Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._3

Substantial increases in pay and other benefits in the early 1980s, as well as changes in recruiting techniques including advertising, had a dramatic impact on recruiting success. By the late 1980s, all military services, including the Army, were not only meeting requirement quotas but setting new records in the quality of personnel, surpassing even the draft years in the proportion of recruits with high school diplomas and with higher aptitudes. Most military leaders, many of whom had been skeptical about ending the draft, became strong supporters of the AVF and claimed that morale and skills were at all-time highs and discipline problems were at all-time lows. Although this success did require significant increases in the military personnel budget, both the Congress and the public seemed prepared to pay this cost (Bowman et al. 1986).

The one argument against voluntary service that had never been tested empirically was the combat effectiveness of a market-motivated military. The dramatic success of the American forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War put an end to any doubt about the ability of a volunteer military to operate successfully. Although high-technology weapons systems received much of the publicity during the war, most military leaders gave as much credit to the skill and morale of their troops, especially in comparison to the poorly trained and demoralized Iraqi soldiers.

Two major events, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the U.S. budget deficit crisis, combined to force major reductions in the size of the active military, which also meant fewer new recruits needed to sustain the smaller force. In spite of lower recruiting targets, recruit quality began edging downward again after the Persian Gulf War. The main causes were thought to be a combination of less positive attitudes toward military on the part of youth, and an increase in the proportion of youth deciding to attend college (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 1998). Although some concerns have surfaced in the military community about these downward trends, by 1998 overall recruit quality was still similar to the successful levels seen during the late 1980s. A mitigating factor is the trend in the number of 18-year- olds, which declined between 1980 and 1992 but has been increasing since then and is expected to continue to grow until 2010.

SOCIAL REPRESENTATION AND ACCESS

Social representation is the degree to which an armed force represents the population from which it has been drawn. Although representation has been a longstanding issue in the United States, concerns were heightened during the AVF era, especially since that era happened to coincide with increasing emphasis on ethnic and gender diversity throughout American society. Racial representation was an issue in both the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War, when some civil rights leaders alleged that African Americans were overrepresented in armed forces and hence carried an unfair burden of casualties. Gender representation has developed as a major issue in concert with the women’s rights movement, generating major policy changes concerning the participation of women in the military. Finally, with the election of President Bill Clinton and his campaign commitment to overturn the military ban on gays and lesbians, for the first time the issue of sexual orientation became the focus of a major military policy debate.

Debates about social representation usually divide over positions on three basic principles: equity, effectiveness, and responsiveness. The equity principle has two aspects. One is the equity of obligation, meaning that the burden of service and the risks of combat should be borne by all segments of the citizenry. Since a national military force defends the interests of an entire country and entails the risk of casualties, this obligation should be shared uniformly by all citizens, or at least all able-bodied persons. Placing this burden unequally upon certain socioeconomic or racial groups not only violates the canons of fairness in democratic societies but also potentially undermines troop morale and motivation if they perceive the disproportion as unfair (Congressional Budget Office 1989). The other aspect is the equity of access, which often means that racial minorities, women, and homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military according to their abilities and interests, without artificial restrictions or ceilings.

The principle of effectiveness is raised because most military experts believe that the quality of military personnel in terms of education and aptitude directly influence training and combat effectiveness, and therefore a force that

underrepresents quality personnel will be less effective than a representative force. Although the armed services have attained their quality goals since the late 1980s, there is no guarantee that they can always do so, particularly if military pay and benefits do not keep up with civilian compensation. The effectiveness principle is also invoked by some military experts as a counterargument to the equity position, arguing that allowing women in combat units or open homosexuals in any type of unit will undermine unit morale and cohesion, thereby reducing military effectiveness.

Finally, a representative armed force is sometimes seen as a requirement for military acceptance of civilian control as well as respect for democratic values and institutions. A military force that overrepresents particular social strata or groups (not necessarily lower strata) might place parochial interests or values over the interests and values of the society as a whole. A force drawn proportionately from all major sectors of a society—all regions, races, and social classes—is viewed as one most likely to respect and advance the shared values and goals of the total society.

