Download GOOD NOTES VERY INFORMATIVE and more Thesis History in PDF only on Docsity!
Draft for Internal Use Only
Unit III Social Change (d) Modernisation Background In order to understand what is meant by postmodernity, it is necessary to first know what sociologists mean by modernity. The theories of modernisation inform us about how the various parts of the world developed into industrial powers. Modernisation is an outcome of various social processes. The concept of modernisation emerged as the response of the western social science to the many challenges faced by the Third World. With the process of political decolonisation in Asia and Africa and the termination of colonies controlled by European powers. Followed by the Second World War, the new nations were in a hurry to launch massive programmes of economic development and technical change. The need for developing new paradigms to shape and order their development programme was strongly felt. To bring about this aim of ‘containment’ the US invested greatly in the strengthening of the economic base of certain countries including Western Europe, South Korea and Japan. Modernisation also stems from the growth of the communist movements in China, Vietnam, Soviet Union and Cuba. In this they were assisted and helped by the US which sent vast teams of social scientists to study the ground situation in the new nation states. The idea behind this move of the US was to see how capitalist ideologies could be used in the economic growth of these nations most of whom were poor due to the long period of colonisation which had greatly debilitated their resources and has been deeply exploited. This included the export of raw materials which were turned into products and commodities and reexported to the colonies so as to make great economic profits. This strategy of supplanting capitalism and capitalist ideologies was no doubt also an attempt to the influence of communist ideology and to destroy it over a period of time. There is thus a great dimension of political manoeuvres and ideology which is involved in the process of modernisation. Thus, it is important to focus on the origins of sociology in the philosophy of the enlightenment and the transition to modernity. It also outlines how most contemporary sociology is still influenced by the ‘modernist’ ambitions of understanding how societies or parts of them work in order to criticise. It is important to reflect why they think sociology began in the first place i.e. why did people start asking critical questions about societies in the 19th^ century? Classical Sociological Approaches of Modernisation
Draft for Internal Use Only
The evolutionary theory and theorists pointed out the several factors which comprised the view-point of this approach found social change in these societies to be in a linear progression going from primitive to complex society. The functionalist theorists , foremost of whom was Parsons , built up various tenets to promote its view point the main ones being the analogy of society as being an organism which had various interrelated segments in societal institutions. For functionalist thinker like Durkheim, he very strongly believed in the cohesion of society. For him, society is above everything else. Durkheim defines modernity in the context of social solidarity. To him, if there is more differentiation, there is modernity. Modernity creates functional dependence. In a modern society, the people depend on one another and this keeps the society in a state of solidarity. Differentiation does not create disorganization; it creates dependence. And, therefore, for Durkheim, modernity is differentiation, it is stratification. Marx’s concern with modernity was in terms of production relations. It was the objective of the capitalist class to increase its production. More production means more profit. Capitalism, for him, was ultimately profiteering. Marx, therefore, argued that for capitalism everything is a commodity. Alienation, exploitation and oppression are all due to commodification. Modernization, therefore, according to Marx, is nothing but a commodity, a thing to be bought and sold, and an item for trade and commerce. In a word, modernity is commercialization. Weber is credited to have developed the thesis of Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. He argues that Calvinism, a sect of Protestant religion, has certain ethics, which develop the spirit of capitalism. He has, therefore, defined modernity as rationality. For him, on one word, modernity is synonymous with rationality. Modernity is a general descriptive term, which is usually, taken to mean two things. First, it refers to the emergence of modern societies based around things like industrial production, urban living, science, technology, political democracy, rational planning and the growth of the state. Secondly, modernity is characterised by a particular outlook on the world, which sets itself against tradition, superstition and religious interpretations. It celebrates the power of rational understanding, and science in particular, to understand how the world works. Thus, sociology is closely tied to modernity. Not only did it begin in the nineteenth century as an attempt to understand these new modern societies that were developing in Western Europe, but it was also itself a product of modernity. That is, the idea of understanding how societies work with a view to improving them is a distinctly modern idea.
