alasuutari 2011 - modernization as a tacit concept

This article was downloaded by: [178.60.148.118]On: 17 January 2014, At: 10:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Political PowerPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpow21

Modernization as a tacit concept usedin governancePertti Alasuutari aa University of Tampere, School of Social Sciences and HumanitiesPublished online: 02 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Pertti Alasuutari (2011) Modernization as a tacit concept used in governance,Journal of Political Power, 4:2, 217-235, DOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2011.589180

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.589180

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Modernization as a tacit concept used in governance

Pertti Alasuutari*

University of Tampere, School of Social Sciences and Humanities

The article discusses the tacit concept of modernization in its various guises asa transnational framework and as part of world culture. The historical formationof the idea of modernization is traced back to the Enlightenment philosophers.The article further discusses how the idea is embedded in contemporary discus-sions of society and social change. In discussing how modernization discourseis utilized in spreading and domesticating worldwide models, the paper pointsout that it is coupled with the cultural framework of competition, in whichcross-national comparative data are commonly used as evidence. The articleconcludes that to avoid unknowingly chasing its own tail, social science needsto see its own role in society, and study the feedback loop from scientists desksto policy models and back again

Keywords: world culture; tacit concept of modernization; world polity theory;banal nationalism; globalization

In the social sciences and also in public discourse it is common to conceive of soci-ety as a systemic whole that follows its own laws and complex dynamics. Such anunderstanding of society and social change has its roots in Enlightenment philoso-phy, and is also informed by the thinking of classical sociologists who wanted tounderstand how and why European societies were changing by the end of the nine-teenth century. For example, Max Weber conducted substantial comparative studiesabout different civilizations and world religions in order to explain why moderncapitalism was born in occidental civilization and not in China. The idea was toidentify the unique features that made the difference, what created the ethos of thecapitalistic economic system, which Weber deemed as the most fateful force in ourmodern life (Weber 1958, p. 17). Similarly mile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tn-nies formed theories about particular features of modern societies and how theyevolved.

In this popular conception of the systemic whole whose transformations com-prise social change, what actually constitutes a single society is seldom denedexplicitly. However, it is often applied to a nation-state. Thus social changes areexplained by the local conditions, inherent tensions, constellation of forces, andpower plays between local actors.

Email: pertti.alasuutari@uta.

Journal of Political PowerAquatic InsectsVol. 4, No. 2, August 2011, 217235

ISSN 2158-379X print/ISSN 2158-3803 online 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2011.589180http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

Within this perspective, similar developmental paths taking place in differentcountries are a bit of a mystery. If and when isomorphic changes take place, theyare sometimes explained by external pressures or inuences. However, structural orcultural trends in particular are commonly considered to be driven by some kind ofevolutionary trend or dynamic that is independent of actors intentions and which,instead, guides or determines them. Hence, social scientists may talk about a newor emergent era such as post, late or uid modernity or a trend such asglobalization or reexive modernization (Beck et al. 1994; Harvey 1989; Heldet al. 1999; Bauman 2000; Beck et al. 2003). Discussing how such trends evolveor how they are communicated between different nation-states is disregarded,because they are described as a natural outcome of a long historical development,or as the unleashing of a tension inherent in any economically advanced society.

In this way, when diagnosing the spirit of the times, contemporary sociologistsfollow in the footsteps of earlier sociologists who moved from case analyses aboutparticular trajectories to formulations of universal laws laws that could be used asinstructions for any society in which the leaders want to increase the wealth andwell-being of the population (see e.g. Parsons 1964; Parsons 1966). Already in thecase of Weber, the motive for identifying elements of western civilization which dif-ferentiate it from others was that the phenomena that have appeared in the west liein a line of development having universal signicance and value (Weber 1958, p.13). In other words, the underlying idea was to formulate a theory of the causalchain that leads to contemporary society with its efcient economy and highlydeveloped science. In that form, analyses about the path to contemporary occidentalcivilization cease to be studies of a unique historical process and become, instead,attempts to form a universal theory of social development, or modernization as itis often called.

Theorists of social development have made succinct points about necessary andsufcient conditions for bringing about the kind of developmental path that has ledto wealth and well-being in contemporary advanced societies. Let me suggest, how-ever, that we leave aside the question as to how accurate such models of develop-ment are as academic theories, and instead consider the historical process that hasled to the current global institutional order as an outcome of global governance andconsultancy. From this perspective the international institutional order consisting ofsovereign regional states is a result of a global spread of the ideas that were rstestablished in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which recognized the existence ofan interstate system composed of contiguous, bounded territories ruled by sovereignstates (Brenner 1999, p. 47). On the one hand this global order established territo-rial states as independent actors, and hence one might assume that nation-states fol-low their unique developmental paths, but on the other hand these states wereestablished according to the same model, almost like copies of each other. In thatsense this institutional order was the starting point for isomorphic development.This is also how world polity theory conceives of globalization as the spread ofworld culture, comprising plethora ideals and worldwide models. According to it,world culture is now carried by the infrastructure of world society and expressed inthe multiple ways particular groups relate to universal ideals (Lechner and Boli2005, p. 6).

Empirical research related to world polity theory has shown that isomorphismamong nation-states is due to this constant spread of worldwide ideas and fash-ions. As John Meyer (2004) has put it, nation-states are Babbitts, hypocrite

218 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

conformists who adopt and hence spread ideas such as policy models that becomefashionable. Research within world polity theory has focused on instrumental cul-ture (Meyer 2000) as the set of ideas that world culture consists of, but it hasbeen pointed out that the same global spread of fashions is true of expressiveculture, such as rock (Regev 2007a; Regev 2007b), or the arts and art institutionsrst established in seventeenth to nineteenth century Europe (Alasuutari 2001;Alasuutari 2009).

From this perspective, the tacit concept of modernization can be considered asone such worldwide model, which has spread throughout the world and makesisomorphism among national states understandable. By the tacit concept of mod-ernization I do not simply mean the use of the term modernization; several otherconcepts, such as globalization most recently, have been used in depicting thesame general idea. Instead, I mean the underlying assumption that any society isa systemic whole that follows the same inherent laws of change which, ifobserved, guarantee optimal development. This understanding of a law-governedtrajectory is coupled with a Darwinian evolutionary idea, according to whichmodernization is guided by states and other actors adapting to changing externalconditions, which are however constituted by the bulk of such adaptive measures.Within this cultural model, reforms are implied to be in concert with these lawsor trends by referring to them as modernizing something. I call this conceptiona tacit concept to emphasize that it is a naturalized line of thought, deeplyingrained in what is indeed succinctly called modern culture. In a number oftacit ways our concepts promote change and newness, which is presented as betterthan the old or existing state of affairs. Thus, for instance, social change is rou-tinely called development, differences between different countries are placedwithin an evolutionary continuum by talking about developing countries, andexisting practices may be deemed outdated. As a key feature of modern worldculture, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) point out that in our conceptual metaphorsnew is up and old is down. Similarly, Greg Urban (2001) calls modernity aculture of newness.