Racial Representation. One of the most frequently expressed concerns about representation during the AVF era has been the overrepresentation of African Americans and lower socioeconomic groups in the armed services, especially in the Army. Given the early experience with the AVF, this concern is not without some justification, although the situation improved considerably during the 1980s.

Table 1 shows the percentage of black recruits for selected years since the end of the draft in 1973. Black overrepresentation reached its peak in 1979, before the aptitude misnorming error was discovered. Black representation declined during the early 1980s after the military corrected its screening test. It edged back up during the late 1980s, but it declined again during the early 1990s, when recruiting was scaled back in response to the smaller permanent force. Even during the draft years, black representation exceeded the black proportion of the youth population, due in part to higher voluntary enlistment and—prior to the Vietnam War—in part to college exemption policies that applied disproportionately to white youth. During most of the 1990s, black representation in the total active forces was only a few points higher

than a comparable civilian population, although the trend was moving upward again toward the end of the decade, particularly in the Army.

It should not be inferred from these data that black soldiers have a risk of death or injury in combat that is disproportionately higher than that of white soldiers. In fact, black enlisted members in the active-duty forces tend to be underrepresented in combat occupations such as infantry, gun crews, and combat ships and overrepresented in administrative, clerical, and supply occupations. As a result, black casualty rates in wartime are in rough proportion to their share of the general civilian population. For example, in the Vietnam War black fatalities were approximately 12 percent of all American fatalities (Moskos and Butler 1996).

Some argue that these differences in representation present a policy problem, although there is no consensus on what, if anything, should be done about it. While some see black overrepresentation as a problem of burden, others see it as an opportunity for advancement in one of the best-integrat- ed occupational sectors in American society. Higher black representation reflects a greater interest in military careers among African Americans, and any attempt to limit black enlistments could be viewed as a denial of equal opportunity. Indeed, the military in general, and the Army in particular, has been held up as a model for racial integration that should be emulated by other institutions (Moskos and Butler 1996).

Women in the Military. Another topic that has received considerable attention from military sociologists is the role of women in the military. Until 1967 women’s participation in the military was limited to 2 percent by law, and most military jobs were closed to women. Even after the restriction was lifted by Congress, the representation of women did not change until the AVF policy and the opening of more noncombat jobs to women. After 1973 the percentage of women enlistees increased steadily, reaching a plateau during the 1980s of about 12 percent. Following major policy changes regarding combat restrictions in the early 1990s, the percentage of women recruits rose again, reaching a second plateau of about 18 percent during the late 1990s. This representation of women in the U.S. military is the highest among all NATO countries (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 1998; Stanley and Segal 1988).

The growing participation of women in the military reflects several forces, including the need for manpower in the AVF era as well as the increased demands for equity in the treatment of men and women in the workplace. Although all military services recruited more women to help alleviate shortfalls during the 1970s, the Department of Defense has also been pressured by Congress and various interest and advisory groups to enlarge the opportunities for women. The primary barriers to expanding the role of women were statutory restrictions on the assignment of women to combat units and missions. These statutes were repealed by Congress in 1993, and by 1994 the Department of Defense had substantially modified combat restriction regulations. All combat aircraft and combat ships were opened to women (except submarines, for privacy reasons), and the only units that could be closed to women were those that involved ‘‘direct ground combat’’ such as infantry, armor, field artillery, and special forces (Armor 1996).

In spite of the increased participation of women, gender representation continues to be a topic of debate. Arguments against allowing women in combat jobs include physical and emotional differences, privacy and sexual behavior, impacts on unit cohesion and morale, and a basic moral position that women should be protected from the high risk of death, injury, capture, or torture faced by those in ground combat units. Proponents of opening combat jobs to women counter that (1) women should be evaluated individually and not as a group for physical and emotional suitability for combat; (2) experience with women in noncombat jobs has shown no serious adverse impacts on unit cohesion or morale; and (3) women currently

serve in jobs and units that are exposed to increased risks of death, injury, or capture, thereby rendering the moral argument moot and in conflict with current policies (M. W. Segal 1982). Consistent with this latter view, recent reviews on the integration of women in the military report substantial progress (Harell and Miller 1997).