Draft for Internal Use Only
- To Smelser , modernization refers to a complex set of changes that take place almost in every part of society as it attempts to be industrialised. Modernisation involves ongoing change in a society, economy, politics, education, tradition and religion.
- Modernity typically refers to a post-traditional, post-medieval historical period, one marked by the move from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, the nation-state and its constituent institutions and forms of surveillance. Smelser point of view differed somewhat from what we have been pointing out. He took as his point of attention the effect of the economy and related institutions on the overall social structure. He pointed out that in modernisation process society developed from simple technology to complex ideology. Further this was a movement away from subsistence to cash crops so far as agriculture is concerned. Again, Smelser indicated that machine power begins to dominate pushing aside simply human (physical) labour. Finally, there is an emphasis on urbanisation and urban structures rather than development of the rural areas. Smelser however was realistic enough to realise that these developments were not simple and linear but that these processes took place at the same time (together) but not at the same rate (Smesler, 1969). There were several major developments that played primary historical roles in moving the world into the modern age. The first of these was the unfolding of the age of enlightenment in Western Europe during the 17th^ and 18th^ centuries. The age of enlightenment was one in which intellectual discourse was directed toward new and innovative prospects for the human condition. Primary emphasis was placed on the use of reason and rationality for deriving new and valid knowledge to improve the quality of life for both individuals and social systems. The past 200 years have witnessed remarkable developments in human affairs. Never before in human history had so much happened in such a short period of time. All the features that are associated with modernity can be shown to be related to the set of changes that, brought into being the industrial type of society. This suggests that the terms industrialism and industrial society imply far more than the economic and technological components that make up their core. Industrialism is a way of life that encompasses profound economic, social, political, and
Draft for Internal Use Only
cultural changes. It is by undergoing the comprehensive transformation of industrialization that societies become modern. As an on-going historical process, modernization represents a continuous departure from the past and an emphasis on change and development. Modernism, as Jürgen Habermas wrote in an essay named as Modernity, Uncompleted Project in 1980, is a product of an idea where the individual will be able to orient everything as he requests and believes he can do everything by using his intelligence. Alberto Martinelli , Global Modernization: rethinking the project of modernity (London: Sage, 2005), by modernization we mean the sum of the processes of large-scale change through which a certain society tends to acquire the economic, political, social and cultural characteristics considered typical of modernity. In India context, M. N Srinivas , however, criticises the concept of modernisation, according to him, it is value-loaded term. He says that modernisation is normally used in the sense that it is good. He, therefore, prefer to use the term westernisation which characteristics the changes brought about in Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule. Yogendra Singh The Asian Syndrome , on the other hand, defends the concept of modernisation. According to him, modernisation is broader than the two processes of sanskritisation and westernisation. It is, indeed a ‘cultural universal’ and not necessarily confined to any single society. To him, modernity is not an exclusive possession of any one ethnic or cultural group. It belongs to the humanity as a whole. It need not always take place on the model of England, Germany, France or America. It can take place on the model of Russia, India, Japan or China or any other country for that matter. And what is essential to modernisation is this a commitment to scientific world view and a belief in the humanistic and philosophy viewpoint of science on contemporary problems. It is important to note that some parts of the world develop faster, economically speaking than others. One of the main explanations for global stratification in modernisation theory is structural-functionalist approach. The theory frames global stratification as a function of technological and cultural differences between nations. And it specifically pinpoints two
Draft for Internal Use Only
This theory talks of a primitive society moving on to get preconditions for the pre take off onto the take- off stage, the drive to maturity and finally to a mass consumption society. Thus, for Rostow (Rostow 1960) economic development goes through various stages and that this is universal to all societies, and that modernisation is a process of homogenisation, of Europeanization, irreversible progressive, evolutionary and transformative. Conceptualising Modernisation Toward the end of the 20th^ century, social theorists were increasingly interested in the question of whether society (as well as theories about it) has undergone a dramatic transformation. On one side is a group of theorists like Jurgen Habermas, Zygmunt Bauman, and Anthony Giddens who believe that we continue to live in a society that still can best be described as modern and about which we can theorize in much the same way that social thinkers have long contemplated society. On the other side is a group of thinkers like Jean Baudrillard, Jean- François Lyotard, and Fredric Jameson who contend that society has changed so dramatically that we now live in a qualitatively different, postmodern society. Furthermore, they argue that this new society needs to be thought about in new and different ways. The debate between modernists and postmodernists was heated and led to numerous theoretical developments that continue to influence the field. All the great classical sociological theorists like Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Du Bois, Simmel, and Spencer were concerned, in one way or another, with the modern world and its advantages and disadvantages. Of course, the world has changed dramatically since the early 20th^ century. Although contemporary theorists recognize these dramatic changes, there are some who believe that there is more continuity than discontinuity between the world today and the world that existed around the last fin de siècle (the end of a century, especially the 19th^ century). It is a process which primarily relies on scientific outlook; rational attitudes, high social mobility, mass mobilization, empathy, belief in liberty, equality and fraternity; high level of motivation to do everything with perfection; specialization and super-specialisation in work; active participation; and dealing with complex organizations. It also requires changes in institutional, structural, attitudinal, and organizational aspects at then social, cultural and personal level.
