Versions of modernisation

To paint the background of the transformations experienced by the case-study group during the first years of Soviet modernisation, it is first necessary to understand the basic principles and presuppositions of modernisation theory in general. The aim of the chapter’s first section is to introduce the basic foundations of modernisation theory and the theoretical basis for national modernisation, which will prepare the ground for a subsequent more specific analysis of Soviet modernisation.

Modernisation is a broad term used “to describe the intellectual, political, social and economic changes that distinguished the modern world from ancient and medieval times” (Hoffman 2003, 7). It can be defined in terms of two features common to all modern political systems: social interventionism and mass politics (Hoffman 2003, 7). In its turn modernisation is understood as “a type of social change, a process of transformations to social, economic and political systems, and the rapid change of human society since the Industrial Revolution, or the frontier changes of modern civilizations” (He 2010, 6). The policy implications of modernisation vary in different countries, stages, and fields. In the mid-twentieth century modernisation theory became the core of the policies of the developing countries. It influenced such processes of their economic development as the driving of industrialisation, the mechanisation of agriculture, and the rise of urbanisation. Systematic modernisation research and theories are the basic components of modernisation science. It influences human societies in different regions, their development, interactions, dissemination, and antagonisms. The independent study of modernisation is a new interdisciplinary science.

Modernisation science includes not only the study of modernisation (He 2015, 41);

it covers changes in modern civilisations, principles of national advancement, international competition, and differentiation. Although there is no single interpretation of the term ‘modernisation’, it has a number of theoretical meanings.

Its task is “to move from model and deduction to contemporary history and

observation, and then back again to more powerful theory and hypothesis” (Nash 1984, 7).

Modernisation science is also a knowledge system. It consists of seven parts (He 2015, 63): general theory; the history of modernisation; stage-specific modernisation; level-specific modernisation; field-specific modernisation; sector-specific modernisation; and modernisation policies. Basic research studies identify the world frontier of human civilisation and explain the laws which govern changes to it. It begins in the eighteenth century with the Industrial Revolution and the works of the Scottish political economist Adam Smith. The nineteenth century brought an expansion of the Industrial Revolution and works by British political economist David Ricardo and German philosopher Karl Marx. The twentieth century saw the transition of modernisation, and modernisation studies was incorporated in the social sciences or the humanities, involving such fields of study as politics, environment, economy, society, culture, and environment. In the twenty-first century it is forming its own paradigm and analysis structure.

Modernisation has been explained from three perspectives (He 2015, 61): its basic and theoretical meanings, and its policy implications. Its basic meaning includes an understanding of the act or process of becoming modern or meeting modern demands, or the understanding of a state with modern characteristics.

“The experience of modernity at the turn of the twentieth century is closely related to the second Industrial Revolution as technological and conceptual changes are informed by and inform different and alternating temporalities, experiences, and interests” (Schleifer 2000, 121): it therefore transforms the experience of time and space. During the last decades of the twentieth century modernisation as a theory was evaluated as a product of the post-Second World War period (So 1990).

Classical modernisation theory was developed in the late 1940s as an interdisciplinary research framework which studied “the conditions for, and possibilities of democratic reconstruction in Western Europe and the Far East”

(Müller 1995, 267). This process was described as a dual revolution in behavioural methodology and the concept of system. In the 1950s, as European colonial empires in Asia, Africa, and Latin America disintegrated, modernisation theory arose from evolutionary and functionalist theory, both of which provided the basis for a new social order.

Modernisation is often associated with an evolutionary approach:

Unlike Marxism, which viewed social change as being driven by the contradiction be-tween the productive forces and the ownership of means of production, modernisation is an evolutionary theory, best known in the work of Talcott Parsons. Societies devel-op, it is contended, not through class struggle, but through the actions of people striving to adapt to, and to improve, their economic, political and social environment (Lane 2006, 52).

2 MODERNISATION THEORY

2.1 THEORY OF MODERNISATION

The aim of this chapter is to trace the latest trends in modernisation theory; to reassess the discussion of the specifics of the Marxist-Leninist vision of modernisation as mobilisation, its combination of mobilisation with the class struggle, and the use of purges as a modernisation tool; and to uncover the process of sovietisation policy towards the state population generally and the ethnic groups of the Soviet Union in particular.