A second major issue involving women in the military is sexual harassment. This problem is obviously not unique to the military; it continues to be an issue throughout American society. It may be more acute, however, in a traditional male institution like the military where women constitute small minorities in many types of jobs. Little hard evidence was available on the extent of sexual harassment in the military until a comprehensive survey was conducted at the request of a 1988 Task Force on Women in the Military. The results indicated rather serious levels of sexual harassment; altogether, 64 percent of women experienced some form of sexual harassment during a one-year period, and 5 percent reported actual or attempted rape or sexual assault (Martindale 1990). These rates of harassment were considerably higher than those found in surveys of federal civilian employees, and they presaged several serious incidents during the 1990s involving sexual harassment or other sexual improprieties in three of the four services: the 1991 Navy Tailhook incident; the 1996 Army Aberdeen Proving Grounds scandal; and the 1997 Air Force dismissal of Kelly Flinn, its first female bomber pilot, for adultery with the husband of an enlisted woman.

A follow-up survey on sexual harassment was conducted in 1995 after the military services had tightened regulations, clarified policies and practices, and increased training with regards to sexual

harassment. The new survey showed some improvement, but rates of sexual harassment were still high, with 55 percent of women reporting some form of unwanted sexual behavior or advances and 4 percent reporting actual or attempted rape or some other form of sexual assault (Bastion et al. 1996).

These high rates of sexual harassment may be due to a number of factors, but are most likely associated with the increased presence of women in a traditional male workplace, and a workplace where a traditional ‘‘male’’ culture may be insensitive if not hostile to women. Another factor may be the attitudes and actions of military leaders and supervisors. Only about half of the women responding to the 1988 survey believed that the senior leadership of their service and their installation made ‘‘honest and reasonable’’ attempts to prevent sexual harassment, and only 60 percent said their immediate supervisor did so. In 1995 these rates had increased by only a few percentage points. Whether or not these figures truly reflect the behavior of military leaders, there is a perception among many military women that the military leadership is still not giving enough emphasis to the problem of sexual harassment.

Policies on Sexual Orientation. Since World War I, persons who acknowledge homosexual status or behavior have been excluded from U.S. military service, either by antisodomy provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or by explicit Department of Defense regulations. This policy was challenged by President Bill Clinton in 1993, who directed the secretary of defense to prepare a ‘‘draft of an Executive Order ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces’’ (Rostker and Harris 1993, p. 1). Most senior military officers opposed the change, expressing beliefs that open homosexuals would hamper maintenance of good order and discipline and would undermine unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. Various studies were commissioned, including a major study by the Rand Corporation which concluded that, based on experience in other countries and on certain U.S. police and fire departments, the homosexual ban could be lifted without serious adverse effects on unit cohesion and military performance (Rostker and Harris 1993). The Rand study also noted that nondeclared homosexuals had always served in some number in the

United States and foreign militaries without undue consequences.

The center of the debate shifted to Congress, and particularly to Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who had made it clear before the 1992 election that he was skeptical about this change and would hold hearings on the matter. Based on these hearings, including testimony from both civilian experts and military leaders, a compromise proposal was crafted, which became known as the ‘‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy; this proposal became a federal statute in 1994. The statute states that sexual orientation is a private and personal matter, and is not a bar to military service. It prohibits routine questions about sexual orientation on recruiting forms, but also says that engaging in homosexual conduct is grounds for discharge, and that a voluntary statement by a person acknowledging a gay or lesbian orientation is considered homosexual conduct (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 1998).

Needless to say, gay and lesbian activists were not satisfied with this compromise, and especially with the provision that service members continue to be discharged for merely telling someone that they are homosexual (Rimmerman 1996). The ‘‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy has been challenged in federal courts, but with the exception of several cases where a discharged gay or lesbian has been reinstated because information was obtained improperly, the statute itself has been upheld by several appellate courts.

OTHER ISSUES

There are a number of other topics that are studied by military sociologists or that raise important sociological issues. While they have not received the same degree of attention as the topics reviewed above, they deserve mention.