Draft for Internal Use Only
Conditions Leading to Modernisation Modernisation is a result of a number of factors. (a) Education – that is higher education, pertaining to the fields of science and technology (b) Mass communication/ICTs - The development of mass communication (including print and virtual media, radio, movies, television etc.) is an important means of spreading modern ideas at a faster rate. (c) Ideology based on nationalism – democracy is very much linked with modernisation. (d) Urbanisation and industrialisation – refer to the unprecedented growth and expansion of industries and the process of growth and expansion of cities. Implication of Modernisation Theories There is a heavy western bias in these theories and their implications. Modernisation theory itself is mostly a western product and sets up these societies as an ideal that the less developed countries must follow without hesitation including capitalist ideology because this works and works best. However, dependency theory takes a wider global perspective. It points out that the problems faced in development are not just those of social structure in traditional societies but in large part due to world-wide structures imposed by the western world, or the global north. Metropolis Satellite Chain is a theory presented by Andre Gunder Frank in his book Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America in 1967. Frank says capitalism is a monopolistic exchange and exploitation and transfer of surplus from the satellites to the Metropolitan Capitalist centres. Thus, Andre Gunder Frank has pointed out that relations between North and South are arranged as a chain described by him as “metropolis - satellite” relationships. Thus, we can see that there is an underlying hierarchy in world relations (Foster- Coster, 1985). At the top of the chain is the metropolis (US) that has no strong dependence on other regions. We then go on to the strong dependencies but are dependent on the USA (or other well developed western societies) for aid or any other kind of help. The downward chain continues and culminates right down to states (nations) which are very highly or even totally dependent on the nations higher up in the hierarchy of dependencies for almost everything in food, fertilizers, clothes, automobiles, machines etc.
Draft for Internal Use Only
infrastructure based on technology. For example, like Tokyo, Dubai, Singapore, Melbourne etc. A satellite city is a small urban area that is located close to a large). It was in 1902 that Ebenezer Howard propounded the idea of “satellite towns” through his book, “garden cities of tomorrow”. He defined satellite towns as those habitats with a population of 58, connected by fast roads and railways near the parent city that is separated by a green zone or green belt. It is the traditional downtown surrounded by the neighborhoods of the inner city. The name satellite city comes from the concept of man-made satellites that are launched into orbit. A satellite orbits the Earth, but it’s not a part of Earth. In the same way, a satellite city is next to a metropolitan, but it’s not part of that metropolitan. They are separate from the metropolis by geographic barriers or territory lines. Whenever there is a large metropolis, one or more satellite cities can be found near it. For example, the cities of Pakenham and Sunbury are satellite cities of Melbourne, Australia. Similarly, Bethlehem and Allentown are satellites of New York.). Phenomena of Modernisation The term modernity is a term employed to discuss the stage of a society that is more developed than another society. This term is usually employed to describe a society that uses world-wide capitalism as the model to overall world development. Thus, when a society has the characteristics of modernity it is named a modern society. On the other hand, the process of becoming a modern society is called modernisation. The defining features of such modern societies are;
- Emergence of nation state
- Industrialisation and capitalism
- Rise of democracy
- Heavier dependence on technological innovation
- Urbanisation
- Development of mass media/ICT In Western Europe some of the defining features include:
- Renaissance and enlightenment
- Reformation and counter reformation
- French Revolution and
- American Revolution
Draft for Internal Use Only
- Industrial Revolution Many attempts have been made is sociology to try and define modernity. Some of the factors used to define modernity include:-
- Disenchantment of the world
- Rationalisation
- Mass society
- Secularisation