In this article I analyze the tacit concept of modernization as a worldwide cul-tural idea, the social construction of which has a signicant effect on global gover-nance. Furthermore, I argue that this construction in combination with the principleof sovereignty, realized through the cultural framework of competition, contributesto isomorphism of policy models between supposedly autonomous, democraticallyelected governments. How has this concept of modernization been constructed andhow is it embedded in contemporary notions of society and social change? Further-more, how is the idea of modernization used in consulting policy-makers and otheractors, whose decisions contribute to global social change? These are the questionsposed in this article.

Approaching notions of society and the idea of modernization as world culturalmodels does not mean that such concepts are automatically considered erroneous orideological. Rather, my approach can be regarded as sociology of knowledge, inwhich it is emphasized that not only error or illusion or unauthenticated belief, butalso truths are socially and historically conditioned and can be related to the condi-tions in which they emerge (Merton 1973, p. 11). In other words, in this instance Iam not interested in the correspondence between concepts of society and its object,because the attention is on them in their own right and their life in different socialand historical contexts.

Journal of Political Power 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

From this viewpoint tacit concepts of society and social development can alsobe considered tools of governance, and in this sense my article is indebted toMichel Foucault who reminded us that power and knowledge are intertwined.Hence, notions and theories of social development and research results related tothem have been, and continue to be, used as grounds for social consultancy and jus-tication for policy reforms. Indeed, applying Foucaults governmentality frame-work (Foucault 1991a), in this article all forms of knowledge about society andconceptual frameworks by which social phenomena are described, studied and mea-sured are regarded as means by which to affect and control social life.

The paper proceeds in the following manner. First the history of the idea of pro-gress is discussed from the perspective of governance. Thereafter I will discuss cur-rent occurrences of the tacit concept of modernization and how modernization isused in consulting governments, and how actors in domestic contexts use it in justi-fying policy reforms.

Historical construction of the concept of modernization

The origins of the tacit concept of modernization can be traced back to the eigh-teenth century Enlightenment philosophers periodizations of history (Nisbet 1980;Pollard 1968). Proposing a varying number of epochs, nally leading into the moreenlightened present and future, for contemporary readers these periodizations,weakly if at all based on historical evidence, sounds quite nave. For instance, Con-dorcet (174394) presented a ten-phase periodization model, which can be simpli-ed into four periods with their respective world-views. They were: (1)anthropomorphic and theological; (2) metaphysical; (3) mechanistic-materialist; and(4) mathematic-scientic (Pollard 1968, pp. 8893). On the other hand present-dayreaders may recognize and appreciate the Enlightenment philosophers attempt toconceive of society and history not determined by the acts of individual kings orother powerful people, but rather to see it in terms of social systems and processes.This is the modern conception represented by social science.

It is however important to see that the philosophy of history started by theEnlightenment philosophers and further developed by classical sociologists worksas a tool of governance through proposing periodizations and through suggestingthat history is determined by mechanical, law-like processes. Periodizations justifythe assumption that history has a goal and that contemporary societies can beplaced in a ranking order in terms of their level of development, whereas what Icall mechanization promotes the possibility of a social science detached from poli-tics. Furthermore, these two combined are turned into a tool of governance alsothrough another means. That is, in the rst place observations about historical peri-ods and about inherent mechanisms of society are presented as empirical observa-tions, akin to natural laws. However, they become normative through feedback topolicy. Yet, their force relies on the fact that they are considered as law-like andnon-normative.

Periodization

As to the uses of periodization, one of the achievements of the Enlightenment phi-losophers was the creation of the assumption of the dark Middle Ages character-ized by feudalism. Later historical research has argued that such a uniform epoch

220 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

never really existed. The medieval era has turned out to be at least a simplication,and the same goes for feudalist economy: it is a fairly late construction based onscarce empirical evidence (Davis 2008). However, the inaccuracy of history writingis less important than the point that the construction of medieval societies served asa justication for colonial rule. As Kathleen Davis (2008, p. 20) writes, theassumption that there was a medieval period characterized by irrational supersti-tion was fully involved with the identication of colonial subjects as irrational andsuperstitious. This assumption had effects upon colonized peoples through the sys-tems of rule that it generated and legitimized:

The idea of a superstitious Middle Ages, in other words, did not preexist the supersti-tious colonial subject upon which it became mapped; rather, they emerged together,each simultaneously making possible and verifying the other. Likewise, the analysis ofland systems in colonies went hand in hand with the development of the concept of afeudal Middle Ages, and this analysis played out in administrative decisions regard-ing the organization and control of land for the purpose of extracting wealth, even asit concretized a feudal medieval past. There was no such superstitious, feudal MiddleAges before colonialism, and doubtless there never would have been such withoutcolonialism; vice versa, colonizers could not have mapped and administered foreignlands and bodies as they did without the simultaneous process of imagining such aMiddle Ages. (Davis 2008, p. 20)

The way in which classical sociology developed Enlightenment philosophers perio-dizations of history can be seen as a variant of the assumption that there was aMiddle Ages before modernity. When periodizations were replaced by the quasi-historical and universal ideal types of traditional and modern society, they wereuseful in promoting modernization.

For sociologists, historical research on earlier epochs as well as evidence aboutnon-western or premodern societies were only interesting as material from whichto nd contrast in highlighting what were understood as the main characteristics ofmodernity. Thus, the historical consciousness collapsed into a two-stage dualisticmodel consisting of traditional and modern, dened in terms of a set of vari-ables. For instance, in his study, The division of labor in society, mile Durkheim(1964) analyzed the differences and recent changes in the judicial system and linkedthem to the extent to which there is an institutionalized division of labour in a soci-ety that is, to what extent people specialize in producing one product or doingone task and engage in exchange economy to get all the products they need. Onthat basis he constructed two ideal type societies, primitive and modern. Primitivesociety was characterized by a low division of labour and by a particular form ofsolidarity, which he called mechanical solidarity. A similar kind of dualism betweentwo ideal types of society, the traditional (or primitive) and the modern are con-structed by all the classical authors of sociology. For instance, Ferdinand Tnnies(1988) constructed a similar dichotomy between two kinds of society, Gemeinschaftand Gesellschaft. He associated these to two types of motivation or will; Wesenw-ille, or essential will and Krwille, or arbitrary will. According to Tnnies,Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft are ideal types or Normalbegriffe, not empirical cate-gories. They are two forms of social organization that coincide in any society, buthe assumed that as modernization progresses, Gesellschaft type social organizationsbecome more and more common.