Sociology of Combat. A major focus of The American Soldier studies during World War II, the sociology of combat deals with the social processes involved in combat units, such as unit cohesion and morale, leader-troop relations, and the motivation for combat. Recent works include studies of the ‘‘fragging’’ incidents in the Vietnam War and the role of ideology in combat motivation (Moskos 1988).

Family Issues. The proportion of the military personnel who are married increased from around 40 percent during the draft years to 57 percent by 1995. The current active force also has a higher proportion of career personnel than the draft-era forces (50 percent compared to 25 percent), which means more families and more family concerns. Much of the increase in military benefits is related to families—housing improvements, medical insurance, overseas schools, child care. Family policy issues include the role and rights of spouses (especially officer spouses) and the issue of child care when single-parent members are deployed in a conflict (M. W. Segal 1986).

The Military as Welfare. Somewhat at odds with the social representation issue, some argue that the military should provide opportunity for educational and occupational advancement to the less advantaged in society. The most dramatic example was Project 100,000, begun in 1966 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, whereby 100,000 men (mostly black) who did not meet education and aptitude requirements were offered enlistments. According to recent follow-up studies of this group as well as a group of low-aptitude recruits who entered the AVF during the misnorming era, military training and experience do not appear to offer advantages when compared to civilian experiences (D. R. Segal 1989).

Military Social Organization. Given changes in military organization at several levels—from draft to AVF, from combat-intensive jobs to technical and support jobs, and from leadership to rational management—some have argued that the military is changing from an institution or ‘‘calling’’ legitimized by normative values to an occupation legitimized by a market orientation (Moskos and Wood 1988). While some of these changes apply to the military as well as to many other American institutions, others suggest that the role of institutional values and traditions is still a dominant characteristic of the American military (D. R. Segal 1989).

War and Peace. The most profound impacts of national security policies and their associated military forces are on the relations between whole nations. There is very little sociological work at this level, although some of the issues would seem to be fairly critical for sociological theory (e.g., the effectiveness of deterrence policies during the

Cold War; the role of effects of military alliances; the consequences of war for societal changes). One of the few sociological discussions of these broader issues is found in D. R. Segal (1989).

Comparative Perspectives. As in many other fields of sociology, comparative studies of sociomilitary issues across nations are relatively scarce. Exceptions are some comparative studies of whether the military is an institution or an occupation (Moskos and Wood 1988) and of women in military forces (Stanley and Segal 1988).

CONCLUSION

Although military sociologists are few in number, it is not a small field. The military is the largest single government agency, and it truly represents a microcosm of the larger society. The types of military issues that can be addressed by social scientists have important ramifications for military policy as well as for the development of sociology as a discipline. On the one hand, sociological concepts and perspectives have contributed to rationalizing the basis of service, studying the problems of social representation, and improving the role of women in the military. On the other hand, studies of the structure and processes of military institutions and policies can enhance sociological understanding and insights about important forms of social behavior, thereby contributing ultimately to advances in social theory.

(SEE ALSO: Gender; Race; Peace; War)

REFERENCES

Armour, D. J. 1996 ‘‘Race and Gender in the U.S. Military.’’ Armed Forces and Society 23:7–27

———, R. L. Fernandez, Kathy Bers, and Donna Schwarzbach 1982 Recruit Aptitudes and Army Job Performance, R-2874-MRAL. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.

Bastian, L. D., A. R. Lancaster, and H.E. Reyst 1996

1995 Sexual Harassment Survey. Arlington, Va.: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Bowman, W., R. Little, and G. T. Sicilia 1986 The AllVolunteer Force after a Decade. Washington: Perga- mon-Brassey’s.

Congressional Budget Office 1989 Social Representation in the U.S. Military. Washington: Congress of the United States.

Cooper, Richard V. L. 1977 Military Manpower and the All-Volunteer Force R-1450-ARPA. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.

Eitelberg, Mark J. 1988 Manpower for Military Occupations. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Organization.

Harrell, M. C., and L. L. Miller 1997 New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale, MR-896-OSD. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.

Janowitz, Morris 1960 The Professional Soldier. Glencoe,

Ill.: Free Press.

Laurence, J. H., and P. F. Ramsberger 1991 Low-Aptitude Men in the Military: Who Profits, Who Pays? Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Organization.