- Democratisation etc. Unit III (d) Post Modernism Background Postmodernism is a much-used and even overused term today in a variety of disciplines. It is hard to define, since it is not really a doctrine, but rather a particular type of sensitivity, a way of looking at things that has influenced styles in literature, in art, in architecture, in religious writings and even in moral and social practices and preferences. Some people use the term postmodernity to indicate the state of society today, and the word postmodernism to mean the thinking or the philosophy typical of today. Others use the term post-modernism to mean both. By pre-modern is meant the world before the arrival of modern science. Religious dogma was the ultimate reference point in settling issues. Religious leaders held the most powerful posts in public life. Most people went to religious places of worship, not because of conviction or inner experience, but because society expected them to attend public worship and abide by the religious practices of the group, which could punish the person who did not observe the prescribed religious practices. The penalties could include social ostracism or fines, physical punishments or even death. Religious texts were held to have all the answers, whether on matters referring to one’s spiritual life, or on other secular matters, such as social relationships (e.g., the way women were treated in society, or what authority the king had, or how the so- called higher and lower groups in society related to each other), or health and sickness, or the nature of the material world, or even travel. Matters that we today consider purely natural or scientific, were taken to be part of religious revelation. People believed that the nature of the sun, moon and stars or the shape of the earth were matters of religious dogma. This can, and still does, happen in parts of the world where education has not spread. Many people today still
Draft for Internal Use Only
ways, it was presented as a civilizing process. Many non-European nations were conquered and exploited by European nations, which became extremely wealthy in the process, while reducing old civilizations like India to extreme penury. Thus, the centre-periphery contrast was not just a philosophical notion; it had deep economic and political repercussions. The confident, progress-oriented, supposedly rational and scientific way of thinking that marked modernity came under serious shocks in the twentieth century. Far from being a time of peace and harmony, it was marked by the two most destructive wars of history. Besides the two world wars, the human race witnessed atrocious cruelties, such as the rise of Nazism, concentration camps in both east and west, the genocide of millions of Jews, worldwide depression, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Vietnam’s war, Cambodia, the Persian Gulf, and a widening gap between rich and poor, the exploitation and ill-treatment of human beings on the basis of race, caste, ethnicity, and gender. The so-called superior cultures and nations treated others with contempt and created systems of exploitation. In cities, side by side with high rise buildings, slums and crime increased. Atomic energy created more possibilities for providing electricity; it also led to nightmares like Chernobyl in the USSR, where a dysfunctional nuclear reactor led to the death and disfigurement of many people. The invention of plastic gave us many new useful products; it also created a never-ending problem of waste disposal. Chemicals can kill insects; they also damage our lungs and brain. They can increase the yield of a farm; they also cause cancer on a large scale. Post-modernists criticize all that modernity has engendered. This deep disappointment with modernity’s promises and the awareness of the double edged nature of science and history, led many thinkers to question the certainties on which the modern period was built. This sense of un-ease with the unquestioned certainties of modernity is one of the marks of postmodernism, which, as we said, is not a fixed doctrine or a set of doctrine, nor an organization or dogma. Postmodern thinkers would take a conscious distance from the modern mental make-up in a number of ways. Rather than accept the ways of the modern period as universal norms valid for all times and places, more and more people started taking unbeaten or formerly unaccepted paths. This they did in art, in architecture, in philosophy, in social science, in politics, in mass media. These are the world-changing events and thought patterns that challenged the confident, optimistic, Euro-centric vision of the world that marked modernity.
