An Outline of Modernization Theory

According to Inkeles and Smith (1974) modernization is about everything that has come to replace the ways in which things (traditionally) have been (done) in the past. In later work, Inkeles (1998) identifies four forces of modernization: first, changes in technology leading to changes in production and distribution in accordance with an industrial and market economy; second, changes in living arrangements from rural residence to urban residence;

third, changes in government and political institutions like the development to more democracy and legislation in favor of gender and racial equality; and fourth, changes in norms and values like the development of greater individualism. With respect to the psychological aspects of modernization, based on empirical data Inkeles and Smith (1974) characterized modern people as follows: openness to change and to experiences, a feeling of self-efficacy and control, freedom from absolute subordination to authorities, granting more autonomy to people with less power and lower status (like minorities), and the esteem of and the striving for formal education.

In a similar vein, Inglehart (1997) contends that modernization comes along with a number of changes in economic, political, and cultural domains, and that these domains are in a permanent interplay. For example, if the economic system in a society changes in direction of industrialization and market economy then traditional cultural (value) systems have to change as well since some of the traditional values are no longer compatible with the new mode of economic subsistence. With regard to the value changes accompanying modernization, Inglehart and colleagues (Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart

& Oyserman, 2004; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005) presented a two-dimensional model in which

both value dimensions have a traditional pole and a modern pole. The first dimension contrasts a traditional and a secular-rational orientation. According to the authors, changes on this dimension are associated with the transition from agrarian to industrial societies.

Furthermore, the “Traditional vs. Secular-rational values dimension reflects the contrast between societies for which religion is very important and those for which it is not […].

Societies near the traditional pole emphasize the importance of parent-child ties and the deference to authority, along with absolute standards and traditional family values […].

Societies with secular-rational values have the opposite preferences on all of these topics.”

(Inglehart & Oyserman, 2004, p. 78). The second dimension contrasts survival values with self-expression values. Through economic development and following greater affluence it becomes less important to care for one’s immediate physical survival, and self-expression values like personal choice, individual autonomy and self-actualization rise in importance.

This dimension bears some resemblance to the value dimension of materialist vs. post-materialist values suggested earlier by Inglehart (1990).

A common theme in modernization theories is the emphasis on positive changes for mankind brought about by modernization by freeing the individual from its traditional societal and family ties granting more autonomy and freedom to the individual, and by freeing him/her from the burden of hard work and giving room for post-materialist values and activities of individual self-expression (for an especially positive recent view on modernization see Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). Furthermore, traditional versions of modernization theory share the conviction that modernization inevitably affects all societies and cultures (that come into contact with economic and institutional changes) in a similar way, namely that a cultural convergence toward the modernized Western state of affairs will take place (Inkeles & Smith, 1974). Thus, due to industrialization processes countries will reject traditional values and will finally converge to holding mainly modern individualistic, rationalistic, and self-expressive values. Together with the mainly positive appraisal of modernization reported above this means that non-modernized cultures with traditional value systems appear underdeveloped from this perspective.

More recent versions of modernization theory allow cultural variations with respect to modernization and recognize the role of longstanding cultural traditions (e.g., religions) that can canalize changes brought about by modernization. One of the starting points of this change of perspective was Huntington’s (1996) claim that after the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, cultural values based on “cultural zones” are becoming

more important again and replacing former ideological distinctions. Thus, in spite of industrialization and economic development, longstanding civilizations are playing an important role in channeling the (cultural) development of nations. Similarly, Georgas (2006) argues that the thrust of modernization itself is based on religious and cultural values that developed out of Calvinist Protestantism. Inglehart and Baker (2000) also acknowledge the role of long-standing cultural traditions in the modernization process, and especially the role of religion. In their view, the development brought about by modernization is channeled through the respective cultural traditions and may therefore also lead to different outcomes by partly preserving cultural traditions while the general development should be in accordance with modernization theory (see also Inglehart & Oyserman, 2004). That religion does have a separate influence in addition to and different from economic development was also shown in a cross-cultural study by Georgas, van de Vijver, and Berry (2004) who found that religion and economic prosperity were related to psychological variables in different and partly contrasting ways.

That cultures are stable across time and not subject to convergence to the extent predicted by modernization theory is contended by Hofstede (2001, 2007): “[T]echnological modernization is an important force toward cultural change that leads to somewhat similar developments in different societies, but does not wipe out variety” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 34).

This notwithstanding that individualism – Hofstede’s culture-level indicator mostly relevant for modernization theory – is strongly related to economic development. According to the author, the overall stability of cultures is guaranteed by a process of mutual reinforcement of cultural norms and cultural structures (roles, institutions, prescribed patterns of relationship), whereby structures develop out of norms and in turn stabilize and reproduce norms and values (Hofstede, 2001). In a similar vein, Klages (2005) points out that while the general trend in modernization is towards individualistic values this does not mean that collectivistic values have to be completely abandoned. The focus in the constellation of values changes in direction of individualism, but there is also variety as to how strongly these values are endorsed. Even the most individualistic society would not be functional without a general concern for the collective. Klages and Gensicke (2006) therefore suggest a „value synthesis“

in which apparently contradictory values can be combined in one person and „can but do not have to be in conflict with each other“ (p. 332, translation by BM).

It has to be pointed out that the sociological discourse about modernization theory goes far beyond the value research that has been introduced here. For reasons of space I will

only briefly refer to this broad field in the following. One of the main critics of modernization theory in its classical formulation is Shmuel N. Eisenstadt. In short, Eisenstadt (2000, 2003, 2005, 2006) postulates that the program of modernity is based on axiality, a property of societies that have developed transcendental religions in the so-called axial age – the time span where the great philosophies and world religions (Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and later the Islam) appeared. Axial civilizations are characterized by symbolic orientations embodying a tension between transcendental and worldly orientations.

The tension leads to the conception of the world and human beings as in need of redemption and correction/improvement (Joas & Kölbl, 2004; Koenig, 2005). In modernity this tension escalates and shows its heterodox potential in its program of change. Eisenstadt emphasizes that the axial civilizations share these features and are therefore in a sense prepared for the modern age, but they differ tremendously in their deeper societal structure. This insight led him to develop his research program of “multiple modernities” where he analyzes the special ways in which modern societies develop in very different cultures – which is of course a very different conception of modernity as proposed by the convergence hypothesis. Other exponents discussing the issue of multiplicity versus uniformity in modernization theoretical approaches include Appadurai (1996), Berger and Huntington (2002), and in Germany Giesen (1996) and most notably Zapf (1996, 2006).