Lee, G. C., and G. Y. Parker 1977 Ending the Draft: The Story of the All-Volunteer Force, FR-PO-77-1. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Organization.

———, and M. W. Segal 1991 ‘‘Sociology, Military.’’

International Military and Defense Encyclopedia. New York: Macmillan.

Segal, M. W. 1982 ‘‘The Argument for Female Combatants.’’ In Nancy Loring Goldman, ed., Female Soldiers: Combatants or Noncombatants? Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.

——— 1986 ‘‘The Military and the Family as Greedy Institutions.’’ Armed Forces and Society 13:9–38.

Stanley, S. C., and M. W. Segal 1988 ‘‘Military Women in NATO: An Update.’’ Armed Forces and Society 14:559–585.

Stouffer, S. A., et al. 1949 The American Soldier. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

DAVID J. ARMOR

Martindale, Melanie 1990 Sexual Harassment in the Military: 1988. Arlington, Va.: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Moskos, C. C. 1988 Soldiers and Sociology. Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

———, and J. S. Butler 1996 All That We Can Be. New York: Basic.

———, and F. R. Wood 1988 The Military: More Than Just a Job? Washington: Pergamon-Brassey’s.

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management) 1998 Population Representation in the Military Services, FY 97. Washington: U.S. Department of Defense.

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 1998 Review of the Effectiveness of the Application and Enforcement of the Department’s Policy on Homosexual Conduct. Washington: U.S. Department of Defense.

Polich, J. M., J. N. Dertouzos, and S. J. Press 1986 The Enlistment Bonus Experiment, R3353-FMP. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.

President’s Commission 1970 Report of the President’s Commission on an All Volunteer Force. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Rimmerman, C. A., ed. 1996 Gay Rights, Military Wrongs. New York: Garland.

Rostker, B. D., and S. A. Harris, study directors 1993

Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy, MR-323-OSD. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.

Segal, D. R. 1989 Recruiting for Uncle Sam. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

MODERNIZATION THEORY

Modernization theory is a description and explanation of the processes of transformation from traditional or underdeveloped societies to modern societies. In the words of one of the major proponents, ‘‘Historically, modernization is the process of change towards those types of social, economic, and political systems that have developed in Western Europe and North America from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth and have then spread to other European countries and in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to the South American, Asian, and African continents’’ (Eisenstadt 1966, p. 1). Modernization theory has been one of the major perspectives in the sociology of national development and underdevelopment since the 1950s. Primary attention has focused on ways in which past and present premodern societies become modern (i.e., Westernized) through processes of economic growth and change in social, political, and cultural structures.

In general, modernization theorists are concerned with economic growth within societies as indicated, for example, by measures of gross national product. Mechanization or industrialization are ingredients in the process of economic growth. Modernization theorists study the social, political, and cultural consequences of economic growth and the conditions that are important for industrialization and economic growth to occur. Indeed, a degree of circularity often characterizes discussions of social and economic change involved in modernization processes because of the notion,

embedded in most modernization theories, of the functional compatibility of component parts. The theoretical assumptions of modernization theories will be elaborated later.

It should be noted at the outset that the sociological concept of modernization does not refer simply to becoming current or ‘‘up to date’’ but rather specifies particular contents and processes of societal changes in the course of national development. Also, modernization theories of development do not necessarily bear any relationship to more recent philosophical concepts of ‘‘modernity’’ and ‘‘postmodernity.’’ Modernity in philosophical and epistemological discussions refers to the perspective that there is one true descriptive and explanatory model that reflects the actual world. Postmodernity is the stance that no single true description and explanation of reality exists but rather that knowledge, ideology, and science itself are based on subjective understandings of an entirely relational nature. While their philosophical underpinnings place most modernization theories of development into the ‘‘modern’’ rather than the ‘‘postmodern’’ context, these separate uses of the term modernity should not be confused.

