Second, within each institutional sphere in the economy, polity, in the sphere of social organization, etc. In the economic sphere proper these developments have been characterized by the development of a very high level of technology based on and combined with Newtonian science , fostered by the systematic application of knowledge, the pursuit of which became the province of specialized scientific institutions, and by the secondary industrial, commercial and tertiary service occupations, as against the primary extractive ones.
In other words, by the development of industrial systems based on high level of technology, on growing specialization of economic roles and of units of economic activity — production, consumption, and marketing — and on the growth of the scope and complexity of the major markets, the markets for goods, labor, and money. In the political sphere modernization has been characterized, first, by growing extension of the territorial scope and especially by the intensification of the power of the central, legal, administrative, and political agencies of the society.
Third, modern societies are in some sense democratic or at least populistic societies. They are characterized by the decline of traditional legitimation of the rulers with reference to powers outside their own society God, reason and by the establishment of some sort of ideological accountability, usually also institutional, of the rulers to the ruled, who are alleged to be the holders of the potential political power.
Thus the rulers, in order to maintain themselves effectively in power and receive support for the specific goals they propagate and the policies they want to implement, believe they must seek continually the political support of the ruled, or at least of large or vocal parts thereof, through elections, plebiscites, and acclamatory surrogates.
Unlike the rulers of traditional autocratic regimes, the rulers of the totalitarian regimes accept the relevance of their subjects as the objects and beneficiaries, legitimators of policy. The difference between modern democratic or semi-democratic and totalitarian political systems lies not necessarily in the genuineness of these beliefs, but in the extent to which they are given institutional expression in pluralistic political organizations, in public liberties, and in welfare and cultural policies.
In the cultural sphere, a modern society is characterized by a growing differentiation of the major elements of the major cultural and value systems, i. These developments have been very closely related to the expansion of media of communication, the growing permeation of such central media of communication into the major groups of the society, and the wider participation of these groups in the cultural activities and organizations created by the centrally placed cultural elites.
The culmination of these developments has been the development of a new cultural outlook - perhaps the most pervasive aspect of modernization — even though its spread and permeation has been, in these societies, intermittent and very uneven. This outlook has been characterized by an emphasis on progress and improvement, on happiness and the spontaneous expression of abilities and feeling, on individuality as a moral value, and concomitant stress on the dignity of the individual and, last, on efficiency.
Thus, to take the political field at different stages of the development of modern political systems, different problems became politically important and different types of political organization tended to develop. In still other stages of modernization the economic and social problems were most pertinent.
Fast Essays: Essay on modernization theory recommended service!
The development of each of these problems was necessarily connected with the entrance of different new groups and strata into the political arena. Similarly, new types of political organization have been developing. Similarly, new techniques of production that greatly affected the structure of the economic process have been continually developing, giving rise to a growing and more complicated division of labor within each unit on the one hand and to growing complexity of the general market structure on the other. Later, with continued economic development, each of these categories became divided into many subcategories.
The very development of new, more complex units of production, within each of which there increased the number of different categories of occupational manpower i. In most of these one can discern a growing trend to professionalization, i. These developments tended to obliterate or weaken many of the older distinctions between different occupations. These have spread into white- and blue-collar occupations, creating within each new problems and demands. In the demographic-ecological sphere we witness a continuous trend to the weakening of small, local rural and urban units in which any given population could take care of most of its needs within relatively narrow ecological confines.
This structural differentiation had several repercussions in the area of social stratification, the most important of which is the development of an ambiguous status system. This could be seen first in the high importance of criteria of universalism and achievement in all major institutional spheres.
The social position held by anyone in different social spheres were no longer necessarily identical and there was no necessary coalescence between them. This mobility in modern societies is not only that of individuals and families moving between relatively given and fixed structural positions. As for the first, one can distinguish between ascriptive and non-ascriptive allocation or regulation.
The nonascriptive regulators are characterized by the fact that they occupy their positions by virtue of some achieved position — either by being chosen to represent other people or groups, or by virtue of their ownership of special capital, or of some specific knowledge expertise. The most general characteristic of organizational developments in modern society has been the continual weakening of ascriptive and direct allocation and regulation, and the development of various mechanisms of nonascriptive and indirect allocation.
There are three such major types of mechanisms. Second are the various impersonal market systems such as the labor market or the markets for money and commodities. These experts are in turn supervised to some extent by holders of political, economic, or communal power, but only to very little extent directly by the clients to whom they provide their services.
Another very important aspect of the system of stratification that tended to develop with processes of modernization was the growing dissociation between elite and broad status groups strata, classes , and among the different elites themselves. In all these spheres there have been developed categories of groups or of people whose members are leaders in various institutional spheres, without at the same time being confined to members of definite strata or classes. This applies to the bureaucrats, the economic entrepreneurs, the military, the intellectuals, and the different political elites alike.
Essays and its changing elements of significance with modernization
Such distinctive elite groups developed not only in the central levels of political and cultural activity, but also, in a somewhat different way, in what may be called the local levels. But if, on the one hand, the different elite groups became continuously dissociated from broader status groups and more autonomous, on the other hand there took place a continuous differentiation among the elites themselves. Of no smaller importance was the growing differentiation within each of these broad types of elites. But whatever the differences between different societies, the common characteristics outlined above tended to develop, in varying degrees, in all modern and modernizing societies.
These developments in the field of social organization have also been closely related to a growing dissociation between institutionalized and formal institutions on the one hand, and relatively smaller primary groups on the other.