2.1.1 Versions of modernisation

To paint the background of the transformations experienced by the case-study group during the first years of Soviet modernisation, it is first necessary to understand the basic principles and presuppositions of modernisation theory in general. The aim of the chapter’s first section is to introduce the basic foundations of modernisation theory and the theoretical basis for national modernisation, which will prepare the ground for a subsequent more specific analysis of Soviet modernisation.

Modernisation is a broad term used “to describe the intellectual, political, social and economic changes that distinguished the modern world from ancient and medieval times” (Hoffman 2003, 7). It can be defined in terms of two features common to all modern political systems: social interventionism and mass politics (Hoffman 2003, 7). In its turn modernisation is understood as “a type of social change, a process of transformations to social, economic and political systems, and the rapid change of human society since the Industrial Revolution, or the frontier changes of modern civilizations” (He 2010, 6). The policy implications of modernisation vary in different countries, stages, and fields. In the mid-twentieth century modernisation theory became the core of the policies of the developing countries. It influenced such processes of their economic development as the driving of industrialisation, the mechanisation of agriculture, and the rise of urbanisation. Systematic modernisation research and theories are the basic components of modernisation science. It influences human societies in different regions, their development, interactions, dissemination, and antagonisms. The independent study of modernisation is a new interdisciplinary science.

Modernisation science includes not only the study of modernisation (He 2015, 41);

it covers changes in modern civilisations, principles of national advancement, international competition, and differentiation. Although there is no single interpretation of the term ‘modernisation’, it has a number of theoretical meanings.

Its task is “to move from model and deduction to contemporary history and

observation, and then back again to more powerful theory and hypothesis” (Nash 1984, 7).

Modernisation science is also a knowledge system. It consists of seven parts (He 2015, 63): general theory; the history of modernisation; stage-specific modernisation; level-specific modernisation; field-specific modernisation; sector-specific modernisation; and modernisation policies. Basic research studies identify the world frontier of human civilisation and explain the laws which govern changes to it. It begins in the eighteenth century with the Industrial Revolution and the works of the Scottish political economist Adam Smith. The nineteenth century brought an expansion of the Industrial Revolution and works by British political economist David Ricardo and German philosopher Karl Marx. The twentieth century saw the transition of modernisation, and modernisation studies was incorporated in the social sciences or the humanities, involving such fields of study as politics, environment, economy, society, culture, and environment. In the twenty-first century it is forming its own paradigm and analysis structure.

Modernisation has been explained from three perspectives (He 2015, 61): its basic and theoretical meanings, and its policy implications. Its basic meaning includes an understanding of the act or process of becoming modern or meeting modern demands, or the understanding of a state with modern characteristics.

“The experience of modernity at the turn of the twentieth century is closely related to the second Industrial Revolution as technological and conceptual changes are informed by and inform different and alternating temporalities, experiences, and interests” (Schleifer 2000, 121): it therefore transforms the experience of time and space. During the last decades of the twentieth century modernisation as a theory was evaluated as a product of the post-Second World War period (So 1990).

Classical modernisation theory was developed in the late 1940s as an interdisciplinary research framework which studied “the conditions for, and possibilities of democratic reconstruction in Western Europe and the Far East”

(Müller 1995, 267). This process was described as a dual revolution in behavioural methodology and the concept of system. In the 1950s, as European colonial empires in Asia, Africa, and Latin America disintegrated, modernisation theory arose from evolutionary and functionalist theory, both of which provided the basis for a new social order.

Modernisation is often associated with an evolutionary approach:

Unlike Marxism, which viewed social change as being driven by the contradiction be-tween the productive forces and the ownership of means of production, modernisation is an evolutionary theory, best known in the work of Talcott Parsons. Societies devel-op, it is contended, not through class struggle, but through the actions of people striving to adapt to, and to improve, their economic, political and social environment (Lane 2006, 52).

