In the previous sections, we mainly talked of the changes that occur in a society in a variety of ways, not all of them planned, and not all of them desirable. Many concepts and theories relative to the consequences of an innovation or to the acceptance or rejection of an innovation came in handy when social sciences began paying attention to the processes of change initiated in newly independent states of the Third World. We have inserted several examples from developing countries vis-a-vis the changes brought about by the introduction of new innovations. These examples suggest the utility of the concepts and theoretical formulations developed in advanced countries to understand the current processes of change in developing countries as well.
The modernizing efforts of developing countries provides us with a new pool of data related to processes of directed culture change.
Contemporary era, in the Asian and African context, can be characterized as an era of transition. With the dawn of independence in the countries of the underdeveloped world, forces designed to change the structure of society and refashion the working of the polity, to ensure economic and social development, and to achieve political stability, have been set into operation …. Committed to an ideology of development, these societies are undergoing a series of changes with a much faster rate compared to the ‘developed’ counterpart … these patterns of change exhibited by most of the new nations have given rise to a dynamic dichotomy, namely the developing societies versus the developed societies. The developing societies are characterized by a rapid, accelerated, pace of ‘modernization’ duly supported by a rising revolution of aspirations. The process involves initiation of the so-called ‘traditional’ people—parochials or subjects—into the ‘new orbit of desire’ and an exposure to a ‘secular climate of opinion’ (Atal, 1971: 1).
Broadly speaking, all developing societies are actively engaged in the process of social change described as Development. This development is seen in terms of the economy, polity or society. In all these spheres, societies began making attempts to move from tradition to modernity. This universal process is viewed as ‘a secular trend unilateral in direction—from traditional to participant life-ways’ (Lerner, 1965: 89).
The Concept of Modernization
The key concept in government-induced changes in countries of the Third World was that of Development. Development was seen as a multifaceted activity and people used this word to mean a variety of things, economic, political or social. Thus, development became an all-encompassing term for the entire gamut of efforts to improve the profile of a society. It was conceived as a process of modernization.
It was generally believed that modernization entails the end of tradition. By implication, tradition also included religion, and therefore modernity was viewed as secular. People’s illiteracy, limited worldview, blind faith in superstitions, attachment to age-old practices and to mythological explanations were identified as the key hurdles to modernization. Development thus signified modernization, which was regarded as a concept broader than Westernization. The latter term seemed to hint that all changes emanated from the West—now renamed the global North. Modernization emphasized the novelty of the innovation and not the source of its origin. In both, however, non-rational and irrational behaviour was decried.
Writing in 1964, Amitai Etzioni introduced the concept of modernization in this manner:
Many contemporary societies are still predominantly traditional, in the sense that their demographic, economic, educational, religious, and political structure is much like that which existed centuries ago before modernization set in. Still, even these societies, in addition to having their own internal dynamics, are affected by contacts with other modern societies. Most of them, therefore, have already started on the way toward modernization, though they differ considerably in the point and time of departure, the stage they have reached, the pace, orderliness, and the path their development follows, as well as in the end result for which they strive (Etzioni, 1964: 253).
Sociological theorists of modernization and development were influenced by the Weberian mode of analysis in terms of ideal types. They identified four interrelated processes in the realms of technology, economy, and ecology:
- In the realm of Technology: Change from simple and indigenous technologies to scientific knowledge;
- In Agriculture: Evolution from subsistence farming towards the production of agricultural goods;
- In Industry: From the use of human and animal power towards the use of inanimate power, and entry into the market-based economy and a network of exchange relations; and
- In Ecology: Movement from the farm and village towards urban centres.
Thus, technological advance, agricultural reorganization, industrialization and urbanization were identified as key constituents of the process of modernization. Since different societies were at different levels of development with regard to these four processes, they represented different stages in their development.
