Module Detail

Subject Name Political Science

Paper Name Comparative Politics

Module Name/Title Modernity in Advanced Capitalist Countries: Meaning, Nature

and Forms

Pre-requisites

Objectives To explain the rise of modern-nation states in Europe.

To understand the relationship between capitalism and

modernity.

To know meaning of modernity in Western scholarship

and its various dimensions.

To distinguish agricultural and industrial society.

Keywords Renaissance, urbanization, modern-nation state, welfare state,

structural differentiation, secularization of culture, laissez faire,

capitalism, social mobilization

Title of the Module: Modernity in Advanced Capitalist Countries: Meaning, Nature and

Forms

Introduction

Modernization as a process could be traced back to the beginning of Renaissance roughly

from 14th to 17th century that highlighted the power of reason in human life. In political

terms, Renaissance depicted a power shift from spiritual authority to temporal authority

whereby the state emerged as a sovereign entity. It took roots in Italy and was primarily a

cultural movement that marked a transition from medieval to modern Europe. Its scope was

far-reaching and the novel ideas that it introduced permeated the field of art, culture,

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Professor Ashutosh Kumar

Panjab

University,

Chandigarh

Paper Coordinator Professor Pampa Mukherjee

Panjab

University,

Chandigarh

Content Writer/Author (CW) Dr Siddhartha Mukerji Ambedkar

University,

Lucknow

Content Reviewer (CR) Professor Pampa Mukherjee, Panjab

University,

Chandigarh

Language Editor (LE) Professor Ashutosh Kumar, Panjab

University,

Chandigarh

literature, politics, music, science, and learning and knowledge creation. Renaissance was

followed by the formation of modern-nation states in Europe that began sometimes during the

16th century. The division of states on linguistic and ethnic basis led to the creation of a sense

of national identity and cultural homogeneity in West Europe. As pointed out, the rise of

linguistic nationalism in Europe suggests that language became the foundation for the

formation of modern-nation states as it served as a marker of different ethnic group and

nation and that the boundaries of European nations converged periodically. It necessitated

standardization of languages by adopting a national language and delegitimizing non-

standards forms like patois, creoles, pidgins, and so on.i

The emergence of politically sovereign states with distinct national, territorial and cultural

identities ended the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church. The victory of state

over church in West Europe marked the beginning of democracy and modern thought.

However, it replaced the authority of Church with equally powerful centralized monarchies

and a highly-exploitative feudal system. Thus, the emergence of modern-nation states did not

create sufficient ground for the growth of democracy and democratic institutions that forms

an integral component of political modernization.

The concept of modernity gained salience in the intellectual discourse only with the

emergence of Industrial Revolution in England sometimes around the mid of 18th century.

The modern way of life was thus a result of Industrial Revolution that brought freedom and

progress with it. Modernity resulted from capitalism that resulted in the creation of new

means and forces of production. Capitalism developed under the aegis of free

entrepreneurship and minimal role of state in the economic sphere of life. Industrial

Revolution accompanied by massive urbanization led to the emergence of new productive

forces namely new industrial mercantile class and a large mass of labour. In search of new

opportunities created through industrialization in urban areas, large-scale migration took

place from rural to urban areas. The migrants were primarily agricultural labour and small

artisans who found better prospects for livelihood by shifting to urban areas and working in

the newly-established factories. The trajectory of modernization is thus traced back to the

Industrial Revolution that brought radical changes or transformation in all spheres of human

life.

The study of modernity in comparative politics with a specific focus on the industrially

advanced countries of the West attempts to understand how scientific and technological

revolution in Western societies affected development. Its focus is on the advancements that

took place in modern societies of the West like growth of scientific knowledge, political

development, economic growth, social mobilization and psychological advancement.ii This

chapter will explain and understand the meaning, nature and forms of modernization in the

industrially advanced countries of West Europe. The first part of the chapter will highlight

certain definitions of modernity particularly the way it came to be defined in the Western

scholarship. It will account for the path or stages of modernization undertaken by industrially

advanced countries of the West. This will be followed by an understanding of the theory of

modernization in comparative politics that will mainly highlight the nature and forms of

modernization in comparative literature.

