### Historical Background
Modernization theory emerged in the aftermath of World War II, shaped by major global
developments. The rise of the United States as a global superpower and the onset of the Cold
War created a context in which Western scholars and policymakers became concerned with the
political and economic development of newly independent states in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. These countries, often referred to as the "Third World," were undergoing
decolonization and were seen as potential allies or threats in the ideological competition
between liberal capitalism and communism.
American scholars, supported by government funding and private foundations, began to study
these states intensively with the goal of promoting stability, economic growth, and democratic
governance. This academic endeavor gave rise to what became known as the modernization
school—a network of researchers across disciplines working toward a common theoretical and
practical agenda.
---
### Intellectual Foundations
Modernization theory is rooted in two key intellectual traditions: **evolutionary theory** and
**functionalist theory**. Together, these frameworks provided a way to interpret the social,
political, and economic transformations that Third World societies were expected to undergo.
---
### Evolutionary Theory
At the heart of evolutionary theory lies the assumption that societies develop in a linear and
progressive fashion—from traditional to modern forms. Drawing inspiration from earlier
European thinkers, modernization theorists believed that all societies would pass through a
similar sequence of developmental stages, culminating in industrial capitalism and liberal
democracy.
This approach emphasized gradual, long-term change and positioned Western Europe—and
particularly the United States—as the model of modernity that other societies should emulate.
The transformation from "primitive" to "advanced" was seen not only as inevitable but also as
desirable, reflecting progress and civilization.
---
### Functionalist Theory
The functionalist strand of modernization theory was heavily influenced by the sociologist Talcott
Parsons. He viewed society as a complex system made up of interdependent parts, similar to a
biological organism. Each institution in society—such as the family, the government, or the
economy—was seen as performing essential functions that contribute to the overall stability and
continuity of the system.
According to this view, for a society to survive and prosper, it must fulfill four essential functions:
adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency. These correspond to the roles of the
economy, the political system, legal and cultural institutions, and education or family structures.
When one part of the system changes, other parts adjust to restore balance—this idea is known
as homeostatic equilibrium.
The functionalist outlook often tended to be conservative, assuming that institutions naturally
seek harmony and resist radical disruption. Conflict and structural breakdowns were typically
underemphasized in favor of stability and order.
---
### Pattern Variables and Social Change and The Parsonian Synthesis and the Foundations of
Modernization Theory
Talcott Parsons developed a comprehensive theoretical system that brought together elements
of classical sociology to explain how societies maintain stability and evolve over time. Central to
his approach was the idea of **“meaningful social action”**, which he described as voluntary,
subjective behavior shaped by shared norms and values. He argued that although human
actions are individually chosen, they are socially patterned through what he called normative
orientations—society’s influence on individuals’ beliefs, expectations, and behavior. This
framework emphasized the structured and systemic nature of social life while still allowing space
for individual agency.
Parsons drew heavily from both Durkheim and Weber to build this synthesis. From Durkheim
came the emphasis on collective values and social order, while from Weber, Parsons adopted
the idea that social action is influenced by deeply held cultural and ideological beliefs. He fused
these into a theory that located the individual within overlapping systems: the **personality
system**, the **social system**, and the **cultural system**. These systems interacted with one
another to generate social stability, reproduce norms, and drive long-term societal change.
At the heart of Parsons's theory was the idea that societies must meet four functional
prerequisites—**Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, and Latency**—commonly known as
the **AGIL model**. This model described the functions that every society must perform to
maintain order and survive. Parsons proposed that these functions are fulfilled by corresponding
systems: the economy handles adaptation; political institutions handle goal attainment; legal
and regulatory structures ensure integration; and education, religion, and cultural institutions
perform latency or pattern maintenance. This framework laid the groundwork for understanding
how complex modern societies organize themselves through specialization and institutional
differentiation.
