Presumption, Often Promulgated by Scholars

¶ … presumption, often promulgated by scholars and politicians in the developed world, that social, political and cultural development are synonymous with a move towards modernization. In fact, modernization theory is also sometimes referred to as the developmental doctrine, a paradigm spurred on particularly after World War II when the United States formed its Cold War policy and understood that it had obligations to the developing world (e.g. unindustrialized or newly independent post-colonial nations). Modernization can thus be an evolutionary movement of technological progress or a reaction to the past and a new template for the future. However, we must understand that it is both a continuous, and open-ended, process. It is not the type of social change in which there is a clear beginning, middle and end; but rather a movement towards equilibrium on a scale that is constantly changing. Historians, for instance, tend to link modernization to the process of urbanization and industrialization, as well as the spread of compulsory education throughout a population based In this view, humans come together in cities for a variety of reasons: safety, job specialization, etc. And then move technologically forward until much of their society is mechanized and there is then ample opportunity for even more specialization and adaptation through education (Inglehart 1997). In critical sociological theory, modernization is linked more to the more cognitive process of rationalization. This process holds that as modernization (especially technical acuity) increases within a society, the role of the individual begins to take on far more importance, and eventually replaces the family, the extended family, and even the community as the fundamental change agent for society (Roberts & Hite (eds.) 2000).

The idea of development equaling modernization is not new to the 20th century, even though the popularization did not really occur until decolonialization post-World War II. In fact, Aristotle suggested that states follow a natural pattern of growth, much like plants and biological entities. This was based on his views of politics and the evolution from the primitive hunter society into what he saw as the principal of perfection in the evolved City-State; "What is most choiceworthy for each individual is always the highest it is possible for him to attain" (Aristotle VII). The idea of growth and decacy of society was certainly something people saw in the ebb and flow of the natural world, therefore it must also be true in the political genre. John Stuart Mill remarked, "Whoever know the political Economy of England…. Knows that of all nations, actual or possible" (Mill 2008). Ironically, the socio-cultural perspective that "primitive" tribes were not yet developed came from Lewish Morgan, the founder of American anthropology, when in 1877 he speculated that "American Indian Tribes represent, more or less nearly, the history and experience of our own remote ancestors" (Morgan 1877).

In general, though, modernization theory holds that as a process, there are two main phases: challenge growth and response. In the challenge phase, modernization of society integrates the institutions and values of society in a progressive, upward movement with the initial resistance individuals sometimes have for change sharp but doomed to failure. In the response stage, modernization breeds divisiveness and discontent -- primarily due to the rising expectations from the first phase and typically, the inability for the evolving society to meet the demands of the community on society as a whole. Just as one set of solutions occur, more problems arise -- and like the "half-life of technology," modernization perpetuates itself and becomes more dynamic as more of society moves into its psycho-social realm (Ross (ed.) 2009).

Theory into Practice - This idea of development equaling modernization is somewhat xenophobic, albeit with positive intentions for some, self-serving political motives for others, and of course, that all too common human greed motivation. Geopolitically, theory is used in foreign policy both to buttress ideas and to justify actions. After World War II the United States was one of the only developed countries in a position to supply aid and expertise to much of the world. What is now the EU was in shambles, China had just had a revolution, and Japan's infrastructure was in tatters. The Soviet Union had lost millions and had been overrun, and believed it had to solidify its own borders by using Eastern European resources and lands as protection. Thus, there was an idea that all societies must progress through similar stages of development, with the goal being modernization. Most theories of modernization show that societies are able to develop from traditionalism to modernity by adopting a set pattern of technological developments that eventually ensue a number of cultural and socio-political changes. As society changes toward the modern, states are wealthier and more powerful and typically have a stronger, more robust level of democratization with higher standards of living. This theory holds that it is the process that propels society forward -- new technologies, updating traditional methods, and even changes brought on because of the influences of other cultural interactions. Interestingly, this view implies that these developments control the speed and limits of human interaction, not the other way around (Wagner 2008).

Much of this paradigm was echoed by the social theorists, who believed that just as natural selection favors what we might consider to be selfish behaviors (survival) then so do cultural and societal behaviors allow development to take place. The presupposition that developing societies means a certain paradigm of technological and political acumen, though, arose based on ideas of inequality, and some might say racism. Why is it, for instance that certain parts of the world have developed technology capable of space travel while other cultures still use subsistence farming. Too, the seminal question becomes does development in the modernization paradigm imply success and arrival at a quantitative leap? Certainly, we tend not to see cultures without certain technological upgrades as being viable in ways that have little to do with technical acumen -- but more on the philosophical, metaphysical sense.