Meaning of Modernization

Modernity in Anthony Gidden’s words refers to a mode of social life or organization that

emerged in Europe around the seventeenth century and has a worldwide influence.iii

Modernization entails progress in all spheres of life including social, economic, political and

cultural. It is a multifaceted process involving change in all areas of human activity.

Primarily, the concept of modernity highlights a contrast between ‘tradition’ and ‘modern’, a

transition from the traditional to modern ways of life. It involved an overhauling of the past

structures giving way to new modes of thinking and doing. Contrasting ‘tradition’ and

‘modernity’, it is pointed out that traditional sector is characterized by short-ranging social

relations associated with insufficiency in industrial production and bureaucracy while modern

sector is open and mobile with high rates of economic success and application of scientific

standards and civil organization.iv

Modernization as a process begins with rapid progression in the economic sphere through

industrialization, urbanization, and technological advancement. It marked a transition in

manufacturing processes that involved extensive use of machines and steam and water power.

However, the impact of modernization was not simply confined to the economic sphere. It

had far-reaching affect in other spheres of human activity.

At the socio-psychological level, modernity involves a change in the values and orientation of

people. It further involves expansion of knowledge and its dissemination in the society

through mass communication and increasing literacy rates. Sociologist Marion Levy calls a

society modern when its members develop the capacity to use inanimate sources of power to

produce desired effects. Similarly, historian Cyril Black also believes that modernity results

from expansion man’s knowledge and ability to control the environment and promote

establish new institutions to cope up with modernity.v David Apter explores the sociological

dimension of modernization that implies three conditions: the ability of social systems to

innovate and adopt new practices required for modern ways of living; differentiated and

flexible social structures free of prejudices and biases; and an appropriate social framework

necessary for inculcating new skills and knowledge for sustaining in a technologically

advanced world.vi

Similarly, Anthony Giddens in his sociological study of modernization draws the distinction

between ‘modernity’ and ‘tradition’. In modern civilization the pace of change is found to be

fast-track and extreme and the scope of change is global and far-reaching. Second, modern

societies and its institutions have certain intrinsic characteristics that may present a totally

contrasting picture.vii

In the political sphere, modernization implies building modern democratic institutions and

inculcating modern democratic values like liberty, equality, fraternity and secularism.

Modern institutions create avenues for people’s participation in the political process and

protect their rights. Political modernity took its root in Europe as it became the birthplace of

the democratic ideal.viii The process of political transformation thus started in the industrially

advanced countries of the West and is seen as a ‘syndrome’ by Lucian Pye that has following

characteristics:

1. Equal opportunity for participation in politics and government formation

2. Capacity and ability of political system to formulate public policies and implement

them

3. Differentiation of structures and function but not overall integration

4. Secularization of political processix

This understanding of political modernity underscores an overall change on two fronts,

namely institutional and attitudinal. On the institutional front, it necessitates the strengthening

of government and bureaucratic institutions for managing public affairs. At the societal level,

it marks an overall change in the values and orientation of people from traditional or

primordial loyalties to modern notions of citizenship. In a modern state, people tend to

identify themselves with nation and state. In view of these to transformative processes,

Gabriel Almond envisages two main components of political modernization: structural

differentiation and secularization of culture, concepts that will be discussed later in the

chapter.

There is a general tendency in Western scholarship to equate political modernity with

political development and therefore the two terminologies are often used synonymously in

comparative politics. Lucian Pye holds the equation valid in case of industrially advanced

countries of the West that followed a certain path of development and modernization. In his

view, the advanced industrial nations have been generally considered to be the pacesetters at

different stages of social, economic and political life and therefore Western practices are

treated as universal standards for all political systems. The modern cultural artifacts like

political parties, civil and rational administrators and legislative bodies as tests of

development are the creation of the Western countries. However, there may be other aspects

of political development relevant for developing societies like the concepts of justice and

citizenship that may neither neatly fit into the ‘idea of modernity’ of the West nor get

attached to any particular culture like that of the West.x

C.E. Black highlights four assumptions that are held with regard to the concept of modernity.

First, it requires the development of capacities that is relevant for modernization. In order to

be labelled modern, societies need to build new capabilities and skills to cope up with modern

ways of life. This is complimented by advancement of knowledge created through

technological and scientific revolution. Third, it signifies the ability of societies to adopt such

knowledge and promote development in social, economic, political and cultural spheres.