The construction of such a quasi-historical dichotomous model as a means toassess the developmental phase of a society has directly served policy-making,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

particularly after World War II. It was in this context that Parsons and his followersdeveloped the idea that contemporary market democracies, most notably the US,represent the end stage in an evolutionary course and that their features can be usedas criteria in assessing the relative modernity of the so-called developing countries.By interpreting and further developing the thinking of Durkheim and Weber espe-cially, Parsons conceived of modernization in terms of differentiation. Differentia-tion for Parsons referred to a process whereby the tasks necessary in a society toguarantee its survival are performed by an increasing number of substructures (orinstitutions). Rather than overlapping or duplicating their functions, new institutionstake over fragments of the activities formerly performed by a single, less differenti-ated (that is, specialized) institution. Such a multiplicity of tasks to be performed byan increasingly large number of institutions requires interdependence as well ascoordination. Parsons promoted the view that modernization was likely to succeed,thus assuring that developing countries would be provided with the resources forwhat he called a general process of adaptive upgrading, including industrialization,democratization through law, and secularization and science with the means of edu-cation (Parsons 1951; Parsons 1964; Parsons 1966).

Parsons is a prime example of turning a periodization into a tool of governancethrough normative feedback to policy. For instance in the re-democratization ofWest Germany after World War II, Parsons consulted the US State Department indesigning German economic and political reconstruction and inuenced the Mar-shall Plan (Gerhardt 1996; Gerhardt 1999; Gerhardt 2002), which subsequently ledto the formation of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, the pre-decessor of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)(OECD 2011).

Mechanization

Closely intertwined with periodization and the formation of apparently descriptiveconcepts related to it, the tacit concept of modernization promoted by social sciencefunctions as a tool of governance and consultancy also through mechanization thatis, by suggesting that society is a systemic totality governed by certain inherent mech-anisms. First, this view of society enabled a new way of thinking about governance,which Foucault has called governmentality. Instead of using force and coercion, pol-icy-makers manage social life by inuencing the comportment of the populationthrough acting upon their hopes, desires, or milieu (Foucault 1991a; Dean 1999; Inda2005). Second, picturing society as a system that is guided by its own inherent lawscreated the position of a social scientist as seemingly detached from the object ofresearch, albeit located within it and simultaneously consulting policy-makers.

This change in the conception of society and history, originally brought aboutby the Enlightenment philosophers, is understandable in light of their own socialposition. Although these thinkers conceived of themselves as unselsh men ghtingfor their faith in truth and in humanism, the new view of history they promotedserved an obvious function: they advanced and defended the new economic andsocial order based on a growing market economy that was developing in the cities.Previous history writing had concentrated on the importance of singular individualssuch as kings or popes, which meant that the role of the bourgeoisie as a largegroup of ordinary merchants in affecting social development was easily overlooked.Therefore it is understandable that the Enlightenment philosophers emphasized the

222 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

importance of large-scale evolutionary processes on cultural, social and economiclevels. They conceived of history in terms of changes in mentality of the generalpopulation. For the Enlightenment philosophers the causal factors that determinesocial change resided in the natural law that human beings and rational govern-ments had better observe in order to prosper, whereas for sociology nding outabout causal laws became more of an empirical challenge. Yet the premise accord-ing to which society is conceived as a systemic whole is the same.

Hence throughout centuries social theorists have developed models by which tocrack the secret of social evolution as a law-like process. For instance, Karl Marx,one of the inuential predecessors of classical sociologists, emphasized the impor-tance of the relations of production as the motor of history. For him, the bourgeoisera meant an expansion of commoditization. Max Weber was particularly interestedin the process of increasing rationality as an outcome of the formation of capitalism.In his early work Georg Simmel approached recent social change from the view-point of increasing differentiation (see e.g. Simmel 1890), whereas in his later pro-duction he concentrated on analyzing the effects of urbanization and capitalistexchange economy on individuals mentality (see e.g. Simmel 1900; Simmel 1917;Simmel 1957 [1904]). Modernization theory by Parsons was a later elaboration ofthis line of thought.

Such theories and research regarding the dynamics of modernization or socialchange more generally are typically assessed from the viewpoint of their adequacyand predictive power, that is, how well they capture the dynamics of modern soci-ety. From the viewpoint of governance, however, it is important to note that the cat-egories by which society is framed as an object of research and measurement aresimultaneously tools of government; they are policy relevant, as the phrase goes.So forms of knowledge and forms of power are interrelated; the more social scienceis able to come up with features that affect peoples attitudes and behaviour, the ful-ler is the toolbox of government. Society in social science is pictured as machine-like, and social scientists conceive of this power/knowledge complex with the ethosof wanting to learn how society really works, thus bracketing their and policy-mak-ers partisan role in the construction of the object. Social science is likened to natu-ral science both by scientists and policy-makers because the comparison withnatural science gives it legitimacy. Yet, that very legitimacy makes social scienceunlike the natural sciences in that it becomes a self-fullling prophecy by givingscientic authority to policy-makers, who are, after all, partly responsible for theform which social order assumes.

Current occurrences of the concept of modernization

Compared with the codication of a universal modernization theory by Talcott Par-sons, it appears as if the concept of modernization has gone out of fashion. Indeed,within sociology it has been argued many times over that modernization theory isdead (Alexander 1995, Wallerstein 1976). On closer scrutiny, however, moderniza-tion or related notions of epochs and evolutionary change are frequently used bothin social scientic writings and political texts. The current uses also carry with themmany of the underlying assumptions that were rst established by Enlightenmentphilosophers and classical sociologists, albeit typically not in a clearly outspokenform. As in its earlier uses, the main motive or effect of both the academic andmundane modernization talk is the creation of a sense of direction and of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

urgency of actors to follow suit, in other words to make reforms that help them bet-ter adapt to the future.