Parsons also introduced the concept of **pattern variables**, which described the value
orientations that guide individual action within a social structure. These variables helped explain
how social actors make decisions in different cultural and institutional contexts—whether they
act according to universal rules or particular relationships, pursue personal achievement or
accept inherited status, and so on. These tensions, Parsons argued, were structured dilemmas
that had to be resolved through socialization and institutional design.
This evolutionary approach to social theory directly informed the core ideas of **modernization
theory**. Like Parsons’s framework, modernization theory conceptualized development as a
linear progression from traditional to modern societies. It viewed modern societies as
differentiated, secular, rational, and achievement-oriented, much like Parsons’s image of an
advanced social system fulfilling its AGIL functions effectively. Both perspectives saw
**differentiation and adaptive capacity**—the ability of institutions to specialize and respond to
environmental challenges—as key markers of societal development.
Modernization theory also borrowed from Parsons’s idea of **adaptive upgrading**, where
societies evolve by developing new subsystems (such as markets or bureaucracies) and
becoming more functionally specialized. In this view, underdeveloped societies were seen as
structurally similar to earlier stages in the evolutionary process. Their transition to modernity
would require institutional reforms that mirrored those in industrialized societies—greater
differentiation of roles, expansion of formal education, urbanization, democratization, and the
weakening of traditional authorities.
Moreover, both theories assumed that culture plays a vital role in shaping development.
Parsons believed that cultural systems, particularly shared value orientations, acted as
stabilizing forces in times of structural change. Similarly, modernization theory stressed the
transformation of values—towards individualism, secularism, and civic participation—as
essential for economic growth and political stability. Cultural change, in both models, was not
only a consequence of modernization but also a precondition for it.
However, Parsons’s synthesis provided a more deeply theorized and internally coherent
explanation of the mechanisms of change than early modernization theorists did. While
modernization theory often simplified development as a one-way path to industrial capitalism,
Parsons’s evolutionary model allowed for multiple developmental trajectories, uneven change,
and systemic breakdown. Nevertheless, the two frameworks were deeply intertwined, and
Parsons’s influence on the **structural-functionalist foundations** of modernization theory was
both direct and profound.
In sum, Parsons’s sociological synthesis offered a highly structured, evolutionary view of social
development, emphasizing stability through institutional integration and change through
specialization. These insights significantly shaped the conceptual core of modernization theory,
which sought to explain how societies evolve from traditional forms toward modern, industrial,
and democratic ones. Together, they represent a mid-20th-century attempt to understand
development as a process of institutional and cultural transformation within a unified theoretical
system.
-
### Summary
Modernization theory provided a comprehensive and ambitious framework to understand the
transformation of non-Western societies in the mid-twentieth century. Grounded in evolutionary
and functionalist thinking, it emphasized the replication of Western development patterns and
prioritized stability, rationalization, and institutional harmony. While influential during its time, the
theory has since been widely critiqued for its Eurocentrism, linear assumptions, and disregard
for internal dynamics and global inequalities. Nonetheless, it remains a key foundational
approach in the study of development and comparative politics.
### Structural Differentiation and Modernization
Neil Smelser’s theory of structural differentiation offers a key sociological perspective on
modernization, particularly in the context of Third World countries. He argues that as societies
modernize, institutions that once performed multiple functions become increasingly specialized.
This transformation, referred to as structural differentiation, leads to the emergence of distinct
institutions, each responsible for a single function. The cumulative effect of these specialized
institutions is greater efficiency in performing the same roles that were once handled within a
single, multifunctional structure.
A common illustration of this is the evolution of the family. In traditional societies, the family had
a complex, multigenerational structure and served many functions—including production,
education, welfare, and religious duties. In modern societies, the family becomes nuclear and
loses many of its earlier roles. These roles are taken over by new institutions such as schools,
corporations, the state, and religious organizations. Although this differentiation leads to greater
societal efficiency, it also introduces new challenges.
---
### The Problem of Integration
Smelser emphasizes that structural differentiation does not occur without consequence. One
significant issue is integration—how to coordinate the activities and values of the now-separated
institutions. In traditional societies, where many functions were internal to the family,
coordination was less problematic. However, in modern contexts, children, for example, must
find employment outside the family, raising questions about how the family and economic
institutions interact.