Village councils and medieval guilds are perhaps the best examples of such coalescence. With the onset of modernization such coalescence tended to weaken. In most institutional spheres there continued to develop many formal, large-scale organizations cutting across various ecological, kinship, and castlike groups. Within these large-scale frameworks there tended to develop many different, mostly informal solidary primary groups, such as those of factory workers or of chance neighbors — groups that were not fully institutionalized or very closely interwoven into the broader, more formalized organizations.
All these processes — the dissociation between functionally specific groups and broader solidarities, between the criteria of status, between social strata and elites, and between formal and informal aspects of social organization — have created a status system of great fluidity and ambiguity.
It was undermined not only by personal or family fortunes or misfortunes but by the very nature of the system of social organization, by the continual changes and structural differentiation. The process of modernization has been characterized not only by continuous structural differentiation in the major institutional spheres of the society, however.
In the economic sphere it was manifest in the development of encompassing markets and widespread bureaucratic organizations. Whatever the exact details of this process of drawing wide groups into the central institutional spheres of the society, they all epitomize the growth and concretization of the demand for equality. Let us illustrate in somewhat greater detail these processes of drawing of the wider social groups into the central institutional spheres in two areas — the political and the educational. But the connection between these two aspects of the political process became much more close and interwoven in the modern than in other types of political systems.
However, it is worthy of mention the example of China which economy is progressing rapidly but its way of development differs considerably from the dominant western way, but this country does not meet to the basic assumptions of either of the theories. Difference between Modernization theory and Dependency theory In spite of existing similarities between Modernization theory and Dependency theory, differences between them are much more substantial and it is even possible to estimate that these theories are antagonistic in their views on the development of the world and international relationships, especially on the relationship between developed and developing countries.
In fact, differences between Modernization theory and Dependency theory result from the origin of Dependency theory which, as it has been already mentioned above, was developed in response to Modernization theory. On analyzing existing differences between the two theories, first of all, it is necessary to underline that Modernization theory views the development of the world and relationships between developed and developing countries as the relationships of potentially equal countries which are just at a different stage of development at the moment.
To put it more precisely, Modernization theory stands on the ground that western countries are well-developed and western way of development is viewed as the most successful and perspective while there is practically no other alternatives to this way of the development. This is why the supporters of this theory insist on the necessity to develop the cooperation between developed and developing countries in order to make the latter closer to the former.
What is meant here is the fact that Modernization theory underlines the necessity of borrowing the experience of western countries by developing countries of the Third world Scott Basically, developing countries should follow blindly the example of more developed western countries and this will bring them economic, social, and cultural prosperity. Naturally, to achieve this goal, developing countries should develop their cooperation in all spheres of life, including economy, politics, culture, education, and social relations, with western countries, while the latter, being more advanced compared to developing countries should help them achieve the highest level of development through education, technological assistance and consulting of countries of the Third world.
tempgistpofoun.ga In such a way, this theory views modernization of socio-economic and political life of developing countries on the basis of the example of western countries as the only possible solution of the problem of backwardness of poor countries since western way of development is, according to Modernization theory, is the only correct way to prosperity. In stark contrast to Modernization theory, Dependency theory underlines that relationships between developing and developed countries are based not on the growing cooperation between them but rather on the dependence of developing countries on developed ones.
To put it more precisely, supporters of Dependency theory stand on the ground that western countries are really more advanced than developing countries but the latter follow their example not just because they are willing to do so nor because they really believe that western way of development is really better but, in contrast, they are forced to choose the same way of development as western countries have already made in order to become a part of the world community and avoid the isolation of the country or, what is more, even the intervention of western countries in their policy.
- essay on mohenjo-daro in urdu.
- Becoming modern.
- acknowledgment thesis husband.
- expository essay introduction hook.
- The Basic Characteristics of Modernization . 1966!
- town planning dissertations.
In this respect, it is necessary to underline that supporters of Dependency theory argue that western countries impose their politics and their rules to developing countries forcing them to accept western standards and norms, while any disobedience from the part of developing countries threatens by economic sanctions or even military intervention from the part of developed countries Schelkle, In such a way, unlike Modernization theory, Dependency theory does not view the choice in favor of western way of development as the panacea from all problems or as a conscious choice that is really supported by the population and elite of developing countries but such westernization of developing countries is viewed as a violent interference of developed countries in the life of the Third world.
Naturally, such a policy leads to the growing dependence of developing countries on developed ones and, therefore, makes the socio-economic breakthrough impossible.
In contrast, Modernization theory believes in its possibility due to the modernization of socio-economic and political life of developing countries and their closer cooperation with developed countries, which is supposed to be a conscious and willing act of developing countries looking for ways to prosperity.
Conclusion Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that Modernization theory and Dependency theory are similar in their views on the modern world. To put it more precisely, both theories admit the leadership of western countries and their currently dominant position in the modern world, while undeveloped countries are characterized by socio-economic and political backwardness. At the same time, the two theories agree that the cooperation between western countries and developing countries is constantly growing and leads to their integration.
However, it is necessary to underline that Modernization theory views such cooperation and integration as a conscious and voluntary act from the part of developing countries, for which modernization in the western style is the only way to overcome the existing backwardness, while supporters of Dependency theory argue that such cooperation and integration is imposed to developing countries by more advanced western countries, which simply attempt to benefit from their cooperation with developing countries and their westernization becomes a way of the establishment of control over and growing dependence of developing countries on developed ones.
Regardless, the existing differences, both theories still raise a very important problem of relationships between developed and developing countries and the dominance of western countries and western civilization in the modern world. Get Modernization Theory from Amazon. View the Study Pack. Modernization theory Essay Essay.