Finally, confirmation to modern standards necessitates framing policies that modifies the

traditional values and institutions as per modernity requirements and borrow ideas from those

societies that are relatively more modern.xi

Nature of Modernity

The nature of modernity in Western countries can be understood in terms of nine ‘Grand

Processes of Modernization enlisted by C.E. Black. To begin with modernization is seen as a

revolutionary change as it represents a fundamental transformation in patterns of human life.

Second, it is complex as it involves multifaceted changes in all spheres of human thought and

action like industrialization, urbanization, democratization, secularization, differentiation,

social mobilization, increasing literacy, free press and expansion of political participation.

Modernization is a systematic and global process. It originated in West Europe in the 16th

century and then became a global phenomenon. It is a phased process as every stage is

distinct from other in terms of its social, economic and political structures. Also, it is lengthy

because it took centuries for Western societies in passing through these stages. In addition,

there is a natural tendency in modernity to homogenise political culture and produce

convergence among societies. Lastly, modernity is irreversible and progressive in its

orientation.xii

The nature of modern polity has been understood by Robert E. Ward and W. Rustow more

specifically by identifying the following characteristics that a traditional polity lacks:

1. A highly differentiated structure of government organization

2. Systematic integration between structures in the government organization

3. Following rational and secular procedures while taking political and administrative

decisions

4. Efficiency and capability of political and administrative structures in making public

policies and taking policy decisions

5. A sense of popular identification with the history, territory and national identity of the

state

6. Popular involvement and participation in the political system but not so much on the

output-side

7. Allocation of responsibilities based on achievement than ascriptive identity

8. Impersonal and secular system of lawxiii

Similarly, Anthony Giddens attempts to understand the nature of modern social institutions in

terms of three discontinuities with traditional institutional forms. The first aspect is the pace

of change that is considered to be rapid and extreme in its form and content. Second, the

scope of change is all-encompassing. It implies that the consequences of modernity are far-

reaching; it has a wordwide impact. Finally, the third aspect concerns the intrinsic nature of

modern institutions that is found to be missing in traditional systems. This includes the

political system of the nation-state, significance of production through inanimate power

sources, and comodification of products and wage labour.xiv

Modernization entails innovation and dynamism and therefore it is seen as an ongoing

process. In Western countries, its trajectory and nature gets largely determined by changing

market dynamics and the associated socio-cultural processes. With introduction of newer

technologies, life-styles and thought processes assume new dimensions. It also creates

avenues for social mobility, political transformation and linked institutional changes. For

instance, when the limitations of laissez faire economy became visible during the 19th

century, the modern state in West Europe underwent a transformation from a ‘highly limited

and minimal government’ to a ‘welfare state’.

Forms of Modernity

The forms of modernity in industrially advanced societies may be explained in the light of

structural changes that were brought about in economic, political and socio-cultural spheres.

In the Western notions of modernity there is often a tendency to treat economic growth and

industrialization as an independent cause behind progress and advancement in other areas of

thought and action. The associated processes in political and social spheres are

democratization, secularization of culture and social mobilization.

Economic Modernity

In the 19th century theories of modernization in comparative politics, modernity came to be

associated with rapid economic growth and progress in Western societies and was seen to be

a consequence of industrialization, urbanization and technological advancements.

Modernization as a process entailed a unilinear path of development followed by the West

European countries. It involved successive stages of progression that the Western societies

underwent at different historical junctures. This theory of modernization is referred to as the

‘Stage theory of Modernization’ and was given by the famous economic historian Walt

W.Rustow. Rustow presented a historical picture of development and modernization in

Western societies where he identified five successive stages of economic growth which are as

follows: traditional society, pre-conditions for take-off, take-off, drive towards maturity and

finally the stage of high mass consumption. Later, a sixth stage was added in this unilinear

path of development called ‘search for quality’. These stages were reinstated in the political

sphere to highlight the role of government at each successive stage by A.F.K Organski in his

writings on successive stages of political development which are primitive national

unification, industrialization, national welfare and abundance in sequential order. The West

European countries underwent these natural stages of growth and modernity.