Draft for Internal Use Only
- End of the colonial period - Refer to your class notes
- Awareness of pluralism (cultural pluralism)
- The new world order - In the place of a world dominated by a few European nations, as was the case during most of the modern period (think of the massive migrations of Europeans to Australia or the Americas, with no thought given to the rights of the original inhabitants), we have a new world order, with rising powers. To give just two well-known examples, China has emerged as the world’s largest manufacturing nation, and India is expected to become the world’s third or fourth largest economy very soon. This is a far cry from colonial days.
- International capitalism and a globalized economy - Multinational companies dominate the world economy today. A number of them have more power and money than most nations have. Globalization, for better or worse, is a powerful movement, enriching some nations and individuals beyond what could be thought of during the modern period, and impoverishing those who cannot compete in the world market.
- New meaning and sources of knowledge: The printed word or even radio or television, internet is the powerful source of knowledge. Knowledge is not only given and received in very different ways today; knowledge is the greatest source of wealth today. Conceptualising Post-modernism Post-modernisation is, indeed, one of the recent intellectual breakthroughs of postmodernist philosophy, which, with its radical deconstructionist methodology, is seismically shaking the humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, and truly, all the intellectual edifices that were constructed upon the foundation of modernism. Postmodernists are forcefully challenging the entire modernist agenda and its enlightenment project, suggesting that the entire enterprise has been a colossal failure and even a tragedy. The seeds of postmodernism, being planted in the soil of western civilization for about the last 150 years, have recently germinated in the past few decades since the early 1960s or 1970s. In the 1970’s Baudrillard alleged that Marxists and their detractors both had a similar bourgeoisie orientation which was conservative. He felt that an alternative explanation was necessary. He studied contemporary society and saw that it is not production but the electronic media that characterises it, for example TV, computers, satellites. We have moved from
Draft for Internal Use Only
undermines the doctrines it holds. We have to use words, since we have no other way of communicating ideas; at the same time, the words we use are inadequate to express what we want to. In this sense, words are both right and wrong. They need to be used, and at the same time, unused (he said much about the need to “erase” what we write). End of the autonomous subject, of history and of absolute truth is another well-known slogan associated with postmodernism. The meaning is this: By end of history, postmoderns mean three things; they question the assumption that human beings are progressing to an ever-better state of being or society. Secondly, they look at historiography (the writing of history) critically. We do not have any one objective of knowing or writing history. Thus, the history of the British Period in India would look different when written by an English historian especially one who believed in the superiority of British culture or in the right of conquest or by an Indian who saw colonization as immoral. Thirdly, postmoderns do not believe that history has a direction or unity. They think rather that the events that make up history is of too many different kinds to fit into any one coherent whole. Now postmodernism is reflected in almost all areas of life including film, TV, literature etc. which are deeply influenced by postmodern viewpoints. In language words and forms are used and the concept of ‘play’ is basic to it. Thus ‘play’ implies altering the frame which connects ideas, allowing the metaphor. Thus the ‘text’ has a meaning which is understood or interpreted by the reader and not the author. This ‘play’ or exercise is the way that the author gains some significance in the consciousness of the reader. The problem with this postmodern view about language is very difficult to understand and is against the basis of communication where the author communicates to the reader in as lucid a manner as possible. Postmodern approaches have been criticised on several grounds. To begin with postmodernists are against theory. Post-modernism poses seem endless. It rejects epistemological assumptions, refutes methodological conventions, resists knowledge claims, obscures all versions of truth, and dismisses policy recommendations (Rosenau 1991: 3). The postmodernists emphasise the illogical or non-rational aspects of a culture. Postmodernists also put away all assessment of theory but this does not mean that there is no means of assessment. Thus, according to postmodernists modernism is inconsistent but they themselves exercise it as and which way they want. The postmodernists are self-contradictory when they deny any claims of reality or ‘truth’ in their own writings. Finally, there is the issue of postmodernism not having any
Draft for Internal Use Only