Also, modernization, industrialization, and development are often used interchangeably but in fact refer to distinguishable phenomena. Industrialization is a narrower term than modernization, while development is more general. Industrialization involves the use of inanimate sources of power to mechanize production, and it involves increases in manufacturing, wage labor, income levels, and occupational diversification. It may or may not be present where there is political, social, or cultural modernization, and, conversely, it may exist in the absence of other aspects of modernization. Development (like industrialization) implies economic growth, but not necessarily through transformation from the predominance of primary production to manufacturing, and not necessarily as characterized by modernization theory. For example, while modernization theorists may define development mainly in terms of economic output per capita, other theorists may be more concerned about development of autonomous productive capacity, equitable distribution of wealth, or meeting basic human needs. Also, while modernization theories generally envision democratic and capitalist institutions or secularization of belief systems as components of modern society,

other development perspectives may not. Indeed, dependency theorists even talk about the ‘‘development of underdevelopment’’ (Frank 1966).

Each of the social science disciplines pays particular attention to the determinants of modern structures within its realm (social, political, economic) and gives greater importance to structures or institutions within its realm for explaining other developments in society. Emphasis here is given to sociological modernization theory.

Although there are many versions of modernization theory, major implicit or explicit tenets are that (1) societies develop through a series of evolutionary stages; (2) these stages are based on different degrees and patterns of social differentiation and reintegration of structural and cultural components that are functionally compatible for the maintenance of society; (3) contemporary developing societies are at a premodern stage of evolution and they eventually will achieve economic growth and will take on the social, political, and economic features of western European and North American societies which have progressed to the highest stage of social evolutionary development;

(4) this modernization will result as complex Western technology is imported and traditional structural and cultural features incompatible with such development are overcome.

At its core modernization theory suggests that advanced industrial technology produces not only economic growth in developing societies but also other structural and cultural changes. The common characteristics that societies tend to develop as they become modern may differ from one version of modernization theory to another, but, in general, all assume that institutional structures and individual activities become more highly specialized, differentiated, and integrated into social, political, and economic forms characteristic of advanced Western societies.

For example, in the social realm, modern societies are characterized by high levels of urbanization, literacy, research, health care, secularization, bureaucracy, mass media, and transportation facilities. Kinship ties are weaker, and nuclear conjugal family systems prevail. Birthrates and death rates are lower, and life expectancy is relatively longer. In the political realm, the society becomes more participatory in decision-making processes,

and typical institutions include universal suffrage, political parties, a civil service bureaucracy, and parliaments. Traditional sources of authority are weaker as bureaucratic institutions assume responsibility and power. In the economic realm, there is more industrialization, technical upgrading of production, replacement of exchange economies with extensive money markets, increased division of labor, growth of infrastructure and commercial facilities, and the development of large-scale markets. Associated with these structural changes are cultural changes in role relations and personality variables. Social relations are more bureaucratic, social mobility increases, and status relations are based less on such ascriptive criteria as age, gender, or ethnicity and more on meritocratic criteria. There is a shift from relations based on tradition and loyalty to those based on rational exchange, competence, and other universally applied criteria. People are more receptive to change, more interested in the future, more achievement-orient- ed, more concerned with the rights of individuals, and less fatalistic.

Underlying the description of social features and changes that are thought to characterize modern urban industrial societies are theoretical assumptions and mechanisms to explain the shift from traditional to modern societal types. These explanatory systems draw upon the dominant theoretical perspectives in the 1950s and 1960s, growing out of classical evolutionary, diffusion, and structural-functionalist theories.

The evolutionary perspective, stemming from Spencer, Durkheim, and other nineteenth-century theorists, contributed the notion that societies evolve from lower to higher forms and progress from simple and undifferentiated to more complex types. Western industrial society is seen as superior to preindustrial society to the extent that it has progressed through specialization to more effective ways of performing societal functions. Diffusionists added the ideas that cultural patterns associated with modern society could be transferred via social interaction (trade, war, travelers, media, etc.) and that there may be several paths to development rather than linear evolution. Structural functionalists (Parsons 1951; Hoselitz 1960; Levy 1966) emphasized the idea that societies are integrated wholes composed of functionally compatible institutions and roles, and that societies

progress from one increasingly complex and efficient social system to another. This contributed to the notion that internal social and cultural factors are important determinants or obstacles of economic change.