On a similar note, Samuel Huntington draws a contrast between traditional agricultural

society and modern industrial society which is illustrated in the given table:xv

Agricultural Society Modern Industrial Society

1. Predomination of ascriptive and

particularlistic identities

1. Predominance of universalistic,

specific and achievement-oriented

norms and values

2. Lack of spatial mobility and

dominance of local power structures

2.High degree of social mobility

3. Simple and stable occupation

differentiation

3.Well-developed but complex

occupational system generally insulated

from social structures

The West European countries adopted the capitalist model of development since the

industrial revolution of seventeenth century based on Adam Smith’s and David Riacrdo’s

idea of ‘economic freedom’. Capitalism was found to be the most suitable systems of

production in modern economy. It derived its philosophical justification from the doctrine of

laissez faire individualism that considered ‘freedom’ as the supreme value and guiding

principle for public policy. Economic Growth and sustainability and the need to transform

stagnant sectors into dynamic ones certain political and social conditions were seen to play a

decisive role. The modern state was one which facilitated economic growth and created

conditions for free trade and free entrepreneurship.xvi

However, the extremities of capitalism leading to growing disparities resulted in the

emergence of socialist groups with a reformist programme in Germany, Scandanavia, France

and many other European countries by the end of 19th century. This period also witnessed a

rise in labour movement and formation of social democrat and labour parties in these

countries.xvii This exerted political pressure for greater intervention of state in the economy

and availability of social security for disadvantaged sections of the society through

progressive taxation but without compromising with the fundamentals of liberal democracy.

Keynes economic theory that appeared as the dominant paradigm is said to influence the

emergence of welfare state in West Europe that marked another distinct phase in its path to

modernity.

Political Modernity- Democracy and Institutional Change

Political modernity in the advanced capitalist societies can be understood in view of

extension of rights to different sections of the society and the institutional changes that were

brought in through a gradual process of democratization of the political system. In view of

the West European and American experience, there is a close link between modernity and

democracy. Comparative Politics scholar Ralf Dahrendorf cites modernization as a necessary

condition for democracy. Conceptually, modernity when understood in the context of

democracy involves two of its element namely citizenship rights that ensures basic equality

of all individuals in the society and mobilization of people which is a precondition for

economic growth.xviii Accordingly, there are three pillars democracy in the modern states of

West Europe: political, social and economic. Political democracy entails the extension of

civil and political rights and the establishment of constitutional and limited government.

The path to political democracy and the creation of modern democratic state, however, has

not been consistent throughout Europe. While the journey has been gradual and incremental

in Britain, for France the process of constitutionalism and the creation of modern political

institutions has been highly turbulent. The creation of a modern constitutional state in Britain

dates back to Magna Carta in the 13th century followed by Glorious Revolution of 1688 that

transferred power from monarch to the Parliament. Later, the extension of political rights to

the poorer sections like the agricultural and industrial labour and women took place through a

series of Acts passed by the Parliament. The project of democracy was seen to achieve its

pinnacle with the curtailment of power of House of Lords under the Parliamentary Acts of

1911 and 1949 and vis-a-vis the House of Commons.

On the contrary, France has seen an alteration between autocratic regimes and democratic

government since the ‘Declaration of Rights of Man’ in 1789. After a series of unstable

governments starting from Nalopean dictatorship the French constitutional system assumed

its stability under Fifth Republic in 1958 led by the then President Charles de Gaulle. The

new Constitution accorded immense power to the President with a cabinet headed by the

Prime Minister responsible to the popularly elected National Assembly. It combined the

features of both Parliamentary and Presidential system and thus adopted a semi-presidential,

semi-parliamentary constitutional system.

Along with civil and political rights, ensuring social and economic rights also became

necessary to end the class privileges that existed in the feudal societies of medieval Europe.

But it was not until the second half of twentieth century that European states gave due to

recognition to economic democracy as an essential condition for modernization. This led to

the emergence of a modern welfare state in Europe that guaranteed economic rights and

social security to the weaker sections of the society like industrial and agricultural labour,

women, children, senior citizens and physically challenged. Therefore, the modern

democratic state in West Europe has three important bases in contemporary times:

constitutional political democracy, social democracy of the welfare state, and the relative

egalitarian economic democracy of social market capitalism.xix

Political modernity in advanced capitalist countries have assumed two distinct institutional

forms: Presidential and Parliamentary exemplified by US and Britain respectively. The

Anglo-American model of state and political system appeared as paragon of ‘modern

institutional formation’ for rest of the world. Britain is considered to be the mother of all

Parliaments as it is the first country where the Parliamentary form of government took roots.