In contemporary academic use of the notion, modernity or modernization aretypically given an epithet. Jean-Franois Lyotards short but inuential book Thepostmodern condition: a report on knowledge (1984, originally 1979) is a classicexample and began the trend in which academic authors point out a new turn insocial development. Although the book was a starting point for a discussion aboutincredulity towards meta-narratives, of which the modernization process is a primeexample, in fact it is an example of it. According to the main hypothesis of thebook, the status of knowledge is altered as societies enter what is known as thepostindustrial age and cultures enter what is known as the postmodern age (Lyotard1984, p. 3). Thus Lyotard makes an interpretation about a transition from one stagein development to another one, a transition that is presented as self-evident or inevi-table on the condition that, or as soon as, societies have reached the postindustrialage. Furthermore, characteristic of this genre of age-diagnostic writing, Lyotardsuggests how we can best adapt to the changes facing us by professing a preferencefor a plurality of small narratives that compete with each other rather than clingingon to a single grand narrative. Such recommendations are understandable also inlight of the fact that the report was commissioned by the Qubec government.

The discussion on late modernity focused on the age of post modernity. Hence,Ulrich Beck suggested that modernization has occurred in two phases: the rst stagereplaced estate society by class society, whereas in the reexive modernization ofthe latter part of the twentieth century, the markers of class were fading at theexpense of individual style and fashion (Beck 1994; Beck et al. 2003). Accordingto him reexive modernization means enhanced individualization:

Opportunities, threats, ambivalences of the biography, which it was previously possi-ble to overcome in a family group, in the village community or by recourse to a socialclass or group, must increasingly be perceived, interpreted and handled by individualsthemselves. . . And even the self is no longer just the unequivocal self but has becomefragmented into contradictory discourses of the self. (Beck 1994, p. 8)

In a similar vein Anthony Giddens argued that due to modernization, lifebecomes increasingly reexive, which means that social practices are constantlyexamined and reformed in the light of incoming information about those very prac-tices, thus constitutively altering their character (Giddens 1990, p. 38). Thus, Gid-dens maintained that, despite the increasingly central position of knowledge aboutsociety, reexive modernization does not advance certitude but instead destabilizessocial life, changes the role of expert knowledge and creates a crisis of expertise. Inthis line of thought Giddens was clearly indebted to Jean-Franois Lyotard, whoargued that the status of knowledge is altered in the post-modern age. At the indi-vidual level, he assumed that these changes undermine peoples ontological secu-rity and increase self-reexivity.

Zygmunt Bauman (2000) tells the same narrative by coining the term liquidmodernity. According to him, this new society of the twenty-rst century is no lessmodern than the society which entered the twentieth, in that the compulsive andobsessive, continuous, unstoppable, forever incomplete modernization (p. 28) goeson. Two features nonetheless make it novel and different. The rst is the decline ofthe early modern illusion that a state of perfection, a just and conict-free society

224 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

in which all needs are satised, could be reached. The second change is the dereg-ulation and privatization of the modernizing tasks and duties (p. 29). That is, thisnew stage of modernity is increasingly individualized and privatized in the sensethat the burden of pattern-weaving and the responsibility for failure (p. 8) fall pri-marily on the individuals shoulders.

These interpretations about current signicant changes in late modern societiesdo not seem to include an evident recommendation as to what actors should doapart from the general message that we should be prepared for constant turmoil andthat we should question given truths and abandon old-fashioned attitudes. Or rather,this narrative of late modern development argues that people have already lost orhave been forced to lose their faith in authoritative truths, even at the risk of theirontological security. In this feature the narrative of reexive modernity carries onthe tradition of tragic, somewhat nostalgic stories that the tacit concept of moderni-zation consists in from early on. This tragic tone is splendidly captured in KarlMarxs classic text from 1848:

Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social condi-tions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from allearlier ones. All xed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerableprejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquatedbefore they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, andman is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and hisrelations with his kind. (Marx and Engels 1976, p. 487)

Although this narrative has its tragic undercurrent, it depicts its characters asheroic, ready to meet the turmoil and uncertainty that living in modernityentails. In that way it also denes who belongs to modernity. As Marshall Ber-man puts it:

To be modern is to nd ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure,power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world and, at the same time,that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are.Modern environments and experiences cut across all boundaries of geography and eth-nicity, of class and nationality, of religion and ideology: in this sense, modernity canbe said to unite all mankind. But it is a paradoxical unity, a unity of disunity: it poursus all into a maelstrom of perpetual disintegration and renewal, of struggle and contra-diction, of ambiguity and anguish. (Berman 1982, p. 15)

By dening who belongs to the moderns in that way the tragic narrative is somewhatsympathetic to individuals difculties in getting adjusted to constant instability, andmany pathologies such as addiction (Giddens 1992, pp. 7077) or anorexia nervosa(Giddens 1991, pp. 103108) are explained as caused by problems related to it. Onthe other hand this denition of who are moderns is contrasted with those who areruled out that is, the ones who decline to be open-minded and who instead resort toold beliefs and practices. Hence, Giddens opposes modernity with fundamentalism asassertion of formulaic truth, which can be seen as a reaction to the difculties of liv-ing in a world of radical doubt (Giddens 1994, p. 100). In this respect, recent interpre-tations about religious extremists as opponents of modernity repeat the oldinterpretation of modernization as secularization (Berger 1967, Wallace 1966, Wilson1966), but this time in the form of cultural pessimism. The new rise of religion is pre-sented as a backward phenomenon, as proof that modernity or part of the modern


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

world is drifting further away from its unfullled promises. For instance, BenjaminBarber (1996) has argued that the polarization is between Jihad and McWorld,between religious fundamentalism and global consumer capitalism. For Samuel Hun-tington (1996), the polarization is between civilizations, especially between the westand an emergent IslamicConfucian axis. In this way the interpretations about moder-nity and modernization have a distinct normative facet: to be and to remain modernone needs to be committed to an open and liberal frame of mind in the face of futurechanges.