Evolutionary theory assumed that social change was unidirectional: human society invariably moved in one direction from a primitive to an advanced state, and the fate of human evolution was predetermined. The evolutionary process was a priori seen as good, because it represented progress and civilisation. In the evolutionary process social change was seen as peaceful. In its turn functionalist theory contributed such concepts as system, the functional imperative, homeostatic equilibrium, and pattern variables, along with a vision of human society as a biological organism, which can be studied as such (So 1990).

Evolutionary theory influenced the foundation of the main directions of modernisation theory as follows:

Modernization is a phased process (from primitive through advanced modern stages);

it is a “homogenizing process”, producing tendencies toward convergence among so-cieties; it is a Europeanization (or Americanization) process (since those are the most advanced nations in the world); it is an irreversible process (once Third World coun-tries come into contact with the West, they will not be able to resist the impetus to-ward modernization); it is a desirable progressive process; it is a lengthy process, tak-ing generations to complete (So 1990).

This classical version of modernisation theory has become the object of the critics of both evolutionary and functionalist theories. Critics have challenged the evolutionary assumptions of unidirectional development in Western civilisations.

In criticising the functionalist influence, attention has been paid to the assumption of an incompatibility between tradition and modernity, and whether traditional and modern values are in fact mutually exclusive. Since Third World countries have heterogeneous value systems and their cultural systems are replete with conflict, the functionalists hold to the misleading view that societies in the past were peaceful and stable.

These classical modernisation researchers (Rostow 1960; Parsons 1960) were criticised for formulating their arguments at such a high level of abstraction that it was hard to know which country and which historical period they were discussing.

Their arguments were anchored to deep generalisation, their propositions were beyond limits of time and space, and they adopted a cross-national method. Critics of the classical modernisation school have pointed to its misleading evolutionary and functionalist assumptions, methodological problems, and ideological biases.

If, in the late 1960s, little attention was paid to these critics, by the late 1970s their criticisms began to be taken seriously, and the modernisation school modified some basic premises, in the process creating ‘new modernisation’ studies. Since that period the critics of early modernisation arguments have yielded to the mushrooming of new modernisation theories (He 2010, 5). Like classical modernisation studies, these new theories focused on Third World development, and the analyses in these studies were conducted at the national level. The studies

aimed to explain that development occurs mainly through internal factors such as cultural values and social institutions.

The contemporary new modernisation school has avoided treating tradition and modernity as exclusive concepts. It holds that tradition and modernity coexist, and the beneficial role of tradition is emphasised. The methodology has changed:

studies have tended to focus on concrete cases. It is now taken for granted that Third World countries can pursue their own paths of development, whilst not denying the role of external factors. This school suggests (e.g. He, Martinelli) that the revision of classical modernisation theory is going in several directions. Aspects of classical modernisation theory under re-examination include: modernisation seen as a historical necessity; tradition as a barrier to modernisation; modernisation as irreversible; modernisation as linear; modernisation as Westernisation or Americanisation; and modernisation as the end of historical development.

J. Scott has stated, in reference to the grandiose and utopian plans for a new society applied by the Soviets, that the term ‘high modernism’ would be more appropriate than modernism (Scott 1998, 88). “Where utopian vision goes wrong is when it is held by ruling elites with no commitment to democracy or civil rights and who are therefore likely to use unbridled state power for its achievement.”

(Scott 1998, 89). Critically, an understanding of “high modernism implies a truly radical break with history and tradition” (Scott 1998, 93).

The concept of high modernism does not contradict the application of a universal theory of modernisation. It is a vision of “great paradoxes of social engineering at odds with the experience of modernity generally” (Scott 1998, 93).

Since modernisation science is interdisciplinary, it borrows its research methods from different fields of study. General research methods of modernisation science may include observation, survey, simulation, hypothesis, quantitative and qualitative analysis, and case study. From the natural and social sciences it borrows various research methods, starting with the frontier analysis of modernisation and continuing with the analysis or interpretation of modernity and the analysis of particularity and diversity.

One of the essential features of revised modernisation studies is an interest in modernisation’s mechanisms. The specific features of every single case of modernisation give us a picture of its mechanism and its elements.