Research by Smelser (1969) draws on all three traditions in describing modernization of society through processes of social differentiation, disturbances, and reintegration. In a manner similar to other conceptions of modernization, Smelser emphasizes four major changes: from simple to complex technology, from subsistence farming to commercial agriculture, from rural to urban populations, and, most important, from animal and human power to inanimate power and industrialization.

Parsons’s later theoretical work (1964) also combines these perspectives in a neo-evolutionist modernization theory that treats societies as selfregulated structural functional wholes in which the main processes of change are social differentiation and the discovery (or acquisition through diffusion) of certain ‘‘evolutionary universals’’ such as bureaucratic organizations and money markets. These, in turn, increase the adaptive capacity of the society by providing more efficient social arrangements and often lead to a system of universalistic norms, ‘‘which, more than the industrial revolution itself, ushered in the modern era of social evolution’’ (Parsons 1964, p. 361). A similar neoevolutionist social differentiation theory of modernization is provided by Eisenstadt (1970).

Another early influence on modernization theory was Weber’s work on the Protestant ethic. This work stressed the influence of cultural values on the entrepreneurial behavior of individuals and the rise of capitalism. Contemporary theorists in the Weberian tradition include Lerner, McClelland, Inkeles, and Rostow. Lerner’s (1958) empirical studies in several Middle Eastern societies identified empathy, the capacity to take the perspective of others, as a product of media, literacy, and urbanization and as a vital ingredient in producing rational individual behavior conducive to societal development. McClelland (1961) felt that prevalence of individuals with the psychological trait of high ‘‘need for achievement’’ was the key to entrepreneurial activity and modernization of society. In a similar vein, Inkeles and Smith (1974) used interview data from six societies to generate a set

of personality traits by which they defined ‘‘modern man.’’ They felt that the prevalence of individual modernity in society was determined by such factors as education and factory experience and that individual modernity contributed to the modernization of society. Finally, Rostow’s (1960) well-known theory of the stages of economic growth, which he derived from studying Western economic development, emphasized the importance of new values and ideas favoring economic progress along with education, entrepreneurship, and certain other institutions as conditions for societies to ‘‘take off’’ into self-sustained economic growth.

All of these versions of modernization theory depict a gradual and more or less natural transition from ‘‘traditional’’ social structures to ‘‘modern’’ social structures characteristic of Western European and North American societies. More specifically, these theories tend to share to one degree or another the views that (1) modern people, values, institutions, and societies are similar to those found in the industrialized West, that is, the direction of change tends to replicate that which had already occurred in Western industrial societies; (2) tradition is opposite to and incompatible with modernity; (3) the causes of delayed economic and social development (i.e., underdevelopment) are to be found within the traditional society; (4) the mechanisms of economic development also come primarily from within societies rather than from factors outside of the society; and (5) these internal factors (in addition to industrial development) tend to involve social structures, cultural institutions, or personality types.

In keeping with this orientation, empirical studies of sociological modernization tend to deal with the internal effects of industrialization or other economic developments on traditional social institutions or with the social, political, and cultural conditions that facilitate or impede economic growth within traditional or less-developed societies. Examples might include research on the impact of factory production and employment on traditional family relations or the effects of an indigenous land tenure system on the introduction of cash crop farming in society.

Even though modernization theory since the 1960s has been dominated by and sometimes equated with Parsons’s neo-evolutionary theory, it is

clear that there is no single modernization theory but rather an assortment of related theories and perspectives. In addition to those mentioned, other important contributors of theoretical variants include Hagan (1962), Berger, Berger, and Kellner (1973), Bendix (1964), Moore (1967), Tiryakian (1985), and Nolan and Lenski (1999). Useful reviews include Harrison (1988), Harper (1993), and Jaffee (1998).

