Future of modernization

university of phoenix

Future of Modernization

Sociology 120 Week 8 Assignment

Professor Lee Daffin

Mechelle Davidson

1/5/2012

Future of ModernizationJanuary 5, 2012

Modernizations Future

The future of modernization from whatever angle one might approach; through the

critical theory of development, it becomes clear that distribution of global wealth and power is

the futures central issue. Modernity is a crucial component to identity that nations write for

themselves, historically as with other areas in the world, United States construction of a

national self-conception put together with Eurocentric characteristics of modernity provide the

theory of rationalization. The rationalization theory that increases the individualism,

freethinking societies shall continue progression as and with modernization in globalization of

society just as in past periods. This theory produce within this paper shall prove true through

addressing the questions of its manifestation, continuation, globalization, and theorist’s

perceptions.

Past Modernization

Historically the start of America’s identity began as a dependent of a much older and

unreformed society. America a dependency of Great Britain, it only was becoming into

existence in the eighteenth century. The nationalist of politics and cultural elite, along with

postcolonial elites constructed an American identity that was both against and in imitation of

Europe’s (Ross, 2011). This America developed the first multiple modernity that exist today,

because this modernity indicate stages of national state formation, industrialization, and new

ideas toward, reason, human agency, and progress it is characterized with institutional and

cultural processes that they themselves produced and rationalize.

As past participants and observers look at these institutional and cultural processes

from different ideologies, than too there becomes alternative models of consequences and


views for the progress of modernization within America for them. At one time, specifically after

the WWII, political and intellectual elites assumed United States had leadership over the West,

and therefore must take responsibility for its direction. With world power at the United States

horizon, there was a period of unprecedented prosperity, which also created deep anxieties

from the upheavals, and violence of a threatening cold war (Ross, 2011). These concerns of

Americans future, now among the world at large modernization, attention turned toward

modernity and that of theorists’ of rationalization.

Global Modernization

Given the nation-states rise and national economies development, one can come to

expect in modern periods. The required long, bloody struggles of pasts to merely gain limited

amounts of redistribution was achieved only by state regulation of economies, mass-

democratic politics, and on track social-welfare policies and programs. Society seems once

again at the pivotal point, beginning yet another struggle-hopefully one not as bloody or long to

achieve global rules of law, democratic forms of global governance and solidarity distribution

policies with restorative justice will occur (McCarthy, 2007).

Institutional imagination, experimentation, and proliferation is necessary to discover the

best forms of law, democracy, and policies that will best work for this second transnational

domesticated capitalist rational modernization for all persons alike. If incapable of avoiding

the continued “state of nature”, within international politics as complained about by Kant, than

possibly one of cultural-geographical constellations of wealth and power excluding Europe and

America can, allowing continued international power politics as dictated and altered through a

militarily, politically, and economically multi-power world.


Historically macro-sociological theories of change has notoriously been weak, in

predicting futures, so one may only hope that neo-Kantian cosmopolitan’s scenario is as

possible to occur as the neo-Hobbesian scenario (McCarthy, 2007). However, as Durkheim

expresses that “individualism, freethinking did not appear in our days, or in 1789, or in the

reformation time, or with scholastics, or with the decline of Greek and Roman polytheism or of

oriental theocracies. This phenomenon begins nowhere, but develops continuously through the

course of history” and Boudon comprises that “In other words, men have had since ever a

sense of their dignity and vital interests and a critical sense making them able to judge whether

institutions serve them. Thanks to this rationalization, innovations were produced and selected

in the long run” (Boudon, 2011, pp. 22-3) this will undoubtedly continue to occur throughout

the world and its futures.

As modernization continues throughout globalization shall occur, as rationalization

becomes a worldwide trend throughout society. With future generations expressing a growing

trend toward more respect and dignity of human beings: this will be the dominate value of our

younger individuals but should not mean that behaviors of humans’ moral categories are good

or evil.