What changes moderns should be open to and prepared for has been dis-cussed in recent decades, particularly in connection with the argument that theworld is increasingly becoming a single place due to a process called globaliza-tion (see e.g. Robertson 1992; Held et al. 1999). As a variant of the idea thatone can identify stages or epochs in social development, the notion of globaliza-tion differs from earlier versions in that within it, global change is explained bythe intensication of links that tie actors such as businesses and national econo-mies in different parts of the globe together. Without going into detail about thisvast literature, it has been pointed out that the notion of globalization is com-monly used as justication for policies that national governments or other actorsare advised to adopt. As Justin Rosenberg (2005) has argued, globalization theoryfunctions as justication for neoliberal policy because it entails an inversion ofthe designation of explanans and explanandum: instead of giving sociologicalexplanations to spatio-temporal phenomena, it transforms a spatio-temporal pro-cess into a causal force that explains social change. Similarly Ray Kiely (2005)has maintained that there is a tendency to utilize globalization as a determiningvariable, which ends up in fallacious explanations. Although globalization theo-rists do not necessarily consciously promote neoliberal policies, according toKiely the overlap between globalization theory and neoliberalism becomes aneffective apology for neoliberalism.

The domestication of global trends

Whether it is neoliberalism or some other policy fashion, the rhetoric of constantrevolutionary change that urges us to respond, to keep up with the times and tomake the necessary reforms, is endemic also in popular literature aimed at consult-ing decision-makers and recommending policy programmes to them. Such pro-grammes, recommendations or best practices typically appeal to internationalcomparison and are often produced by international governmental or non-govern-mental organizations. Yet they are understandably marketed to the local, state-levelor regional polities that make policy decisions. Through such constant transnationalknowledge production the tacit concept of modernization permeates common think-ing about society and makes it understandable that governments conform to thesame models creating considerable isomorphism among nation-states. However, theprocess of domestication through which this takes place in local contexts makesactors retain their sense of agency rather than being just conformists.

Consider the collection of essays published as a result of a large-scale projectorganized by the Policy Network, an international think tank, and led by AnthonyGiddens, Patrick Diamond and Roger Liddle. In addition to globalization and otherterms that depict a process of change, modernization is a frequently used term. Letus take an example:

226 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

The economic necessity of reform and modernization of outdated policy systems ofsocial security, care and pensions is not denied. The worldwide trends in globalization,technology, immigration and demography require far-reaching adjustments. There isno doubt that modernization and innovation are needed in order to make the Europeanmodel economically and socially competitive in accordance with the new global rulesof the game. But the procyclic modernization of policy systems in response to mod-ernization is not without political and social risks. Indeed, we live in perilous times.(Giddens et al. 2006, p. 92)

The quotation shows evidence of two interrelated meanings of modernization: asan evolutionary process and as a reform. The last occurrence of the term in the quo-tation is an example of modernization as a process. The other three occurrences,instead, are examples of the mundane use of the term as a synonym for some kindof reform. These two uses of the term give connotations to each other. When mod-ernization is used as a synonym for reform, it is associated with improvement suchas increased rationality and effectiveness. Correspondingly, depicting a process ofchange, modernization connotes it with a trend toward general betterment and pro-gress. In addition, the text mentions worldwide trends in globalization as anotherversion of the idea of evolutionary change that follows its own mechanisms akin tonatural laws. This description of a state of affairs is then presented to the readers,Europeans or rather European policy-makers, as justication for reforms they needto make. Hence modernization is necessary in response to the process of moderniza-tion, created by others making similar reforms and hence changing the new globalrules of the game, which of course means that those acts become a self-fulllingprophesy. The assumed necessity of following others examples or even carryingout reforms in anticipation of what others might do next is the prospect of successor failure in this global game.

An example of another take on this can be found in the report Modernising gov-ernment (OECD 2005). In it, modernization as a term is used as a synonym for pol-icy reform. However, the report describes a general modernization trend found inOECD member countries in the way in which government is monitored: while pre-viously transactions or other decisions had to be approved beforehand, now theyare increasingly often externally checked after the event. Reforms to that effect, i.e.toward performance audits and management, made in OECD member countries arepictured as a general trend, which is thus used as proof of natural, evolutionarydevelopment. It is also emphasized that there is no single reason or origin for it;separate countries have independently adopted the new methods of government thatbetter meet the challenges posed by modern government (p. 44):

There is no one event that prompted this move, nor one reform that brought countriesto this stage. Rather it was the steady accumulation of many inuences and the grad-ual evolution of systems. The changes include the growth in size and complexity ofgovernment; technological advances; a focus on performance; increased delegation ofdecision-making; and the use of service delivery entities outside direct governmentinuence. (OECD 2005, p. 84)

Thus this OECD report, which promotes a move toward performance auditingin public government primarily to the OECD member countries policy-makers,uses the existing information that the OECD itself has collected as evidence thatthere is already an evolutionary modernization trend going on. At the same timethe OECD plays down its own role in providing comparative information and in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

formulating what the new stage is all about; rather, it is implied that countriesadapt to a global developmental trend in the same way independently because it isthe rational thing to do.

That kind of argumentation about an existing international trend as justicationfor the government to make a similar reform is routinely employed in nation-statecontexts. As an example, consider the minutes of the Standing Committee onAccess to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the Canadian parliament on 11 May,2009, in which Jennifer Stoddart, privacy commissioner of Canada says the follow-ing:

In conclusion, in 1982 Canada took a leading role when it became one of the rstcountries to adopt stand-alone privacy legislation that applied to its government; how-ever, the inevitable impetus of change has gotten the best of the Privacy Act. It nolonger reects our modern conception of privacy and is out of tune with the realitiesof contemporary government.

The committees review of the act is certainly timely. It is joining an internationaltrend in modernizing privacy legislation to meet the realities of the 21st century. Forexample, the Australian Law Reform Commission has recognized that its own 20-year-old Privacy Act needs a host of renements to help navigate the informationsuperhighway. These renements are currently under consideration by the Australiangovernment. (Parliament of Canada 2009)

In the statement above, new legislation is justied by ever-changing modern con-ceptions, which are evidenced by what other countries belonging to the right refer-ence group are doing. Joining an international trend, used as proof of wheremodernization is leading us, is presented as a necessary step to take in order tokeep abreast of the times.

Because of this widely spread tacit concept of society and its modernization it isunderstandable that nation-states are astonishingly isomorphic and follow fashionsmuch more than would occur if they were responsive only to local cultural, func-tional, or power processes. The global spread of world society models that shapenation-state identities, structures, and behaviour via worldwide cultural and associa-tional processes (Meyer et al. 1997, p. 173) makes actors receptive to reforms madeelsewhere. Constituted as actors by world culture (Meyer 2000, Meyer 2010), pol-icy-makers are inclined to copy the same worldwide models even though decou-pling between expressed ideals and actual practices is endemic particularly incountries with authoritarian rule (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui 2005; Hafner-Burtonet al. 2008; Koenig 2008).