Since the 1960s, many critiques of modernization theory and the emergence of competing theories of development have eroded support for modernization theory. Foremost among these are dependency, world systems, and neo-Marxist theories, all of which criticize the ethnocentricity of the modernization concept and the bias in favor of dominant capitalist interests. The focus of these theories is on explaining the contemporary underdevelopment of Third World countries or regions of the world in terms of colonization, imperialist interference, and neocolonial exploitation of developing countries since their gaining of independence. In these counterperspectives, both development and underdevelopment are viewed as part of the same process by which certain ‘‘center’’ countries or regions become economically advanced and powerful at the expense of other ‘‘periphery’’ areas. Rather than explaining development and underdevelopment by the presence or absence of certain internal institutions or personalities, these alternative theories argue that both result from unequal exchange relations and coalitions of interests associated with the structural position of societies in the global economy. Rather than interpreting underdeveloped societies as traditional or archaic, both underdeveloped and developed societies are contemporary but asymmetrically linked parts of capitalist expansion. Both are relatively ‘‘modern’’ phenomena.

Attention to modernization theory in sociology has declined as a result of the theoretical and empirical weaknesses raised especially during the 1970s. Nevertheless, it is still the dominant perspective among government officials and international agencies concerned with third world development. Hoogvelt has noted its influence on development policies as follows:

Because modernisation theories have viewed the total transformation, that is westernisation, of

developing countries to be an inescapable outcome of successful diffusion of the Western economic/technological complex, by methodological reversal it is argued that a reorganization of existing social and cultural as well as political patterns in anticipation of their compatibility with the diffused Western economic/technological complex may in fact facilitate the very process of this diffusion itself. This monumental theoretical error—which to be fair was not always committed by the theorists themselves—has in fact been made and continues to be made by modernisation policy-makers such as those employed by Western government, U.N. organizations, the World Bank, and so forth. (1978, pp. 60–61)

Thus, various indicators of social, political, and cultural development (such as degree of urbanization, high literacy rates, political democracy, free enterprise, secularization, birth control, etc.) have frequently been promoted as ‘‘conditions’’ for development.

Interestingly, as modern structures and institutions have spread around the world and created economic, political, social, and cultural linkages, an awareness of global interdependence and of the ecological consequences of industrial development and modern lifestyles has grown. It is now clear that finite natural resources and the nature of the global ecosystem could not sustain worldwide modern conditions and practices of European and North American societies even if modernization theory assumptions of evolutionary national development were correct. Thus, new visions and interpretations of national and global development have already begun to replace classical modernization theory.

Some selected publications readers may wish to consult on this topic include Billet (1993), Inglehart (1997). McMichael (1996), Roberts and Hite (1999), Roxborough (1988), and Scott (1995).

(SEE ALSO: Global Systems Analysis; Industrialization in Less

Developed Countries)

REFERENCES

Bendix, Reinhold 1964 Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order. New York: John Wiley.

Berger, Peter L., Brigitte Berger, and Hansfried Kellner 1973 The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Vintage.

Billet, Bret L 1993 Modernization Theory and Economic Development: Discontent in the Developing World. Westport, Conn: Praeger.

Eisenstadt, S. N. 1966 Modernization: Protest and Change. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

———1970 ‘‘Social Change and Development.’’ In S. N. Eisenstadt, ed., Readings in Social Evolution and Development. Oxford: Pergamon.

Frank, Andre Gunder 1966 ‘‘The Development of Underdevelopment.’’ Monthly Review 18(4):17–31.

Hagen, Everett E. 1962 On the Theory of Social Change. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey.

Harper, Charles L. 1993 Exploring Social Change, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Harrison, David 1988 The Sociology of Modernization and Development. London: Unwin Hyman.

Hoogvelt, Ankie M. M. 1978 The Sociology of Developing Societies, 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

Hoselitz, Berthold F. 1960 Sociological Aspects of Economic Growth. New York: Free Press.

Inglehart, Ronald 1997 Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Inkeles, Alex, and David H. Smith 1974 Becoming Modern. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Jaffee, David 1998 Levels of Socio-Economic Development Theory. Westport, Conn: Praeger.

Lerner, Daniel 1958 The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: Free Press.

Levy, Marion, Jr. 1966 Modernization and the Structures of Societies, vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

McClelland, David C. 1961 The Achieving Society. New

York: Free Press.

McMichael, Philip 1996 Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge.

Moore, Barrington 1967 Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.

Nolan, Patrick, and Gerhard E. Lenski 1999 Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology, 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parsons, Talcott 1951 The Social System. New York:

Free Press.