The
modernisation theory has been described as a change process in which societies transform
from being ‘traditional’ to being ‘modern’. Modernisation theory possesses
cultural, economic and political components. The writer concedes the presence
of sound arguments emanating on the part of modernisation theory proponents
however the writer finds the theory ignorant of many facts that characterise
both our contemporary world and history. The writer, therefore, argues and
supports the notion that modernisation theory possesses limitations which bring
into deterioration its credibility and relevance.
Green
(2008) quoted in Ntini (2016:56) submits that modernisation is a change process
in which societies evolve from being ‘traditional’ to being ‘modern’ on. The Cambridge
online dictionary seems to concur with the definition offered by Green as it
states, “modernisation is the process of starting to use the most recent
methods, ideas, equipment, etc. so that something becomes or seems more
modern”. Huntington (1968a:52) quoted in Tipps (1973:201) submits modernisation
as, “a multi-faceted process involving changes in all areas of human thought
and activity”. Acknowledging the aforestated definitions would entail
appreciating that at their core belongs the sometimes uncomfortable business of
transformation and change. According to Kreutzmann (1998) and Green (2008)
quoted in Ntini (2016:56), change in modernisation theory terms necessitates
that the rest of the world adopt and implement a global development model at
the courtesy of the United States and partner nations in order to be able reach
similar levels of development. It is on the basis that according to
modernisation theory all countries of the world ought to mimic and imitate the
values and norms of countries such as the United States in order to be fully
developed that the writer dissents with the modernisation theory. Our
contemporary world and history presents us with empirical evidence to counter
the claims advanced by modernisation theory proponents.
Perhaps
it is correct to commence with outlining the historical inconsistencies of the
modernisation theory if the writer is to detail the limitations of the
modernisation theory. The writer finds that in its essence, modernisation
theory fails to include the historical aggression and violation that the
majority of developing countries have had to contend with (for most of history)
erupting on the part of the majority of countries that are now considered
“first world countries”. Indeed Ntini (2016:62) confirms the inconsistency of
the modernisation theory when he states, “the researcher finds it [modernisation theory] silent about the
slave trade and colonialism, the very practice that laid the foundation stones
of economic bloom for Western/First World countries”. The writer notes that modernisation
theory is historically inconsistent if it expects all countries of the world to
follow the Western model even if they do not share similar history and/or challenges
with Western nations. Bundy further presents us with more another reason as to
why developing countries are not at the level of Western nations when it comes
to development. Bundy (1972, 1977) quoted in Coetzee et al (2001:84), disproved
the myth that the lack of development on the part of developing countries lies
in their ‘primitive’ beliefs and suggests that the ‘backwardness’ of African
societies is due to an active strategy of underdeveloping these countries so
that they remain subservient to Western countries at the core. Bundy’s
assertion, which possesses close ties to the dependency theory, should be
regarded as a strong point of debate supporting the notion that it is ludicrous
to expect countries to develop if both historical and contemporary settings are
actively underdeveloping developing countries.
Another
great flaw of modernisation theory is its component of what Peter Evans terms
‘institutional monocropping’. Evans (2004:30) defines institutional
monocropping as the imposition of blueprints based on idealised versions of
Anglo-American institutions, the applicability of that which is presumed to
transcend national circumstances and cultures. The danger of pursuing
modernisation lies in the fact that it positions poor nations at the receiving
end of ideas, values or systems that may not fit in to their current ecologies,
value systems, geographies, etc. Put simply, mimicking some values and habits
of the Western world will add to a further identity crisis in the developing
world and may not even render any positive outcome. Choices of housing,
clothing, cuisine, etc. are influenced by ecologies and geographies in which
people reside. Therefore, expecting all people of developing countries to wear
similar clothing to Western countries, build houses in the same manner as
Western countries, speak in the manner as Western countries, etc. would be
ignorant of the different environment of the peoples of developing countries
and will lead to a loss of identity as this will entail abandoning their
cultures. World ecologies are diverse and what works in Europe or the United
States may not necessarily work in parts of the developing world.