In other words, world culture includes a general globally-shared conceptualframework within which policy-makers and other actors view society and socialchange. It is the starting point for their understanding about information on andphenomena in the particular region or country in question, and therefore it is nowonder that new policy trends and fashions appeal to them. Because of the under-lying assumption that through reforms modern societies develop toward an evermore effective, competitive and fully modern form, decision-makers pull throughreforms that other states have made, hence contributing to isomorphism. AsMeyer and colleagues (1997, p. 162) point out, in the name of (social) sciencepolicy-makers are consulted about the functional requirements of the modernsociety, organization, and individual, and the linkages among them, which justifythe assumption that there is basically only one right, or research-based way to

228 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

organize society and its institutions. Almost every aspect of social life is dis-cussed, rationalized, and organized, including rules of economic production andconsumption, political structure, education, and peoples private and public every-day life. In each arena, the range of legitimately defensible forms is fairly nar-row. All the sectors are discussed as if they were functionally integrated andinterdependent, and they are expected to conform to general principles of progressand justice (Mayer et al. 1997, pp. 16263).

Because states throughout the world seem to be eager to enact fashionablereforms but often end up with striking decoupling between the expressed ideals andactual practices, Meyer (2004) has suggested that nation-states are Babbitts, hypo-crite conformists. That is a somewhat surprising conclusion considering the fact thatnation-states cherish their sovereignty and national culture.1 Indeed, I suggest con-formity is always coupled to the cultural framework of competition as the primarydriver for the enactment of transnational models.

The examples above show this clearly. The need for reforms or for moderniza-tion and innovation are presented as compelling necessities, created by the postula-tion that other regions or countries are already moving in that direction, and thatsocieties are in competition with each other. In other words, it is implied that sucha competition is a zero-sum game in which the best states prosper and less competi-tive ones decline. In that way the particular reforms or best practices recom-mended are represented as the obvious thing to do. The vernacular notion ofnation-states competing against each other in the global economy is a powerful rhe-torical resource by which the adoption of new models is justied. Willingness tofollow a model adopted elsewhere is one motive, but competition between nation-states is the factor that links isomorphism to the seemingly contradictory values ofsovereignty and national pride.

To understand how competition works in this instance we need to think aboutthe entire interstate system as an institution and how it guides our thinking. Withinit one assumes that regional states are political units each of which includes aunique and precious national culture or a multicultural community. However,simultaneously it is taken for granted that the wealth and well-being of a nation isdependent on the success of the regional state in global competition. That successis, in turn, assumed to be dependent on the ability of the national team to keep upwith scientic and technological development. Because competitors that come upwith a more efcient way of doing things may gain an advantage in the competi-tion, states keep a keen eye on developments elsewhere and quickly copy a modelbelieved to be superior to older ones.

On the other hand the strictly instrumental rationale is always muddled up withnational image management. Countries not only want to do well in internationalcompetition by keeping up with technological development; they also want to con-vey the image of themselves as advanced, modern or, even better, leading coun-tries. That is why national leaders want to adopt fashionable models even if they donot know whether they are better than the old ones. For the same reason nationalteams compete also in areas such as art and sports that have no direct link to, say,economic or military competitiveness. If compatriots are successful, it boostsnational pride and supports the image of the nation as a talented and successfulpeople.

These different shades of the discourse of international competition could beseen in an analysis of the way in which future reforms are justied in governmental


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

documents (Alasuutari and Rasimus 2009). For one thing, the unquestioned need tomaintain or improve the economic competitiveness of the nation is used as a pre-mise as such. However, several other premises are coupled with it. For instance,sometimes the premise of competition acquires the form of national pride. Accord-ing to this premise, a country has to do well, compared with other countries in itsreference group, regardless of any assessment of its wealth or the well-being of itscitizens in absolute terms. Furthermore, these two premises are entwined with theunderlying assumption of modernization, according to which there is only one rightdevelopmental path that countries and the entire global system can follow toincrease wealth, happiness and well-being of the population. For instance, when itis pointed out that the most prosperous countries of the world are moving in a par-ticular direction, it is regarded as the direction in which modernization is going,and for image reasons as well the nation is advised to be seen as part of that devel-opment.

Through these different forms of justication that draw from the cultural frame-work of state competition, the apparent contradiction between national sovereigntyand isomorphism of nation-states is transformed into a mutually reinforcing mecha-nism. The more you compete, the more sovereign you appear to be. Yet, the moreyou compete, the more ahead, thus part, of the trend you are, which as a wholecontributes to isomorphism. Isomorphism is invigorated through this mechanism,but it is not easily recognized because the cultural framework of competition simul-taneously reinforces the dominant banal nationalist (Billig 1995) framework, accord-ing to which the nation is a self-evident entity or community (see also Lfgren1989; Foster 1991). When reforms are justied in a nation-state by the need for thecountry to do well in international competition, such texts address their audience asthe national team with shared interests in relation to other nations and hence con-tribute to constructing it as an unquestioned category.

Furthermore, the cultural framework of cross-national competition adds anothershade to the tacit concept of modernization. The modernization theory canonized byParsons aimed at laying down the structural requirements of modernization of anysociety at any time, which implied a pre-deterministic understanding according towhich history has a goal. The emphasis on states and other actors competingagainst each other, however, draws on the Darwinian theory of evolution, accordingto which development is only determined by the survival of the ttest, in this caseby the ability of states and other actors to exibly adapt to the social forces of glo-bal change. This emphasis has gained more strength in recent decades in policyconsultancy, which is evident for instance in the fashionable idea of collecting andpromoting best practices. Underlying this concept there is the idea that such prac-tices are not scientically designed, but rather evolve through trial and error andcan then be copied and adopted elsewhere.

Because of the converging effect of national comparisons and competitionbetween countries, comparative data collection and evaluation of national perfor-mance are also used as a conscious method of governance at a distance (Rose1999; Miller and Rose 2008). For the OECD the evaluation and monitoring ofmember states behaviour and the exertion of peer pressure on that basis has beenthe main method used for decades (Woodward 2004; Mahon and McBride 2008),and in recent years the technique has been adopted by many other actors, forinstance the UNESCOs MOST (Management of Social Transformations) pro-gramme (UNESCO 2003). Within the European Union, government at a distance

230 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

goes by the name of open method of coordination (OMC), and it has been denedas an instrument of the Lisbon strategy (European Parliament 2000). It entails thatMember States jointly dene objectives to be achieved, instruments used in measur-ing performance (statistics, indicators, guidelines) and comparing countries perfor-mance, and exchange of best practices. This method is used in areas in which theMember States sole sovereignty is respected, but in which political leaders stillconsider it important that the states policies converge upon a joint strategy.Education policy and the development of higher education in Europe is one exam-ple; in this area the joint strategy goes by the name Modernising universities(Europa Summaries of EU Legislation 2009).