Across the Atlantic, US and Canada adopted the Presidential system which was later became

popular in Latin American countries. In comparative terms, while democratization of the

institutional system proceeded gradually in Britain, in US democratic institutions were firmly

established in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.

It took nearly two and a half decades to democratize the British Parliament through transfer

of power to the House of Commons and establish its sovereignty. Most of the institutional

changes were carried out only through 20th century reforms. The Reform Acts of 1911 and

1949 curtailed the financial powers of the House of Lords and accorded supreme authority to

the lower house in the financial business of the government. In 1997, the Labour government

introduced a proposal for initiating radical structural changes in the House of Lords that

included abolishing hereditary peerage in it. Very recently, In July 2009 the judicial

supremacy of the House of Lords ended with inauguration of Supreme Court as the highest

and final court of appeal in the country.

Presidential system, as a modern form of government, found its initiation in United States. It

was based on the principles of separation of power and checks and balances. The basic

fundamentals of institutional democracy were more firmly established through the adoption

of written constitution and the principle of ‘popular sovereignty’ in contrast with

parliamentary democracies that rested on the norm of parliamentary sovereignty. The system

was followed by many other countries like Canada, Latin America, Sri Lanka and smaller

nations in South-East and East Asia in a modified fashion.

A comparative analysis of political modernization however, shows that generalizing about

modern liberal democratic institutions of ‘Anglo-American type’ in advanced capitalist

countries is a faulty assumption. An argument against such a generalization derives its

justification from the different paths of democratization pursued by different countries and

the consequences for their institutional forms. For instance, the heterogeneous nature of

Dutch society led to experimentation with ‘consociation democracy’, a power-sharing

arrangement whereby every ethnic, linguistic or cultural entity gets adequate representation in

the political institutions. Similarly, France combined the features of both parliamentary and

presidential systems to experiment with a ‘mixed model’ of political institution.

Social and Cultural Modernity

Modernity entails social transformation where traditional patterns of social identification like

religion, caste, class or ethnicity gives way to modern ways of political socialization where

people tend to go beyond their ascriptive identities and recognize themselves as citizens. This

is defined by Gabriel Almond as ‘secularization of culture’ and is the pillar of modern

political system exemplified appropriately by Anglo-American political culture. Almond

compared political cultures of different nations to assess the levels of modernity. In view of

this, he observed that political structures and political culture are mutually reinforcing in

stable political system which he calls as ‘cultural congruence’. He equated a developed

political culture with participation and democratization of society all of which formed

important ingredients for political modernization. In a comparative scheme of political

analysis, he shows that the societal satisfaction with democracies is highest in established

democracies and modern capitalist nations of North America and West Europe.xx

In the sociological context, social mobilization is seen as a vehicle of social transformation

that involves series of changes in individual thought and action such as changes of residence,

occupation, social setting, associations, institutions, roles, experiences, expectations, habits

and needs, aspirations and desires, new patterns of group affiliation and new sense of

personal identity. According to Karl Deutch, these changes influence and transform political

behaviour and are implicit in societies which are moving from traditional to modern life-

styles.xxi He further says that, ‘social mobilization happens to a large number people in areas

which undergo modernization where advanced, non-traditional practices in culture,

technology and economic life are introduced and accepted on a considerable scale....It is a

process in which major clusters of old, social, economic and psychological commitments are

eroded and broken and people become available for new patterns of socialization and

behaviour. ’xxii

The second point that Karl Deutch makes is that social mobilization also leads to qualitative

changes in the political process as it creates avenues for mass participation in politics. The

newly mobilized classes influenced by modern life-styles tend to put pressure on the state

with new demands. As people get uprooted from their old lifestyles they experience changes

in their needs and requirements like social security, medical and health care, quality

education, stable pricing, and so on. As a result, an increasingly mobilized population also

creates expansion of political participation for an immediate fulfilment of the welfare needs

through political decisions. This form of social mobilization that led qualitative changes in

politics and welfare policies is clearly visible in Scandinavian countries. Citing the example

of social mobilization among Norwegian people, Deutch observes that a sharp rise in voter

turn-out amongst the enfranchised male adult population in 1870s and 1880s was

accompanied by further extension of franchise in 1900 and increasing power of the

Norwegian radical peasant party namely Venstre.xxiii

Another impact of social mobilization particularly in the context of market economy is a

significant rise in the share of international trade sector in the national economy. This

phenomenon was witnessed in case of many of the West European countries in the 19 the

century. In Britain, foreign trade rose from an average of 20% in 1830-40 to 60% in 1870-79.

