Modernization theory and the sociological study of development∗

Summary The focus of this article is methodological and macro‐sociological. Its purpose is to disentangle some of the issues which arise in the sociology of development, and to question the assumptions and implications of a particular mode of conceptualization based on the notions of modernity and modernization which has provided the characteristic theoretical framework of the sociology of development. The principal assumptions of modernization theory as understood here—often enough made explicit by those who use this approach—are (1) that modernization is a total social process associated with (or subsuming) economic development in terms of the preconditions, concomitants, and consequences of the latter; (2) that this process constitutes a ‘universal pattern’. Obviously among various writers there are differences of emphasis with respect to the meaning of modernization, partly due to its relationship with—or derivation from—that most contentious concept ‘development’. For Lerner modernization is ‘the social process of which development is the economic component’ (Lerner, 1967, p. 21); while Apter sees development, modernization and industrialization as terms of decreasing conceptual generality (Apter, 1967, pp. 67–9). Some writers stress structural aspects while for others ‘the concept of modernization has to do with a transformation of culture and of personality in so far as it is influenced by culture, rather than of some aspect of social organization or of human ecology’ (Stephen‐son, 1968, p. 265). It is hoped that the following discussion is both specific enough to convey the essential aspects of the type of theory under review, and flexible enough to allow for some of the variants on the basic theme in what is a highly condensed survey of a substantial body of literature.1 The critical approach adopted reflects certain ideas about societies and hence the questions social scientists should ask; these preoccupations cannot be discussed fully within present limits but are indicated in the suggestions contained in the concluding section. The first section serves to outline the context in which the concept of development studies arose. This is followed by a schematic outline of the central concepts and conceptual procedures of the sociology of development, and more specifically of modernization theory, which are then criticized on a number of counts. These criticisms lead on to an argument for the use of a historical perspective—moreover, one which results in a re‐examination of the concept of underdevelopment, relating it to the expansion of Western capitalism and the effects of this process on the diverse indigenous societies of what is now called the Third World. The relationships of dependence and exploitation created by the process are exemplified in the colonial situation as narrowly defined though this is by no means the only situation characterized by such relationships. This perspective, developed in the work of certain political economists, can serve as the basis of a sociological approach which would prove more fruitful both in understanding the nature of underdevelopment itself, and in assessing the range of possibilities of development in the Third World, than that generally employed in the sociology of development at present.