Following the example of other countries in order to keep up with the times,together with the framework of international competition does not mean, however,that nation-states become identical. Rather, the introduction of a transnational ideatypically triggers a process in which actors defend their positions and interests inthe changes that the potential reform causes to the existing status quo. The naloutcome depends on this eld battle, in which all kinds of counter discourses aremobilized to negotiate the form the reform will take. Consequently, the result maybe a far cry from the original ideals and there may be considerable differencesbetween different countries in which the same model has been introduced. Thislocal process has the effect that citizens of a nation-state retain a banal nationalist(Billig 1995) experience of social change as an upshot of domestic politics and anational developmental path, so that although reforms are justied by internationalcomparison or worldwide models, the transnational inuences are forgotten.

There are national differences in the way in which transnational fashions areturned into actual practices, but on the whole the local processes of domesticationcontribute to isomorphism among nation-states. Even if the effects of a new modelare restricted to the level of a public political discussion, it means that the domesticdiscourse in this area is harmonized with that in other countries. It must be remem-bered that not only the model being domesticated but the rationalities, counter-argu-ments and forms of resistance which different parties invoke to defend theirpositions and interests are global, often promoted by international non-governmentalorganizations. In that sense any transnational model must be seen as part of a com-plex regime of practices (cf. Foucault 1991b; Dean 1999).

Discussion

When talking about organizations in general, Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson (1996, p.70) has pointed out that problems are observed and dened by comparing the localsituation with that of other organizations. That does not mean that change is some-how determined by such inter-organizational comparison and competition because,depending on their interests, actors choose which organizations and indicators theyselect as the benchmark. In any case this means that the common assumption,according to which an internal tension or crisis leads into reforms, is not the modelcase of organizational change. The same is obviously true with regard to nation-states. In them, too, cross-national comparisons are part and parcel of both con-structing problems and suggesting solutions to them.

As has been discussed, cross-national comparisons are not, however, the neces-sary and sufcient condition for the promotion of a reform. National league tablesand other comparative data are typically used as empirical proof of a global trend


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

that the nation-state in question should follow in order to retain and increase thewealth and well-being of its population. While constructing such a trend and con-tributing to its strengthening if and when the state in question takes heed of theadvice, this rhetorical strategy also appeals to the trend in question as an additionalmotive by representing it as a law-like, inevitable process. Indeed, many versions ofthe tacit concept of modernization share the tendency to explain isomorphic changein contemporary nation-states by an inherent dynamic. Consequently, the expectedor on-going changes are understood as inevitable, and the role of actors is mainlyto adapt to them, trying to make the most of the new opportunities or to minimizethe damage.

The concept of modernization in its various guises thus has a central place inthe talk of the policy consultants and political leaders, who use it to justify thereforms they promote. In this way sociological theories of social change and formsof governance are intermingled. As Michel Foucault reminds us, forms of powerare mutually interrelated with forms of knowledge (Foucault 1977; p. 224, Foucault1980, pp. 9294). An appeal to scientic evidence and to what the competitors arealready doing works better to depoliticize political decisions. Practices formed else-where are promoted as being transferable into the domestic context and presentedas more efcient, rened and advanced than the old ones.

The critical view on the concept of modernization taken in this article does notmean, however, that all assumptions about a systemic nature of human societiesmust be discarded. I only suggest that instead of unquestionably treating a nation-state as a society in which social change follows its inherent developmental path,states must be seen in their transnational institutional context as part of the worldpolity, which is governed by the promotion and domestication of transnational mod-els. Such models often draw on social scientic theories of society and moderniza-tion, for instance on the assumption about increasing differentiation of socialspheres, which consequently become self-fullling prophesies. Therefore, to avoidunknowingly chasing its own tail, social science needs to see its own role in soci-ety, and study the feedback loop from scientists desks to policy models and backagain. In this undertaking we cannot entirely cast off the tacit concept of moderni-zation because it is used to justify policy measures.

AcknowledgementsSupport from the Academy of Finland funded project The Moderns: A Study on theGovernmentality of World Society (code 218200) is gratefully acknowledged. I would alsolike to thank Maarit Alasuutari, Karen Armstrong, Karin Creutz-Kmppi, Mark Haugaard,Risto Heiskala, Peter Holley and the anonymous reviewers, whose constructive commentson earlier versions of this article have helped me to develop it further.

Note1. For that reason it has in fact been argued that the success of norm diffusion depends onthe extent to which those who promote transnational norms are able to build congruencebetween them and local beliefs and practices (Acharya 2004)

ReferencesAcharya, A., 2004. How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institu-

tional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58 (2), 239275.Alasuutari, P., 2001. Art, entertainment, culture, and nation. Cultural Studies/Critical Meth-

odologies, 1 (2), 157184.

232 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

Alasuutari, P., 2009. Art and cultural policy in the world culture of the moderns. In:M. Pyykknen, N. Simanainen and S. Sokka, eds. What about cultural policy? Interdis-ciplinary perspectives on culture and politics. Helsinki: Minerva, 99115.

Alasuutari, P. and Rasimus, A., 2009. Use of the OECD in justifying policy reforms: thecase of Finland. Journal of Power, 2 (1), 89109.

Alexander, J.C., 1995. Modern, anti, post and neo. New Left Review, 210, 63101.Barber, B.R., 1996. Jihad vs McWorld. New York: Ballantine.Bauman, Z., 2000. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Beck, U., 1994. The reinvention of politics: towards a theory of reexive modernization. In:

U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash, eds. Reexive modernization: politics tradition and aes-thetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell.

Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, S., 1994. Reexive modernization: politics, tradition andaesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Black-well.

Beck, U., et al., 2003. The theory of reexive modernization. Theory Culture & Society, 20(2), 133.

Berger, P.L., 1967. The sacred canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion. NewYork: Doubleday.