Germany also witnessed a sharp rise in its proportion of foreign trade to national income

from 28% in 1802-30 to 45% in 1870-79.xxiv This indicated the achievement of full-blown

capitalism and modern economy.

The capacity or performance of the government to attend to the pressures of social

mobilization is therefore a mark of political modernization. The origin of welfare state in

West Europe has to large extent been able to withstand such pressures. Emergence of

socialist, communist, radical and Green parties in multi-party democracies like France, Italy,

and Germany has brought the concerns of the marginalized classes centre stage creating

better possibilities for the formulation of welfare policies.

Conclusion

Modernization indeed gets linked with Westernization. It implies that everything that is

Western becomes modern. The genesis of this modernity has been traced back to Renaissance

in Italy but in real terms modernity is mainly associated with the advancements that took

place during Industrial Revolution in England. Modernity has economic, political, social and

cultural dimensions. It took roots in the West, particularly England and then subsequently

became a global phenomenon. In politics, modernity again gets linked with the ‘liberal

democratic institutional forms’ of the West, particularly the Anglo-American model. This

model highlights the aspects of structural differentiation, universal adult franchise, and more

important secularization of culture. Modern states in Europe have however adopted these

models in a modified form. Modernity in the 20th century is characterized as high rates of

social mobilization and increasing participation of people in the political process. It entails

significant changes in the occupational structures, lifestyles, and social relations of people.

But the most appropriate test of political modernity in contemporary Europe is the capability

and performance of its welfare state, a model that was adopted by many European nations in

the late-19th century but more rigorously in the 20th century.

End Notes:

i Asha Sarangi (2009), ed., Language Politics in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.3-4 ii C.E. Black, Comparative Modernization, pp.5-6 iii Anthony Giddens, (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press p.1 iv Hermann Kreutzmann, “From Modernization Theory Towards the Clash of Civilizations: Directions and Paradigm Shifts in Samuel Huntington’s analysis and prognosis of Global Development”, GeoJournal, 1998, vol.46, no.4, p.256 v Samuel Huntington, p.28 v Ibid., pp.30-31 vi David Apter vii Anthony Giddens (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.6-7 viii Eric S. Einhorn, “Liberalism and Social Democracy in Western Europe”, in Howard J. Wiarda’s, ed., Comparative Politics: Critical Concepts in Political Science, London and New York: Routledge, p.9 ix Lucian Pye (1966), Aspects of Political Development, Little Brown, pp.45-48 x Lucian Pye, p.34 xi C.E. Black, Comparative Modernization xii Ibid., pp.30-31 xiii Samuel P. Huntington xiv Anthony Giddens, op.cit, p.6 xv Samuel Huntington, “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development and Politics”, in Howard J. Wiarda’s ed., Comparative Politics: Critical Concepts in Political Science, London and New York: Routledge, p.28 xvi Lucian Pye, p.33 xvii Op.cit., Eric S. Einhorn, p.16 xviii Ralf Dahrendorf (1992), “Democracy and Modernity: Notes on the European Experience”, in S.N. Eisenstadt’s, ed., Democracy and Modernity, Leiden University, the Netherlands, p.16

xix Eric S. Einhorn, “Liberalism and Social Democracy in Western Europe”, in Howard J. Wiarda’s ed., Comparative Politics: Critical Concepts in Political Science, London and New York: Routledge, p.10 xx Almond and others., ed., Comparative Politics Today, Pearson Education, p.51 xxi Karl W. Deutsch, “Social Mobilization and Political Development”, The American Political Science Review, Sepetember 1961, vol.LV, no.3, p.493 xxii Ibid., pp.493-494 xxiii Ibid., p.500 xxiv Ibid., p.501