MODERNIZATION POTENTIAL AND MODERNIZATION CAPITAL: FACETS OF INTERACTION
In: RUSSIA AND THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD, Heft 3, S. 197-202
In: RUSSIA AND THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD, Heft 3, S. 197-202
In: Global Modernization Review, S. 25-31
In: Capitalism, nature, socialism: CNS ; a journal of socialist ecology, Band 12, Heft 3, S. 44-70
ISSN: 1548-3290
In: The University of Sydney East Asian series 13
In: The University of Sydney East Asian series 13
In: Voprosy ėkonomiki: ežemesjačnyj žurnal, Heft 5, S. 4-29
The author argues that Russia needs modernization. Its essence is in the transition to the new economy. But the main factor which is necessary in this respect is modernization of social institutions. Russian society is not mature enough for the modernization. One needs to take measures in order to promote public confidence and social activity. The reforms require therefore a lot of investment, including public investment, into the transformation of social institutions.
In: Partisan review: PR, Band 63, Heft 4, S. 571-579
ISSN: 0031-2525
In: Journal of developing societies, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 1-11
ISSN: 0169-796X
In: International affairs: a Russian journal of world politics, diplomacy and international relations, Band 57, Heft 1, S. 251-255
ISSN: 0130-9641
World Affairs Online
In: The review of politics, Band 31, Heft 2, S. 172-188
ISSN: 1748-6858
Marx had a specific theory about the nature of non-European societies, and this theory determined his views on the conditions and possibilities of industrialization and modernization in non-Western countries. Yet this theory is hardly known, though it is extremely interesting and sometimes contradicts the more sweeping and general claims made on behalf of Marxism as a universal philosophy of history. Marx elaborated his views on the nature of the non-European world in numerous articles and letters, discussed it in Capital and the Critique of Political Economy, and based his conclusions on a mass of economic, historical, and sociological data. This theory is worthwhile studying both for those who are interested in Marx and for those studying modernization: it has its own difficulties, but it sheds an intriguing light on some of Marx's best insights into historical development and may help to correct some of the current models of modernization.
In: Journal of Third World studies: historical and contemporary Third World problems and issues, Band 21, Heft 1, S. 153-174
ISSN: 8755-3449
World Affairs Online
Modernity refers to the end result of the process of modernization. It is the condition that a society attains after having gone through specific patterns of social and economic change which began in Western Europe in the eighteenth century and which has been spreading throughout the rest of the world. The process of modernization refers to the introduction of modern scientific knowledge to increasing aspects of human life, first of all in Western civilization, then to non-Western societies, by different means and groups, with the final aim of achieving a better life as defined by the society concerned (Alatas, S.H. 1972, p. 22). The traits of modernization include the rationalization of economic and political life, rapid urbanization, industrialization, differentiation in the social structure, and greater popular involvement in public affairs. If we understand these traits as constituting the modern condition, then modernism would refer to the ideology, attitude or mentality that subordinates the traditional to the modern. ; https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O8d6BwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA209&dq=ISLAM+AND+MODERNIZATION&ots=kPG3ScXwVo&sig=r7X5jRZsW7iy0mW12nka_XCTYGM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ISLAM%20AND%20MODERNIZATION&f=false https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8991952541573210005&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1 https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O8d6BwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA209&ots=kPG3ScXwZr&sig=3byKvrGgd67ZPL_OJyKg8NcVEOA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
BASE
In: European journal of international relations, Band 8, Heft 1, S. 103-137
ISSN: 1460-3713
Since the putative end of the Cold War, modernization is increasingly reimagined as a global process— as an expanding liberal zone of peace, a global civil society, or as emerging forms of global governance. Thus, new forms of modernization theory, what we call neo-modernization, have emerged as important theories of International Relations (IR). Such a convergence of events and theory permit us to examine the logical overlap between IR and modernization theory. IR fails to herald a unique contribution to social theory because it persistently avoids and denies the historical problem from which it surfaces, namely, the problem of what to do about cultural difference. Modernization theory provides an essential contribution to IR's avoidance of this central problem. While modernization theory implicitly relies on IR's freezing of difference into geopolitical containers, it also projects a natural and universal developmental sequence through which all cultures must pass. In this way modernization theory anticipates the eventual total homogenizing of difference into sameness. Surprisingly, while partners with IR in the joint venture to contain and then eradicate difference, modernization theory also offers an alternative vision. This recessive theme, what we call an ethnological politics of comparison, has the potential to transform IR into the science and art of facing, understanding and addressing difference.
In: Modern intellectual history: MIH, Band 2, Heft 2, S. 235-263
ISSN: 1479-2451
Once again, the United States is at war. Just as in the 1960s and 1970s, the battlefield is halfway around the globe in a third world country. The deployment of military force is again justified partly in terms of national interest, but also in terms of bringing modernity, freedom and prosperity to a people whose society can be described in terms such as "traditional," "despotic," "backward," "undemocratic," and/or "underdeveloped." The exact meaning of the polar opposition signaled by the words "modern" and "traditional" is, like all politically charged terms, subject to debate and far from stable, but the polarity has figured importantly in international affairs ever since the end of World War II, and its salience was sharply heightened by the suicidal attack on New York's World Trade Center in September, 2001. That tragedy, together with the erratic bellicosity of the American response—directed not solely at the perpetrator, Al Quaeda, but also at Saddam Hussein's cruel dictatorship in Iraq—put modernization back in the headlines for the first time since 1975, when the United States pulled out of Vietnam in defeat. With the return of modernization comes the vexing problem of what to make of differences between "us" and "them." What ethical obligations do scholars have in a world increasingly crowded with people who are eager to sacrifice lives—their own or others'—for the sake either of preserving tradition, or of hastening the triumph of modernity? Most pressing of all, given the potentially civilizational scale of the conflict, is another integrally related question: what does the future hold for ethnocentrism?
In: Issue: A Journal of Opinion, Band 23, Heft 1, S. 19-21
ISSN: 2325-8721
In the latter 1940s, a growing number of American intellectuals, including scholars in various academic disciplines, were attracted to the study of Africa by two powerful incentives. First, African nationalism created a new horizon for the advancement of democracy, the twentieth century's preeminent political ideal. Second, many intellectuals were anxious to reconstruct the prevailing theories of society so that they would fairly represent the aspirations and problems of people everywhere on earth. From this perspective, due regard for the contributions of Africa was deemed to be a scientific, as well as a moral, imperative. These goals, democracy and universalism, were embraced and combined by the theorists of modernization.