In fact, within many cultures considered to be underdeveloped balance is key -- and there are jobs for everyone, young or old. This does not allow for advanced technological development, or colonization of other lands. The human species is incredibly complex, and the urbanization of society begat numerous cultural changes that remain apparent today. Giving an even larger, macro view, one can also ask if there are other factors that contributed to the underdeveloped cultures remaining technological inferior. This might suggest that colonization (not just economically, but politically, socially, and especially ecologically) used a certain arrogance of development to control needed resources for their own modernization. These views take a more holistic approach to modernization in that their theoretical locus takes into account biological, ecological and other issues that are interactive with humanity, sometimes exacerbated, but not always completely isolated or caused by human interaction. The final result, though, has been the standard of a modern society -- of the goal of the developing world, and the way many societies define "civilization in the modern world" (Diamond, 370-4; McNeill 1977; Crosby 1973).

Globalization as Modernization - As the 21st century unfolds; we are told that the world is embracing globalism -- a key change in the economic, political and cultural movements that, broadly speaking, move the various countries of the world closer together. This idea refers to a number of theories that see the complexities of modern life such that events and actions are tied together, regardless of the geographic location of a specific country (political unit). The idea of globalism has become popular in economic and cultural terms with the advent of a number of macro-trade agreements combined with the ease of communication brought about with the Internet and cellular communication.

The rapid growth of the global economy profoundly effects modern economic development and stability, labor, and, most especially, the environment. In combination with the Earth's natural geologic functions, the process of human globalization radically transforms local issues into national and international problems, heightening very serious challenges.

In direct relation to the idea of development and modernization, globalization has shrunk the world -- with Internet available in Africa, CNN reports to Pakistan, and investors across the globe to literally every country in the world, it has transformed the direction for culture and economy in the 21st century. The world is richer than ever, communicates more, trades more, and cooperates more than ever. To date, the most robust paradigm of globalization has been the way many countries are integrating themselves with each other, primarily in trade and investment and in the international flows of capital, people, technology and information. Two major forces support and propel the idea of cross-regional and cross-national economic, and ultimately political, issues -- the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) and the movement in Europe to regionalize into a European (Free Trade) Union (Trent University 2006; Council on Foreign Relations 2008).

Globalization is actually the way we describe the increasing unification of the world through economic means (reduction of trade barriers, support of international trade, and mitigation of export and import quotas). They goal for globalization is to increase material wealth and the distribution of goods and services through a more international division of labor and then, in turn, a process in which regional cultures integrate through communication, transportation and trade. The overall theory is that if countries are tied together cooperatively economically, they will not have needed to become political enemies (Smith 2007). Notice the continuum here -- globalization, like modernization, is a process, but a process that insists movement from A to B. is not only desirable, but necessary to become part of the Global Club. While this is primarily an economic determinant, nothing exists in a vacuum. Therefore, economics drive technological, social, cultural, political, and even biological factors. And, with this exchange of paradigms, there is transnational circulation of ideas, languages, popular culture, and communication through acculturation. Typically, we see the movement of globalization moving into the developing world as it struggles to become part of the developed world (Croucher 2004, 10).

Globalization has other, rather impactful consequences to the idea of development -- it has brought the issue of sustainability to the forefront, particularly in the development of the concept of sustainability. Moving towards sustainability is also a social challenge that entails both international and national law, urban planning and transport, local and individual lifestyles and ethical consumerism (Adams 2006). The modern era, in fact, brought another period of escalating growth, what some call "a great acceleration ... A surge in the human enterprise that has emphatically stamped humanity as a global geophysical force" (Robin 2008). What followed is another exponential growth pattern of human consumption, unchecked birth rates in most of the developing world, a scarcity of water and food in many areas of the world. While there is an increasing push towards recycling, protecting the environment, and going free within the modern business, situations like the Copenhagen Conference illustrate just how contentious the issue of sustainability has become. For much of the world, though, ecological economics now seeks to close the gap between ecology and more traditional economics. This, however, requires societies in all parts of the world to commit to recycling, lessening of their carbon footprints and, at the very least, more attention and investment in green energy and building processes (Kay 2002).

Colonialism, Post-Colonialism and Development- To understand the manner in which certain countries fell upon the divergent sides of the development perspective we must look back at a bit of world history. Economics seemed to rule, and European influence was predominant because feudalism evolved into industrial capitalism, and thus the control of vast resources and wealth. This wealth allowed the transference of technology that combined with the colonialism and exploration of the New World starting in the 1500s to create a system of super states that could dominate all other nations. These super states, of course, needed fuel to exist and grow -- and that fuel was the process of colonization. Colonizing other countries, or Imperialism, is defined as the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations; manifest destiny is the idea that God gave a nation the right to practice this (Osterhammel 2005). Without certain circumstances, though, this trend towards industrialization and the control of technology could not have happened. Environmental factors, for instance, allowed societies to develop near the great river valleys of the world (Nile, Tigris/Euphrates), but also, through again, a series of geological factors, included raw materials that contributed to the technological advancement of societies. These early civilizations then, had the advantage of early urbanization and organization, turning into the great Middle Eastern civilizations, then Greece, Rome, Byzantium, and finally the European powers (Cain & Hopkins 2001).

