Theory –
Modern society is characterized by time-space distantiation and disembedding mechanisms. Traditional society is based on direct interaction between people living close to each other. Modern societies stretch further and further across space and time using mass media and interactive media. Disembedding mechanisms such as money, symbolic means, English as the lingua franca and the Internet help to lift out and activities in an abstract or online form that were once embedded in particular material goods and in places.
Benjamin Barber tried to explain the clash of Western and non-Western cultures of the world in his Jihad versus McWorld: How the Planet is both Falling Apart and Coming Together (1996).
This first wave of theory produced three variants (McQuail, 2000: 84): Most of these theories have been discredited because of their pro-Western bias.
The second wave of modernization theory is a part of the critical theory that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s. It does not support but criticize the influence of Western modernization. This is held to be a case of Western cultural and economic imperialism or dominance (Schiller, 1976).
One of the theories concerned is media dependency theory. Peripheral (developing) countries are assumed to be dependant on mass media in the core (the Western world).
The third wave of modernization theory rising in the 1990s is the theory of late-, high- or post modernity. It tries to be more neutral, being not in favor or against Western modernization. Rather it attempts to unearth the contradictions in the modernization process and to explain the consequences of modernity for individuals in contemporary society (Giddens, 1991a, 1991b). Giddens showed.
Accordingly, internal situations in societies immediately affect the processes of modernization. A state in which favorites are rewarded and governmental corruption is prevalent causes the state to suffer in terms of modernization. This can repress the state's economic development and productivity and lead money and resources to flow out to other countries with more favorable investment environments. Such mechanisms slow the process of modernization and lead to the need to sort out internal conflicts so as to aid the process of modernization.
Practice: United States-
The Progressives in the United States in the early 20th century were avid modernizers. They believed in science, technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society's weaknesses. Characteristics of progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind's ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention.
Paul Monroe, a professor of history at Columbia University, was a member of The Inquiry--a team of American experts at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. He drew on his experience in the Philippines to assess the educational needs of developing areas such as Albania, Turkey and central Africa. Presenting educational development as instrumental to nation-building and socioeconomic development, Monroe recommended the implementation of a progressive curriculum - with an emphasis on practical, adult, and teacher training - in a national system of education, as a basis for self-development, except in Africa. His approach shaped American cooperation with developing countries in the 1920s and modernization efforts during the 1920s-1930s.
Germany's "Sonderweg"-
Many historians have emphasized the central importance of a German Sonderweg or "special path" (or "exceptionalism") as the root of Nazism and the German catastrophe in the 20th century. According to the historiography by Kocka (1988), the process of nation-building from above especially during the period of the German Empire (1871–1918), in the following Weimar era, had very grievous long-term implications, historians have argued. In terms of parliamentary democracy, Parliament was kept weak, the parties were fragmented, and there was a row file level of mutual distrust. The Nazis built on the illiberal, anti-pluralist elements of Weimar's political culture. The Junker elites (the large landowners in the east) and senior civil servants, used their great power and influence well into the twentieth century to frustrate any movement toward democracy. They played an especially negative role in the crisis of 1930-1933. The emphasis by Otto von Bismarck on military force amplified the voice of the officer corps, which combined advanced modernization of military technology with reactionary politics. The rising upper-middle-class elites, in the business, financial, and professional worlds, tended to accept the values of the old traditional elites. The German Empire was for Hans-Ulrich Wehler a strange mixture of highly successful capitalist industrialization and socio-economic modernization on the one hand, and of surviving pre-industrial institutions, power relations and traditional cultures on the other. Wehler argues that it produced a high degree of internal tension, which led on the one hand to the suppression of socialists, Catholics, and reformers, and on the other hand to a highly aggressive foreign policy. For these reasons Fritz Fischer and his students emphasized Germany’s primary guilt for causing World War I.