Berman, M., 1982. All that is solid melts into air: the experience of modernity. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Billig, M., 1995. Banal nationalism. London: Sage.Brenner, N., 1999. Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in

globalization studies. Theory and Society, 28 (1), 3978.Davis, K., 2008. Periodization and sovereignty: how ideas of feudalism and secularization

govern the politics of time. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Dean, M., 1999. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.Durkheim, ., 1964. The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press, a division

of Macmillan.Europa, 2009. Modernising Universities.Europa Summaries of EU Legislation 2009. Available

from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11089_en.htm.

European Parliament, 2000. Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000 PresidencyConclusions. Brussels: European Parliament. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm.

Foster, R.J., 1991. Making national cultures in the global ecumene. Annual Review ofAnthropology, 20, 235260.

Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. London: Penguin.Foucault, M., 1980. The history of sexualit: An introduction, vol. 1. New York: vintage.Foucault, M., 1991a. Governmentality. In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller, eds. The Fou-

cault effect: studies in governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 87104.Foucault, M., 1991b. Questions of method. In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller, eds. The

Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 7386.Gerhardt, U., 1996. Talcott Parsons and the transformation of German society at the end of

World War II. European Sociological Review, 12 (3), 303325.Gerhardt, U., 1999. A world from brave to new: Talcott Parsons and the war effort at Har-

vard University. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 35 (3), 257289.Gerhardt, U., 2002. Talcott Parsons: An intellectual biography. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.Giddens, A., 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age.

Cambridge: Polity Press.Giddens, A., 1992. The transformation of intimacy: sexuality love and eroticism in modern

societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Giddens, A., 1994. Living in a post-traditional society. In: U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash,

eds. Reexive modernization: politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order.Cambridge: Polity Press, 56109.

Giddens, A., Diamond, P., and Liddle, R., eds., 2006. Global Europe social Europe. Cam-bridge: Polity Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

Hafner-Burton, E.M. and Tsutsui, K., 2005. Human rights in a globalizing world: the para-dox of empty promises. The American Journal of Sociology, 110 (5), 13731411.

Hafner-Burton, E.M., Tsutsui, K., and Meyer, J.W., 2008. International human rights lawand the politics of legitimation: repressive states and human rights treaties. InternationalSociology, 23 (1), 115141.

Harvey, D., 1989. The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of culturalchange. Oxford: Blackwell.

Held, D., et al., 1999. Global transformations: politics economics and culture. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Huntington, S.P., 1996. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Inda, J.X., 2005. Analytics of the modern: an introduction. In: J.X. Inda, ed. Anthropol-ogies of modernity: Foucault governmentality, and life politics. Oxford: Blackwell,120.

Kiely, R., 2005. Globalization and poverty, and the poverty of globalization theory. CurrentSociology, 53 (6), 895914.

Koenig, M., 2008. Institutional change in the world polity: international human rights andthe construction of collective identities. International Sociology, 23 (1), 95114.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-cago Press.

Lechner, F.J. and Boli, J., 2005. World culture: origins and consequences. Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Lyotard, J.F., 1984. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Lfgren, O., 1989. The nationalization of culture. Ethnologia Europaea, 19 (1), 524.Mahon, R., and McBride, S., eds., 2008. The OECD and transnational governance. Vancou-

ver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Marx, K. and Engels, F., 1976. Collected works (Volume 6). London: Lawrence and Wishart.Merton, R.K., 1973. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Meyer, J.W., 2000. Globalization: sources and effects on national states and societies. Inter-

national Sociology, 15 (2), 233248.Meyer, J.W., 2004. The nation as Babbitt: how countries conform. Contexts, 3 (3), 4247.Meyer, J.W., 2010. World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of

Sociology, 36, 120.Meyer, J.W., et al., 1997. World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology,

103 (1), 144181.Miller, P. and Rose, N.S., 2008. Governing the present: administering economic social and

personal life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Nisbet, R., 1980. History of the idea of progress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.OECD, 2005. Modernising government: the way forward. Paris: OECD.OECD, 2011, Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. Available from: http://www.

oecd.org/document/48/0,3746,en_2649_201185_1876912_1_1_1_1,00.html.Parliament of Canada, 2009. Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Evi-

dence ofMinutes fromMonday,May 11, 2009. Available from: http://www.parl.gc.ca/House Pub-lications/Publications.aspx?DocId=3884286&Language=E&Mode=1&Paul=40&ses=2.

Parsons, T., 1951. The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Parsons, T., 1964. Evolutionary universals in society. American Sociological Review, 29 (3),

33957.Parsons, T., 1966. Societies: evolutionary and comparative perspectives. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.Pollard, S., 1968. The idea of progress: history and society. London: Watts.Regev, M., 2007a. Cultural uniqueness and aesthetic cosmopolitanism. European Journal of

Social Theory, 10 (1), 123138.Regev, M., 2007b. Ethno-national pop-rock music: aesthetic cosmopolitanism made from

within. Cultural Sociology, 1 (3), 317341.Robertson, R., 1992. Globalization: social theory and global culture. London: Sage.

234 P. Alasuutari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

Rose, N.S., 1999. Powers of freedom: reframing political thought. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Rosenberg, J., 2005. Globalization theory: a post mortem. International Politics, 42 (1), 274.

Sahlin-Andersson, K., 1996. Imitating by editing success: the construction of organizationelds. In: B. Czarniawska and G. Sevn, eds. Translating organizational change. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter, 6992.

Simmel, G., 1890. ber sociale differenzierung: sociologische und psychologische unter-suchungen. Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot.

Simmel, G., 1900. Philosophie des geldes. Leipzig: Duncker und Humbolt.Simmel, G., 1917. Grundfragen der soziologie (Individuum und gesellschaft). Berlin:

Gschen.Simmel, G. (1957 [1904]). Fashion. The American Journal of Sociology, 62 (6), 541558.Tnnies, F., 1988. Community & society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.UNESCO, 2003. MOST Clearing House Best Practices. UNESCO. Available from: http://

www.unesco.org/most/bphome.htm.Urban, G., 2001. Metaculture: how culture moves through the world. Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press.Wallace, A.F.C., 1966. Religion: an anthropological view. New York: Random House.Wallerstein, I.M., 1976. The modern world-system: capitalist agriculture and the origins of

the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.Weber, M., 1958. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner.Wilson, B.R., 1966. Religion in secular society: a sociological comment. London: Watts.Woodward, R., 2004. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. New

Political Economy, 9 (1), 113127.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

78.60

.148.1

18] a

t 10:3

8 17 J

anua

ry 20

14

alasuutari 2011 - modernization as a tacit concept

Documents