can be interpreted as growth of a nation in all areas (i.e. social, economic,
political), for example, the aim is ‘development of national forms of polity,
the objects of which are to increase the social product with fair shares for
all. Successful models now include Japan and the Soviet Union’ (Apter 1965,
Preface). Although this definition is outdated, as the inclusion of the Soviet
Union (no longer in existence and with serious economic and social problems
persisting in Russia) and Japan (also currently in a recession along with most
of Asia) illustrates, the ideal of modernization is clear. Another approach to
the term modernization is not to take it as an ideal but as a simple increase in
social (literacy, numeracy), economic and political (rationalizing beaurocracy)
standards within a given region (Marglin and Marglin 1990). Whether this ideal
or set of standards is a natural state to which all countries will gravitate is
the question that this essay will attempt to answer. Is the Darwinian theory of
evolution something that can be applied to the great animal that people know as civilization
(or the nation-state)? Is modernization the evolution of the species on a
different level? Britain was the first ‘modern’ nation by these standards,
in the sense that industrialization of the country resulted in a final shift
from an agrarian society (limited trade) to an industrial society (highly
commercial) thereby creating a new social, economic and political state. This is
to say that the ‘instrument’ (Weiner (ed.) 1966, 7) for modernizing Britain
was industrialization, and not that industrialization equals modernization. The
British Empire, already being established, grew rapidly due to the technological
innovations derived from industrialization, colonies were established in
countries without the modern system which Britain had evolved. Thus, it can be
derived that, British colonists who sought to establish political, social and
economic systems to benefit the modernization of the colony exported the ideal
of the modern nation-state to those countries within the empire. The majority of
these colonial nations as well as those of the other industrialized nations
gained their independence following the end of the Second World War, and were
faced with the problem of attempting to modernize (if that was the objective). Modernization
often requires ‘personalities’ (Apter 1965, Hunter 1969, Pye 1966), the
Elite members of Shils’ ‘new states’ (in Geertz (ed.) 1963) sought to
create an acceptable political system whether that took the form of one-party or
multiple-parties by following the colonial political structures that had been
established. These largely peasant societies were traditionally
agricultural/agrarian based, much like those found in 15th Century Europe
(Hunter 1969, 4), thereby making the application of established political
practices from far more developed countries a great challenge. As a result of
this; ‘Difficulties arise for comparative study because we have enshrined
moral principles in models that have served well in a western political
context’ (Apter 1965, 15). After all, the global economic and political
climate found in 15th Century Britain & Europe was markedly different to
that which surrounded these developing nations. Therefore the impetus for
modernisation comes as much from external forces exerted by modernised nations
as from within the nation itself. So although, as Pye puts it, ‘Economic
achievement is, for example, directly tied to the spirit of industry and
entrepreneurship of a people..’ ( in Weiner (ed.) 1966, 364), nations such as
Britain and the United States exerted pressure on the economies of developing
countries for purposes of trade and international relations. Indeed a ‘major
goal of United States foreign policy’ was ‘the political development’ of
Third World countries (Wiarda 1989). Whether this political development has
actually occurred, particularly in Africa, is a matter of great debate (Shaw
1991, Nyang’oro 1989). The images of Ethiopia in the 1980s where famine was
decimating the population, Rwandan civil war and ethnic cleansing, and the
Central African Republic/Congo political leadership struggle have all outlined
the great political, social and economic problems on the continent. In Ethiopia
the feudal, with a few moderations, system has been the dominant political
situation since 1941 (Gilkes 1975). The people of many countries in Africa, even
those with strong ties to colonial powers and well-established infrastructure
(e.g. Tanzania), may have the trappings of modern society (e.g. Television and
Coca-Cola) without having a stable political system. As a result of war, famine,
lack of diversification and their exploitation by foreign powers, these nations
are in massive debt and cannot modernise their society (hence the Cancel Third
World Debt appeal). This can surely not be considered modernisation by the
westernised standards that are imposed upon the term. However, it is important
to note that these same standards would have classified the former Soviet Union
and the former Yugoslavia as modernised political societies. With the return to
year zero in Russia (in terms of standard of living of the vast majority, and
growth) through the introduction of capitalist values coinciding with the
collapse of the communist regime, this ideal of a modernised society is
shattered. Perhaps the inevitable is mortal in that even modernity comes to an