Democracy-
Scholars have long argued that democracy follows modernization, perhaps with a time lag. As Seymour Martin Lipset put it, "All the various aspects of economic development--industrialization, urbanization, wealth, and education--are so closely interrelated as to form one major factor which has the political correlate of democracy. In the 1960s some critics said the link each was too much based on European history, neglecting the Third World. Recent demonstrations of the emergence of democracy in South Korea, Taiwan and South Africa have tended to bolster the thesis.
The historical problem case has always been Germany, in which economic modernization in the 19th century came long before the move to democracy after 1918. Berman, however, concludes that a process of democratization was underway in Imperial Germany, for "during these years Germans developed many of the habits and mores that are now thought by political scientists to augur healthy political development.".
Inglehart, and Welzel (2009) contend that the realization of democracy is not based solely on an expressed desire for that form of government, but that democracies are born as a result of the admixture of certain social and cultural factors. They argue the ideal social and cultural conditions for the foundation of a democracy are born of significant modernization and economic development that result in mass political participation.
Peerenboom (2008) explores the relationships among democracy, the rule of law and their relationship to wealth by pointing to examples of Asian countries, such as Taiwan and South Korea, that have successfully democratized only after economic growth reached relatively high levels and to examples of countries such as the Philippines, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia and India that sought to democratize at lower levels of wealth but have not done as well.
Adam Przeworski and others have challenged Lipset argument. They say political regimes do not transition to democracy as per capita incomes rise. Rather, democratic transitions occur randomly, but once there, countries with higher levels of gross domestic product per capita remain democratic. Epstein et al. (2006) retest the modernization hypothesis using new data, new techniques, and a three-way, rather than dichotomous, classification of regimes. Contrary to Przeworski, this study finds that the modernization hypothesis stands up well. Partial democracies emerge as among the most important and least understood regime types.
Highly contentious is the idea that modernization implies more human rights, with China in the 21st century being a major test case.
Globalization & Modernization-
Globalization can be defined as the integration of economic, political and social cultures and is related to the spreading of modernization across borders. It theorizes the development of a global economy in the sense that the world is moving in the direction of more efficient use of resources and the means of production.
Mass tourism could not have developed without air travel. Annual trans border tourist arrivals rose to 456 million by 1990 and are expected to double again, to 937 million per annum, by 2010 (Knowles, 1994: FT,7 January 1997: V11). Communication is another major area that has grown due to modernization. Communication industries have enabled capitalism to spread throughout the world. Telephony, television broadcasts, news services and online service providers have played a crucial part in globalization.
With the many apparent positive attributes to globalization there are also negative consequences. Economic development can often initially highlight the disparities between a society's rich and its poor. In major cities of developing countries there exist pockets where technologies of the modernized world—computers, cell phones and satellite television—exist right alongside stark poverty. This often begets an acute awareness of those in society initially or chronically left behind by economic progress.
Technology-
New technology is a major source of social change. Since modernization deals with social change from agrarian societies to industrial ones, it is important to look at the technological viewpoint. New technologies do not change societies by itself. Rather, it is the response to technology that causes change. Frequently, technology will be recognized but not put to use for a very long time. Take for example the ability to extract metal from rock. It was not just a new technology at one time, but one that had profound implications for the course of societies. It was always there, but went unused for a great period of time. As Neil Postman has said, "technological change is not additive; it is ecological. A new technology does not merely add something; it changes everything". People in society are always coming up with new ideas and better ways of making life easier and more enjoyable. Technology makes it possible for a more innovated society and broad social change. What becomes of this is a dramatic change through the centuries that has evolved socially, industrially, and economically, summed up by the term modernization. Cell phones, for example, have changed lives of millions throughout the world. This is especially true in Africa and other parts of the Middle East where there is a low cost communication infrastructure.
Modernization theory has been 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 with the industrial revolution, the French Revolution and the Revolutions of 1848, 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). Anthropologists typically make their criticism one step further generalized and say that this view is ethnocentric, not being specific to Europe, but Western culture in general.