Perhaps
terming modernisation theory as arrogant and disrespectful may be appropriate
if we are to consider the manner in which it elevates Westernisation as
possessing that which countries of the third world ought to aspire to possess
and the manner in which it relegates all the other indigenous cultures,
inventions, philosophies, values and lifestyles of the world. It is common
knowledge that long before European arrival in Africa, in the Americas, in
Asia; the indigenous peoples of these regions were able to heal themselves employing
the use of traditional medicine, were able to build shelter appropriate for
them, devoured rich cuisine after the harvesting of indigenous crops and
furthermore, the indigenous peoples of these regions possessed strong value and
faith systems such as filial piety (the virtue of respect for elders –
Confucianism). In southern Africa, Ngunis and Africans alike practiced their
religions and had a thriving culture characterised by dance, music, hierarchy, etc.
and in Great Zimbabwe, an empire was built. In its misappropriation of history,
modernisation theory fails to detail these practices and how they were
disturbed. Kruger (2008:3) quoted in Ntini (2016:57) suggests that the
abandoning of traditional values and institutions and harmony with the West is
a pre-requisite for development. Although Kruger elevates Westernisation as a
standard by which development ought to be measured and which developing
countries should aspire to achieve, she fails to submit why other paths to
development should be overlooked and why developing countries should only look
at Western countries for development models.
It
can be argued that modernisation theory has a vague conception of the unfair
international systems that currently characterise international relations in
its disingenuous opinion that the mimicry of the West is the only true path to
the attainment of development. Ntini (2016:60) rightfully asserts that,
“today’s world is a product of processes recorded in the history of
intercontinental and international affairs.” The writer appreciates this
submission as correct and states that one cannot ignore the real historical
reasons for why the world is as it is today. Evans (2004:32) presents with a
component of international relations that is a barrier to the development of
third world countries and asserts that, “current struggles over intellectual
property rights are indicative of the frustrations of poor countries over the
ability of rich countries to continue monopolising the returns from new ideas.”
The use of intellectual property rights to block poor countries from attaining
development backs Bundy’s submission that there is an active underdevelopment
project of third world countries. This should also highlight the fact that even
if poor countries wanted to import some Western traits they feel could render
positive outcomes, property rights would be used against these poor countries. Evans
(2004:35) further reiterates the unfairness of the international system when he
cites the structural adjustments programmes (SAPs) of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) as systems that
contribute to the underdevelopment of third world countries. The writer
concludes that the deliberate cultural carnage of third world countries by the
West and the current measures of underdeveloping third world countries,
particularly by the IFIs, are some of the real barriers to development, and
dismisses the notion that the lack of development in third world countries is
due to the absence of Westernisation in these parts.
Modernisation
theory misappropriates the truth by placing Westernisation on a pedestal as the
sole model of development, one that which third world countries ought to
imitate. Modernisation theory loses its credibility when it fails to mention
other paths to development. Ntini (2016) cites countries, like China and Japan,
which have witnessed major developments without having gone the route
stipulated by modernisation theory proponents. The same can be suggested for
Arab nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, etc. These
countries are known for their conservative traditional lifestyles guided by
Muslim principles, by some modernisation proponents, these countries are
‘primitive’ and ‘backward’, but reality would differ with this assertion. These
countries are some of the richest in the world, with some of the most expensive
material possessions, with populations leading high standards of living and
high life expectancies. These countries have always been adamant in their
ambition to maintain their culture, values, religion and lifestyles; it can be
argued that they have never adopted modernisation theory as a developmental
model and yet they have seen large progress and have become one of the strong
role players in international relations.
In
conclusion, the writer makes it clear that he supports the notion that
modernisation theory possesses great limitations and is characterised by historical
inconsistencies and institutional monocropping. Furthermore, the writer notes
that modernisation theory unjustifiably elevates Westernisation ignoring the
presence of other routes to development. The writer submits and presents proof
that modernisation theory is ignorant of the unfair playing field that has
characterised the world system since the inception of contemporary
international relations. There clearly exist other forms of development and
each region should be allowed the freedom to develop without hindrances or
oppression so as to embrace the beautiful indigenous cultures of the world. The
indigenous peoples of the world should never be brainwashed to rid themselves
of their identities and be bombarded to pursue flawed theories that will
ultimately bring about the destruction of local cultures and indigenous
knowledge. It remains imperative that people, if they so wish, lead a life that
they feel is appropriate for them without being manipulated and condescended
upon by terms such as ‘backward’, ‘primitive’, ‘irrational’, or ‘fatalistic’
especially if they elect to follow customs that have guided their existence and
meaning.
REFERENCES
Evans, P. (2004)
‘Development as Institutional Change: The Pitfalls of Monocropping and the
Potentials of Deliberation.’ Studies in
Comparative International Development. 38(4), 30-52
Graaf, J.; Venter, D.
(2001) ‘Understanding the World System’ in Coetzee, J.K.; Graaf, J.; Hendricks
F.; Wood G. (eds.) Development: Theory,
Policy and Practice. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. 77-95
Ntini, E.
(2016) ‘Today’s World: Can Modernisation Theory Still Explain It Convincingly?’
J Sociology Soc Anth, 7(1), 56-67
Tipps, D.C.
(1973) ‘Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical
Perspective.’ Comparative Studies in
Society and History. 15(2), 199-226
