining non-western societies as traditional and unchanged by

contrast (Gilman 2003). This orientation of modernization holds the idea that non-

western countries are substandard even though they share the same living

standards (such as Japan) as western countries (such as the United States). This

core assumption of the theory is disproved when Li (2009) argues that traditional

elements can be considered as part of modernisation as in the case of China’s

development. Therefore, modernity and tradition are linked and sometimes

interdependent, a reality which the modernization approach simply overlooks. By

this subjective conceptualization, the modernization approach actually

mechanically and impractically divided the world society into two so-called

contrasting categories- modern and traditional (Yuan 2009). Defining traditional

societies negatively in relation to modern societies has been a basic objection to

many scholars including Bernstein (1971).

The approach again becomes vulnerable to critiques because of its ignoring of the

external influences on social change. The proponents of modernization theory

(Inkeles 1969, Parsons 1964, Rostow 1960) completely ignore the external

influence on societal change by focussing mainly on the internal aspects of societal

structure and values. Tipps (1973) suitably notes that economic development,

industrialization, rationalization, secularization or whatever the type of change,

the process of modernization is functional at the domestic level. He then argues

that consequences of this limited view of the theory become apparent if applied

8

to most of the Asian and African countries. He further goes on to explain that

modernization theory fails to explain the situation of those countries though the

emergence of these countries contributed to the development of the theory.

The final point of why the modernization approach is controversial is that the term

modernization itself is ambiguous. Modernization, as Tipps (1973) correctly notes,

is a term simply superimposed with industrialization, adding nothing to it. He then

goes on to argue that as the term has been used simply as synonym for some pre-

existing precise variables such as industrialization, it deserves no functionality to

perform as a theoretical framework and therefore modernization as a theory of

development is questionable. Signposting modernization as ‘vague and

generalised’ , he further explains that because of the ambiguous use of the term,

it lost its originality in precision and as a consequence, is difficult to disprove.

In contrast to the above limitations of the theory, the idea of modernity is yet

relevant for practical reasons. But how to achieve this modernity is a matter to

really think about. Whereas modernization approach is regarded as unfashionable

to many scholars, other scholars such as (Inglehart and Welzel 2005), Arts et al.

(1999) and Aboderin (2004) are yet reasonably using this modernization approach

for their research. Modernization theory indeed explains the social and economic

changes of many countries during the last few decades and hence, should not be

completely rejected as a theoretical framework.

9

Although it is true, to a large extent, that modernization approach is still valid for

the economic, social and political development of the countries, the approach has

appeared questionable to many scholars of the field. This is not only because the

theory is incapable of functioning as a framework of development but also

because some objectionable assumptions are embedded in the theory. While

these objections or limitations such as ethnocentrism, dichotomization of

modernity and tradition, failure to recognise the external aspects of change and

ambiguity are evident, the suitability and applicability of the theory are simply

disproved. Since society will always be changing, existing theories will be unable

to rationalise these changes. Modernization theory came in a particular context to

explain how industrialization, secularity and the nation state were relevant to

changes and development. But in the course of time while societies still require

modernity, modernization approach is reasonably unable to tell how to achieve

this modernity. Therefore, alternative modernity, as in the case of China

developing their own style of modernity, should be thought of for the betterment

of the world as a whole.

10

References

Aboderin, I. (2004) Modernisation and ageing theory revisited: Current explanations of recent developing world and historical Western shifts in material family support for older people. Aging and Society, 24, pp. 29-50.

Arts, W., Hermkens, P. and Van Wijck, P. (1999) Modernisation theory, income evaluation, and the transition in Eastern Europe. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 40(1), pp. 61-78.

Bernstein, H. (1971) Modernization Theory and the Sociological Study of Development. Journal of Development Studies, 7(2), pp. 141.

Christoff, P. (1996) Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities. Environmental Politics, 5(3), pp. 476-500.

Dreze, J. and Sen, A. (1999) India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eisenstadt, S. N. (1966) Modernization: Protest and Change, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Gilman, N. (2003) Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Halpern, M. (1966) The revolution of modernization in national and international society. Revolution, 195, pp. 178-214.

Huntington, S. P. (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Inkeles, A. (1969) Making men modern: On the causes and consequences of individual change in six developing countries. American Journal of Sociology, 75(2), pp. 208.

Lerner, D. (1958) The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East, Glencoe: Free Press.

Levy, M. J. (1966) Modernization and the Structure of Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Li, Y. (2009) Revival of tradition or modernization? The perspective of subjectivity in the study of modernization theory and a critique of the functionalist approach. Chinese Studies in History, 43(1), pp. 61-71.

11

Malik, N. (2009) The modern face of traditional agarian rule: Local government in Pakistan. Development in Practice: Stimulating Thought for Action, 19(8), pp. 997-1008.

Mazrui, A. A. (1968) From social Darwinism to current theories of modernization: A tradition of analysis. World Politis, 21(1).

Menou, M. J. (2008) Imperial ICTism the Highest Stage of Capitalism? Keynote address, INFO 2008, La Habana.

Parsons, T. (1964) Evolutionary universals in society. America Sociological Review, 29, pp. 339-357.

Rostow, W. W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-communist Manifesto, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, B. I. (1972) The limits of 'tradition versus modernity' as categories of explanation: The case of the chinese intellectuals. Daedalus, 101(2), pp. 71-88.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tipps, D. C. (1973) Modernization theory and the comparative study of societies: A critical perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15(2), pp. 199-226.

Yuan, P. (2009) Modernization Theory: From historical misunderstanding to realistic development- A review of a new thesis on modernization. Chinese Studies in History, 43(1), pp. 37-45.