Rational Criteria

As rationalists, derive a three part criteria of conception of characterizing their rational

and reason systems model sets the groundwork of their mind set. These criteria start first with

the characteristic of the neighbor as positive or negative with respect to given values of self-

control. There by negating that Alcoholics be negative with this regard. The second criteria


holds the characteristic defining the category of achieved or ascribed, where ascribed is a

stranger and where achieved is that of a criminal. The third criteria ask does a given character

of the imaginary neighbor generate a negative effect on the well-being of others externally

(Boudon, 2011, pp. 30-1).

This well articulated system of reason within societies younger more educated

individuals tend to show a more tolerant aspect, they do not, tolerate equally however or all

types of behaviors. Just as these three criteria’s appear in rationalization mindset, they are

hierarchically set in the system of reasoning as well. Giving that the first criteria is more

important than the second, and the second criteria more important than the third. Following

this mind-set consequently, those given the least tolerance are those of drinkers, since their

behavior conflicts with the first criteria’s value of self-control and the third criteria’s value of

external effect generated. This by the conflicting behavior they are responsible for and the

negative external view it generates.

Interpretation

The World Values Survey provided statistical data comprising of over 400 questions, to

1000 sample respondents in each country totaling 43 nations over the course of three years

from 1990-1993 (Inglehart R., 1998). The survey providing categories of age and education that

Boubon’s interoperates that rationalization theory process is practical both in and outside of

western region countries, although these statistics are not as reliable in authoritarian

government regions. Boubon’s thesis on the Rationalization theory process uses Inglehart’s

1998 sourcebook of the World Values Survey to formulate his interpretation and present a

correlative view with the rationalization theory among those individuals younger and more


educated (Boudon, 2011). His conclusions inexplicably show increased following of

rationalization amongst societies younger and educated persons. The statistical data analysis

also expresses globalization occurring, confirming the arrival of modernity.

Consequences

Consequences of future rationalization theory processes is evident, and found through

all human reason and value set categories of religion, politics, work, and morals. These notable

categories reveal a simplistic attitude that governs the individuals’ rationalization process

identified by Durkheim and Weber. Globally some area nations explained as having more

influent religious structures traditionally more than those of others have, but show an entirety

of decreasing among those educated and younger throughout the nations in general. As these

younger and more educated individuals given to an increased secularities view toward

traditional religious beliefs, they are most possibly showing a sociological truth in the trends of

modern religious beliefs, also the increased tolerance, and the increased concern for human

dignity and respect for those throughout the world. There are however, contingencies and/or

circumstances that could thwart rationalization theory process or facilitate it. Globalization

would help to facilitate while authoritative governments would thwart.

Given that rationalization theory’s conception derived through deep motivations in

human beings, the plausibility that these important characterized trends prevented forever,

affirms only plausible postponement. Evidence of this becomes more evident as Kantian

morality types expose weakening, as reason dissolves weakening tradition with the nation-state

social model (Boudon, 2011). Energy and progress in communication techniques are

enforcement for the globalization of all. These afore mentioned factors being the two major


necessities that have the required effect of weakening the power of state and increasing the

power of transnational political, humanitarian, economic, and communication organizations,

will also stimulating the model of that within the state. These increasing techniques and

educational progression will undoubtedly define and characterize the sociological future for

generations abounded with those theories containing rationalization and the increased

awareness of humanities obligation and need for dignity and overall respect of everyone.

Nietzsche sums up rationalization with, “We cannot do without ideas, as we are now

often doing without God” (Carver, 2011, p. 107) this attests to future society’s continuation,

striving for, finding rationalization for all, which needs full understanding.


References

Boudon, R. (2011). Modernization, Rationalization and Globalization. Modernization in

Times of Globalization II , 21-36.

Carver, T. (2011). The Discursive Politics of Modernization: Catchresis and

Materialization. Modernization in Time of Globalization II , 104-118.

Inglehart R., B. M. (1998). Human Values and Beliefs: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook. Ann

Arbor: The U. of Michigan Press .

McCarthy, T. A. (2007). From Modernism to Messianism: Liberal Developmentalism and

American Exceptionalism. Constellations , 3-30.

Ross, D. (2011). American Modernities, Past and Present. American Historical Review

Roundtable , 702-714.

Education

Future of modernization