Building on these premises, W. W. Rostow proposed8 his concept of Take-off. He believed that the process of economic growth centres on a brief time interval of two or three decades, when the economy and society transforms in such a way that subsequent economic growth becomes more or less automatic. Rostow calls such a point of transformation ‘take-off’. He defined take-off as the interval during which ‘the rate of investment increases in such a way that real output per capita rises, and this initial increase carries with it radical changes in production techniques and the disposition of the income flows, which perpetuate the new scale of investment and perpetuate thereby the rising trend in per capita output’ (Rostow, 1956: 25).
According to Rostow, a society is ready for take-off when it (i) begins committing itself to secular education; (ii) enables a degree of capital mobilization, especially through the establishment of banks and currency; (iii) encourages the formation of an entrepreneurial class; and (iv) develops the secular concept of manufacturing. The creation of such an environment leads to a take-off in 10 to 50 years.
The take-off stage occurs when sector-led growth becomes common and society is driven more by economic processes than by tradition. Take-off, for Rostow, is the passage of a traditional economy to a modern economy. After take-off, a country takes anywhere from 50 to 100 years to reach maturity, when the economy gets increasingly diversified. This diversity greatly reduces the poverty rate and improves standards of living. This follows the age of high mass consumption, wherein consumers concentrate on durable goods. A society at this stage is able to choose between concentrating on military and security issues, on equality and welfare issues, or on items of luxury.
While Rostow’s attracted considerable attention and the phrase ‘take-off’ gained currency in the developmental debate, it was criticized for being biased towards the Western model and for being historical. Some later editions of the had the subtitle ‘Non-Communist Manifesto’.
Box 19.1 Rostow’s Stages of Development
In 1960, W. W. Rostow suggested that countries passed through five stages of economic development.
Stage 1—Traditional Society
The economy is dominated by subsistence activity where output is consumed by producers rather than traded. Trade is carried out through barter, where goods are exchanged directly for other goods. Agriculture is the most important industry and production is labour-intensive, using only limited quantities of capital. Resource allocation is determined through traditional methods of production.
Stage 2—Transitional Stage (the preconditions for take-off)
Increased specialization generates surpluses for trading. A transport infrastructure emerges to support trade. As incomes, savings, and investment grow, entrepreneurs emerge. External trade also occurs, concentrating on primary products.
Stage 3—Take-Off
Industrialization increases, with workers switching from the agricultural to the manufacturing sector. Growth is concentrated in a few regions of the country and in one or two manufacturing industries. The level of investment reaches over 10 per cent of the GNPP.
The economic transitions are accompanied by the evolution of new political and social institutions that support industrialization. Growth is self-sustaining as investment leads to increasing incomes, in turn generating more savings to finance further investment.
Stage 4—Drive to Maturity
The economy diversifies into new areas. Technological innovation provides a diverse range of investment opportunities. The economy produces a wide range of goods and services and there is less reliance on imports.
Stage 5—High Mass Consumption
The economy is geared towards mass consumption. The consumer durable industries flourish. The service sector becomes increasingly dominant.
© Kaya V. P. Ford, 2004
Daniel Lerner theorized this process of transition as modernization in his famous The Passing of Traditional Society. The author maintained that while the transition from the more traditional forms towards the ‘infusion of a rationalist and positivist spirit’ had started long ago, ever since societies of the underdeveloped world came in contact with societies of the developed world,
the phasing and modality of the process have changed, however …. While Europeanization once penetrated only the upper level of … society, affecting mainly leisure class fashions, modernization today diffuses among a wider population and touches public institutions as well as private aspirations with its disquieting ‘positivist spirit’. Central to this change is the shift in modes of communicating ideas and attitudes—for spreading among a large public vivid images of its own New Ways is what modernization distinctly does. Not only the class media of and travel, but the mass media of tabloids, radio, and movies, are now the dominant modes (Lerner, 1965: 45).
Lerner sets out the following phases in the process of modernization:
- Urbanization: ‘It is the transference of population from scattered hinterlands to urban centres that stimulates the needs and provides conditions needed for “take-off” toward widespread participation’ (ibid.: 61).
- Literacy: ‘… increases in urbanization tend in every society to multiply national increases in literacy (ibid.).