end. Surely the bloody warfare that continues in Yugoslavia, sanctioned by the
government, cannot be considered an ‘authoritative allocation of values 1 for
society’ that Easton (1965) envisaged as the central function of a political
system. Perhaps these discrepancies can be explained by the fact that it is
difficult to separate the ‘strands of traditionalism’ in the case in study
from ‘strands of modernity’ (Apter 1985, 98). Although another argument is
perhaps more to the point, the concept of modernity does not necessarily apply
to those countries around whose political frameworks it was based (i.e. The
United States and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom). To elaborate, it
becomes necessary to adapt one’s view of the modernisation process to a more
generalised principle whereby differing political approaches can also lead to a
more modern nation state. Lucian Pye (1966, 117) suggested ‘think of the
countries as possessing not a single and integrating political process but many
only loosely related political processes’, the topic was specifically
south-east Asia but the principle is to deal with each locality as affected by
its environment and history. Taking this as read, then all nations will exhibit
different processes of modernisation, depending on the internal and external
forces that create their particular political structure. So to answering the
question, is modernisation inevitable? Obviously the question is wholly
unanswerable without first glimpsing the future, although a few predictions may
be made. The modern society, as aforementioned theorists saw it in the 1960s and
70s, may well be an unattainable goal for today’s less developed nations. With
their independence from imperial powers these nations have found their ability
to shape their future, whether it will be the same future which the Europeans
and Americans reached is altogether a different matter. The cultural,
environmental and historical differences between these nations and the models
for modernity may be too great. Also the increased influence of external powers
on the developing nations through tourism, communications, trade and ideology
means that the conditions in which the modernisation of countries like Britain
occurred are not being reproduced. Less developed countries are not being given
sufficient time to grow in all three aspects of modernisation. The ‘help’
which these countries have received toward the goal of modernity has resulted,
albeit through the best of intentions, in national debt and their
peripheralisation in a capitalist world. Thereby rendering many nations
dependent on the developed world. However, if the model of modernisation is not
strictly adhered to, it can be seen that countries such as Thailand (where the
Baht went through a recent crises) and Egypt are finding their own form of
modernity. In essence, modernity is what the populace of a country and its
political commentators make of it. The likelihood of all countries eventually
reaching the ultimate stage of modernity is slim, because the evolution of the
species depends on its adaptation to its environment. The earth does not present
a homogenous environment, nor have the pioneering colonists created one, and so
the chances of a homogenous polity are also slim. The modernity which
less-developed countries reach will more than likely differ greatly from the
idealogical viewpoint which theorists have suggested, but it will be modernity
none the less. In summation, all nations will change whether of their own accord
or through external pressures, and all will become more modern in terms of
advancing their own economic, political and social structures. So, yes,
modernisation is inevitable but ‘modernisation’ is not.
Bibliography
Apter, David E. (1965) The Politics of Modernization (University of Chicago
Press). Apter, David E. (1987) Rethinking Development: Modernization, Dependency
and Postmodern Politics (Sage Publications). Easton, David (1965) A Systems
Analysis of Political Life (Wiley) Geertz, Clifford (ed.) (1963) Old Societies
and New States: the Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa (Free Press). Gilkes,
Patrick (1975) The Dying Lion: Feudalism and Modernization in Ethiopia (Julian
Friedmann) Hunter, Guy (1969) Modernizing Peasant Societies: A Comparative Study
in Asia and Africa (Oxford University Press). Marglin, Frederique A. and Stephen
A. (eds.) (1990) Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture, and Resistance (Claredon).
Nyang’oro, Julius (1989) The State and Capitalist Development in Africa:
Declining Political Economies (Praeger). Parsons, Talcott (1991) The Social
System (The Free Press). Pye, Lucian (1966) Aspects of Political Development
(Little) Randall, Vicky and Robin Theobald (1985) Political Change and
Underdevelopment: A Critical Introduction to Third World Politics (MacMillan).
Scott, Catherine V. (1995) Gender and Development: Rethinking Modernization and
Dependency Theory (Lynne Rienner). Shaw, Timothy (1991) “Reformism,
Revisionism, and Radicalism in African Political Economy During the 1990s.”
Journal of Modern African Studies 29: 191-212 Weiner, Myron (ed.) (1966)
Modernization: The Dynamics of Growth (Basic Books). Wiarda, Howard (1989)
“Rethinking Political Development: A Look Backward Over Thirty Years, and a
Look Ahead,” Studies in Comparative International Development 24 (Winter):
65-82