confidence in the scientific method. But if sociology does follow this position, then it will turn into a study of meanings, rather than causes which influence what it is to be an individual in society. Postmodernism, which is against aggrandizing the intelligence by modernism, came up by accepting multiplism and diversity instead of single mind. The first one using this term is the historian Arnold Toynbee. Toynbee in his product called as A Study of History used postmodern term firstly. Postmodern philosophy was inspired by German thought (Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger), developed by French philosophers (Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan), and has been imported and spread throughout the academic community largely through the humanities disciplines, especially literary criticism. Despite its German inspiration, contemporary German philosophers, especially Jürgen Habermas, are among its most severe critics. Among anthropologists, those who have championed the postmodern rubric include Stephen Tyler, James Clifford, and George Marcus. One of the headquarters for the postmodern emphasis in anthropology is found at Rice University in Houston, Texas where a group which calls itself the Rice Circle often meets for conversation about postmodern anthropological issues. Postmodernism is obviously a mixed bag of academic notions like Western Marxists, Critical theory, French Structuralism, Nietzsche and Heidegger, Nihilism, Ethnomethodology, Symbolic interaction, Phenomenology, Populism, Anarchism, Hermeneutics, Romanticism etc. According to Tenner (1997, p.34) in case of expansion of the term postmodernism, the word “post” as an affix has been defined as determination of what has to be done to overcome modernism. Its most prominent characters are Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, philosophers like Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Heidegger, and other philosophers like Sandrys Peirce, William James, and John Dewey of the 19th century pragmatism philosophers, are, in a sense, among the postmodernism founders. Postmodernism began as a reaction to all the ideals, principles and values that lay at the heart of the enlightenment or modern mind-set. In particular, post modernism rejects the enlightenment ideal of the dispassionate, autonomous, rational individual. By very nature the postmodern world view is difficult to define, and some would resist calling it such. One special interest to philosophers and is central to the entire postmodernist movement is stated most clearly by Stanley Grenz in ‘ A Premer on Post modernism ’. Post modernism affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the community in which we participate. There is no absolute truth, rather truth is relative to the
Draft for Internal Use Only
Universal laws Lack of universal truth Meaningful generalisations Limits of generalisation Absolute truth Irrationality Objectivity Subjectivity Spectatorship Participation Fordism/Factory Post-fordism/Office Homogeneity Heterogeneous /Multiplier Certainty/ determiner Uncertainty /Indecision Reality Imitation Relevancy Irrelevancy/Luck Depth Superficial Source : Conceptualised from Brown, 2006:214 & Odabaşı, 2004: 29. Post modernism is a rebel against the modernism. The questioning of arts in addition to architecture, history and epistemology has been talked about in post-modernist period. Postmodernism society adopts objective approach in realism ideal and has been objective to the social values. Postmodernism reverse globalism and being single type of individual signs, which are the central values of modernism. They also apply this life-style. So, postmodern societies crash down all rules. Under post-modernism growth decreases because people value other things than growth, such as the environment, quality of life, etc. Inglehart and Welfare State § The welfare state has improved our lives by giving us security. This makes it easier to achieve well-being and stable democracies, which the free market cannot achieve. § By bringing in post-modernism, Inglehart can explain more than traditional modernization theories. He gets around the lack of correlation between capitalism or industrialization and democracy. He is able to explain cultural change. Today, black, white, renaissance, cubism, punk, grunge, atheists, religious devotees, homosexual, heterosexual, transgender, conservative, liberal, monogamy, polygamy, working mothers, stay-home dads, nuclear families, single parenthood, octo-mums and multiple variations in between, all cohabit the same society. How is it possible for the presence and general acceptance of so many different cultural modes in one period? A postmodernism
Draft for Internal Use Only
worldview may provide a plausible explanation to this question. Our culture, with computer and television sets, is the paradigm for global looking practices ruled by the simulacra of virtual media images. The hyper real overtake the real in the post-modern worlds. Post-modern society, the pace of change is much more rapid than in modern society. Growing Apathy § In post-modern societies people vote less and are more dissatisfied with their governments. Inglehart claims governments have not been performing less well, but our expectations have changed. Yet maybe it was easier to perform well when building up the welfare state than when administrating a mature welfare state.