- Media Participation: Taking advantage of the people’s literacy, mass media convey new experiences and messages to the people.
- Political Participation: ‘… rising media participation tends to raise participation in all sectors of the social system. In accelerating the spread of empathy, it also diffuses those other modern demands to which participant institutions have responded: in the consumers’ economy via cash (and credit), in the public forum via opinion, in the representative polity via voting’ (ibid.: 62).
A careful analysis of 73 countries of the world led Lerner to conclude that
the ‘critical minimum’ of urbanization appears to be between 7–17% of total population, for convenience, one may say 10%. Only after a country reaches 10% of urbanization does its literacy rate begin to rise significantly. Thereafter, urbanization and literacy increase together in a direct (monotonic) relationship until they reach 25%. Which appears to be the ‘critical optimum’ of urbanization (ibid.: 59).
Definitions of modernization abound. However, the key message they convey is that all change does not come from within. Most of the new elements of change are borrowed from abroad, from those countries that are treated as ‘reference groups’; and the spread of modernizing elements will make all societies look alike.
The Development Process in Developing Countries
With the end of the colonial era, the newly independent states engaged in the twin tasks of Decolonization and Development. The second half of the twentieth century witnessed both these processes. While decolonization marked the end of colonial rule, development activities brought in a different aspect of social change—change in a desired direction designed and executed by the leaders of society to promote economic development.
At the beginning of this era, in the late 1940s, societies of the world were dichotomized into ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped’; later, the term ‘undeveloped’ was replaced by ‘under developed’. But as societies trod the path of development, this dichotomy was discarded, and an intermediate category of ‘Developing societies’ was introduced, with those on the far end of the continuum being renamed as ‘Least Developed Societies’.9
This was also the time when social sciences began gaining increasing recognition in these societies. Not only did a large number of scholars from different countries come to carry out studies in remote rural and tribal areas, indigenous social scientists also began studying their own societies.
Social science research focusing on developing societies was guided by two concerns: (i) to record the current social structure, which was in the throes of rapid social change; and (ii) to assist the nationalist governments in their task of development by providing them with the basic benchmark data, and also by participating in the implementation of projects, both as change agents and evaluators of the projects. Social science research focused on village studies in view of the fact that development efforts were primarily focused on the rural sector.10 In these exercises, both expatriate researchers as well as native scholars were involved.
Both policymakers and planners and students of society in developing countries focused their attention mainly on improving the present, rather than glorifying the past or abhorring traditions. Change was seen in terms of improving the present. This was sought in two ways: (i) carrying out social reforms—the process that began with the struggle for freedom from foreign rule, and (ii) adoption of elements from Western and modern civilization. Development was defined in terms of Westernization and modernization in countries like India; other countries that chose the socialist path followed the Marxian paradigm. In popular terms, these were termed the capitalist and socialist models of development.
The Indian model of development was a mix of the two and was aptly described as a ‘socialistic pattern of development’. The important feature of these processes of change in the developing world was the treatment of the developed world as the point of reference. Rather than emphasizing endogenous change, the societies opted for externally induced and planned changes in all spheres—economic, political, and social.
The Western paradigm of development followed by most countries emphasized the import of Machines, Money, Manpower (skilled), and Management style (this is called the 4-M model of modernization) from abroad as developing countries had serious deficits in all these areas. In a way, this was a continuation of the process initiated during colonial rule; the only difference being that this time, the decision regarding priorities and strategies rested with the governments of the newly independent states. Colonial development was selective in the sense that alien rulers took steps to disallow those traditional practices that they regarded as ‘backward’ and undesirable in terms of their own cultural values, and introduced those elements that they thought would strengthen their hold over their colonies. Of course, such changes were part of the Westernization-modernization package, which brought about changes in different spheres of social life. Introduction of rail-roads, radio, the printing press, and the so-called ‘modern’ system of education are some of the consequences of colonization. The infrastructural development of colonial days provided the base on which new development projects were mounted.
Leave a Reply