Of course, to become dominant globally, one needed a steady supply of capital. For the great European powers this capital was supplied through the labor and products of colonies (e.g. The British colonies in India; France and the Dutch in Africa; Spain in South America and Asia).The circle was almost complete; the mother country gained in technology which allowed them better warships and military supplies; the colonies supplied cheap labor and either raw materials or finished goods at an exemplary price; the mother country sent advisors and their own colonists, which in turn changed the culture and atmosphere as well. Great Britain is perhaps the best example of overt imperialism that almost required more than just military might to succeed. Indeed, much of the ideas surrounding the savage, underdeveloped countries, and the "white man's burden" originated because of the British. Beginning in the late 16th century, Great Britain began amassing dominions colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by London's Parliament. By the mid-19th century, for instance, the British Empire had influence on almost 1/2 billion people and 1/4 of the total global population and economy. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories (Hodge 2008).

This pattern continued throughout the 19th century, and, when combined with the kinship of most of Europe's leaders resulted in numerous squabbles that would eventually result in World War I and the beginning of the decline of European dominance. Still, there is no mistaking that European culture (especially religion) in the spread of European ideals and culture worldwide. This did have an ironic effect though; as revolutionary fever and an unwillingness to continue on without self-rule ultimately contributed to Europe's ebb as a global power. And yet, it would take a post-colonial view of development to change some of the views of hierarchy when focusing on statecraft in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The whole picture of globalism tends to refer to the theories that see modern life as a series of very complex webs, almost string theory, that tie together most all of modern life. The term "postcolonial" is multidimensional -- literature, cinema, history, critical theory, sociology, anthropology, political science, cultural studies, and even the arts. Indeed, under the rubric of post-colonial studies, we also find interest on the manner in which dispersed ethnic populations help us understand the culture of slavery, racism, war, and even nationalist content. This sub-discipline of post-colonial studies is known as "diaspora studies" carries with it, though, the connotation of forced resettlements, the negativity of capitalism and industrialization, and even the reaction of more contemporary Marxist theory (Bartlovich & Mannur (eds.) 2001). Post-colonialism is a modern academic area that focuses mainly on the analysis and reaction to the political, social, and cultural legacy of colonialism. The ultimate goal of such studies is, of course, to help understand what the residual effects of colonialism were on culture. It is not just about saving cultures from the ravages of being subsumed by another culture, but how once the colonial power has left, what ways academia might offer in learning how to move beyond subjugation towards not only a place of mutual respect, but of cultural dynamism. Too, the way in which the developed world moves to a new paradigm of interpreting the colonial world, to refuse to impart a preconceived hierarchy of determinism on what was typically a non-Caucasian population in which colonial power held such control over artistic and intellectual thought that the entire notion of the "other" must be redefined (Desai & Nair 2005). There are some scholarly definitions, though, that say post colonialism can also be seen as a linear progression of colonialism, even though different or new relationships about power and the control of knowledge are in place.

Indeed, the idea of development equaling modernization may be seen by some as a tool for decolonialization in the 1930-50 era. Terms like demographic transitions with lowering of birthrate with higher survival rates in infancy, economic improvement because of increased access to transportation, and the variables that began to grow in industry, mass communication, and for the West, access to more goods that would translate into cash. These ideas, though, formed a template to manage the world during the Cold War. Opportunities were abundant to move Western technology into the developing world simply for the promise of being on the NATO/U.S. side of the equation. Even U.S. President Harry Truman, in his 1949 inaugural address, formed the basis for U.S. policy by declaring the old imperialism dead, no more colonizer vs. colony, and the economic benefits of a war against poverty and an approach to leverage these ideas to, in essence, control development through the bribery of modernization -- or "a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement of underdeveloped areas" (Truman 1949).

Does this imply that development towards modernization also equals social change? For modernization theorists, new technology is often a major source of social change -- for example, from agrarian to industrial society. However, new technology does not change societies in a vacuum. Instead, it is the human response to technology that causes that change. We know through history that it is frequent that technology is recognized by not put to use for generations at times. For example, the idea of metal extraction from raw ore was not just a new technology at one time, but one that had profound and drastic implications for a number of societies that interpreted this technology in different ways. The actual technology was always there, but went unused for hundreds of years. New technology is not individuated either -- it does merely add small bits to society, but can change everything (e.g. The telephone, the internal combustion engine, etc.). We then can see modernization as being ecological in respect to social change, rather than additive (Postman 1995).