Suchergebnisse

One of the sorest needs in the social sciences is for clear and concise conceptual equipment to give structure to disciplines and order to the range of hypotheses these disciplines purport to explore. Perhaps nowhere is this need for conceptual equipment more pressing, however, than in that amorphous area of study that examines the broad range of social processes gathered under the rubric of "modernization." Depending on one's perspective, the process of modernization is either primarily economic, or political, or psychological, or social, or technological, or all of the above. Like the elephant in the old tale, the beast is different depending on who touches it and where.

Academic interest in "political development" declined in the later 1960s for a variety of reasons, including events in the Third World which both challenged nascent theoretical concepts and also inhibited further empirical research. Theory building was further complicated by a rise in ideological passions, changes in scholarly fashions, and continuing advances in technology which, in auguring the advent of "post modern" societies, made the concept of "modernization" even more ambiguous. Interest in the questions of "dependency" and the relationships of the Third World to the international system forced theorists to reexamine the significance of the traditional basic concepts of "authority" and "sovereignty" for changing societies. Greater effectiveness in public policy implementation demands the establishment of more competent authorities in the new states and the achievement of their true sovereignty. This test of effectiveness, however, runs into the old realities of cultural differences which stand in the way of greater "equality" of performance according to modern standards. The problems of achieving greater equality, both domestically and internationally, are already well recognized in the economic realm, but will be even more difficult with respect to power. Hence the subject of political development is certain to become increasingly significant in the next decade.

Soviet census reports from 1959 to 1979 are analyzed to explain differential social modernization, focusing on the causes & effects of Ru-to-Ur migration. Ethnic problems between Russians & their non-European, southern neighbors are also explored. Findings show: (1) a predominance of Ms in their twenties leaving Ru areas, which is expected to have an impact on future Ur birth & employment rates; (2) unequal migration & industrial development in the USSR have created labor shortages in some areas, prompting a resettlement plan that could cause ethnic & political problems; & (3) the variety of Soviet nationalities, cultures, & economies has created educational, ethnic, industrial, & economic inequalities. While Marxist philosophy advocates the elimination of nationality differences, ethnic & labor antagonisms are evident. As non-Russian migrants (from other Soviet nations) become better educated, their ethnic & political awareness may result in challenging Russian domination of the USSR. 2 Tables, 29 References. D. Graves.

The article deals with current historiography of the research program of modernization in Western – mostly US – academic literature. The article stresses the importance of the theory's reputation for its success or failure. The paper traces the origins of the critique of the discourse of modernization. The interrelation between academic scholarship and ideological partisanship is being examined. It is argued that ideology is an integral part of academic discourse, so the task of academics is not to get rid of ideology but to control it and keep within reasonable boundaries. The topicality of the issue raised in the article is determined by the hegemony of neo-liberal thinking which is a descendant of modernization theory with its belief in the exemplar nature of the Western experience. The article juxtaposes two mutually exclusive approaches to modernization theory, that of E.Tiryakian and I. Wallerstein. While the former is advocating the worthiness of modernization theory on grounds of its intellectual prowess, the latter is claiming that the idea of modernization was ideology, not a theory and as such was stillborn. Thus, they arrive at mutually opposite conclusions – the revival of modernization theory versus its burial. The article examines the vast literature on the origins, developmental history and political connections of modernization theory. The involvement of the founders of the modernization theory into the policy making towards the Third World is discussed. The role of modernization theory in buttressing the US policy during Vietnam War is revealed.It is argued that reputation of the scientific theory is critical to its reception and survival. The modernization theory today in Western nations is faced with radical left rejection, liberal critique and uncritical apology. At the same time there is a dangerous trend in Ukraine when the modernization theory is being perceived and (ab)used in a ritualistic manner. This is posture towards modernization research program should be combated by means of restoring value of rational discourse and selective appropriation of the legacy of the idea of modernization. ; Стаття розглядає сучасну історіографію дослідницької програми модернізації у закордонній - переважно американській – суспільствознавчій літературі. Стаття простежує походження критики дискурсу модернізації, визначає взаємовідношення між науковою теорією і партійною ідеологією в рамках дослідницької програми модернізації. Стаття вибудовує типологію підходів до теорії модернізації: ліворадикальний заперечення, ліберальну критику і некритичну апологію, а також пропонує визначити впливову тенденцію сприйняття теорії модернізації в Україну як рітуалізований культ.