The modernisation of civilization contents is an essential part of the modernisation process. Civilization contents include all sorts of civilizational elements, such as be-havior, structure, institutions, and ideas. Generally, the modernization of civilization contents is a composite process of the alternate innovation, selection, diffusion, and the withdrawal of civilization elements; it includes the two-way circulation of the immovation, selection, and diffusion of civilization lements and the reversible with-drawal of civilization elements, which together form a hypercycle (He 2010, 91).

Evolutionary theory assumed that social change was unidirectional: human society invariably moved in one direction from a primitive to an advanced state, and the fate of human evolution was predetermined. The evolutionary process was a priori seen as good, because it represented progress and civilisation. In the evolutionary process social change was seen as peaceful. In its turn functionalist theory contributed such concepts as system, the functional imperative, homeostatic equilibrium, and pattern variables, along with a vision of human society as a biological organism, which can be studied as such (So 1990).

Evolutionary theory influenced the foundation of the main directions of modernisation theory as follows:

Modernization is a phased process (from primitive through advanced modern stages);

it is a “homogenizing process”, producing tendencies toward convergence among so-cieties; it is a Europeanization (or Americanization) process (since those are the most advanced nations in the world); it is an irreversible process (once Third World coun-tries come into contact with the West, they will not be able to resist the impetus to-ward modernization); it is a desirable progressive process; it is a lengthy process, tak-ing generations to complete (So 1990).

This classical version of modernisation theory has become the object of the critics of both evolutionary and functionalist theories. Critics have challenged the evolutionary assumptions of unidirectional development in Western civilisations.

In criticising the functionalist influence, attention has been paid to the assumption of an incompatibility between tradition and modernity, and whether traditional and modern values are in fact mutually exclusive. Since Third World countries have heterogeneous value systems and their cultural systems are replete with conflict, the functionalists hold to the misleading view that societies in the past were peaceful and stable.

These classical modernisation researchers (Rostow 1960; Parsons 1960) were criticised for formulating their arguments at such a high level of abstraction that it was hard to know which country and which historical period they were discussing.

Their arguments were anchored to deep generalisation, their propositions were beyond limits of time and space, and they adopted a cross-national method. Critics of the classical modernisation school have pointed to its misleading evolutionary and functionalist assumptions, methodological problems, and ideological biases.

If, in the late 1960s, little attention was paid to these critics, by the late 1970s their criticisms began to be taken seriously, and the modernisation school modified some basic premises, in the process creating ‘new modernisation’ studies. Since that period the critics of early modernisation arguments have yielded to the mushrooming of new modernisation theories (He 2010, 5). Like classical modernisation studies, these new theories focused on Third World development, and the analyses in these studies were conducted at the national level. The studies

aimed to explain that development occurs mainly through internal factors such as cultural values and social institutions.

The contemporary new modernisation school has avoided treating tradition and modernity as exclusive concepts. It holds that tradition and modernity coexist, and the beneficial role of tradition is emphasised. The methodology has changed:

studies have tended to focus on concrete cases. It is now taken for granted that Third World countries can pursue their own paths of development, whilst not denying the role of external factors. This school suggests (e.g. He, Martinelli) that the revision of classical modernisation theory is going in several directions. Aspects of classical modernisation theory under re-examination include: modernisation seen as a historical necessity; tradition as a barrier to modernisation; modernisation as irreversible; modernisation as linear; modernisation as Westernisation or Americanisation; and modernisation as the end of historical development.

J. Scott has stated, in reference to the grandiose and utopian plans for a new society applied by the Soviets, that the term ‘high modernism’ would be more appropriate than modernism (Scott 1998, 88). “Where utopian vision goes wrong is when it is held by ruling elites with no commitment to democracy or civil rights and who are therefore likely to use unbridled state power for its achievement.”

(Scott 1998, 89). Critically, an understanding of “high modernism implies a truly radical break with history and tradition” (Scott 1998, 93).

The concept of high modernism does not contradict the application of a universal theory of modernisation. It is a vision of “great paradoxes of social engineering at odds with the experience of modernity generally” (Scott 1998, 93).

Since modernisation science is interdisciplinary, it borrows its research methods from different fields of study. General research methods of modernisation science

Since modernisation science is interdisciplinary, it borrows its research methods from different fields of study. General research methods of modernisation science