New mechanisms must be developed to bridge these gaps. Smelser points to job placement
offices and media advertisements as tools that help connect families with the labor market.
Similarly, institutions such as labor unions and government bodies are necessary to protect
workers’ rights and compensate for the family's reduced protective role. These developments
highlight that modernization involves more than functional differentiation; it also demands new
forms of institutional coordination.
---
### Value Conflicts and Uneven Development
Despite the creation of new coordinating institutions, integration is not always successful.
Smelser identifies two major obstacles: value conflicts and uneven development. Differentiated
institutions often operate with distinct sets of norms and values. For instance, the family
emphasizes emotional bonds, while modern economic institutions prioritize impersonal and
rational interactions. This clash can create confusion or tension for individuals, especially those
moving from one setting to another.
Additionally, institutions do not always develop at the same pace. Some areas may lack critical
support systems such as unions or legal protections, even when structural changes have
already displaced traditional roles. This uneven institutional development can result in significant
social dislocation and dissatisfaction.
---
### Social Disturbances and Modernization
According to Smelser, the breakdown in integration caused by structural differentiation can give
rise to various forms of social disturbance. When individuals or groups are displaced or
excluded from the benefits of modernization, they may engage in protests, political unrest, or
even revolutionary movements. This is especially visible in parts of the Third World, where
modernization often displaces rural populations without providing adequate institutional support.
These vulnerable groups can become susceptible to radical ideologies and movements that
promise social redress.
Smelser’s framework draws attention to the disruptive potential of modernization. Rather than
viewing it as a smooth, linear progression, his approach highlights the tensions and
contradictions that arise as societies attempt to transform and reorganize their institutions.
### Structural Functionalism and the Foundations of Modernization Theory
Modernization theory is deeply rooted in structural functionalism, which became a dominant
sociological paradigm in the post–World War II era. Drawing from earlier naturalistic conceptions
of society and later developments in rationalism, structural functionalism offered a framework for
understanding how societies evolve, maintain stability, and respond to internal and external
challenges. This approach assumed that societies are systems made up of interdependent
institutions, each performing specific functions essential to the survival and continuity of the
whole.
One of the key influences on structural functionalist thinking was the work of Émile Durkheim.
His concept of social solidarity, particularly the shift from mechanical to organic forms, became
central to understanding modern societies. Traditional societies, in Durkheim’s view, were held
together by shared identities and roles, whereas modern societies developed a complex division
of labor that increased interdependence among individuals. This transition, while enhancing
productivity and specialization, also generated issues such as anomie—a breakdown of shared
norms—highlighting the need for new forms of social control and integration in modern contexts.
Ferdinand Tönnies contributed to this framework by distinguishing between two types of social
organization: **gemeinschaft** (community) and **gesellschaft** (society). His work illustrated
the movement from close-knit, emotionally bonded groups in traditional societies to more
goal-oriented, impersonal relationships in modern settings. This shift reflected a broader
transformation emphasized in modernization theory: the replacement of tradition-bound social
roles with rational, individualistic, and achievement-based ones.
Structural functionalism supported the idea that modernization involves institutional
differentiation. As societies modernize, institutions that once performed multiple overlapping
functions—such as the family—become specialized. For example, education, employment, and
welfare are taken over by distinct institutions like schools, corporations, and the state. While this
specialization increases functional efficiency, it also introduces challenges related to the
coordination—or integration—of these new institutional roles.
Within this theoretical framework, the modernization process is often seen as a natural and
necessary evolution toward complexity, rationality, and efficiency. However, the transition is not
always smooth. Structural functionalism acknowledges the risks of instability when institutional
development does not keep pace with social change. This theme was central to the work of
Samuel P. Huntington, who argued that rapid economic development, if unmatched by strong
political institutions, leads to disorder and instability. His emphasis on institution-building reflects
the modernization theorists' broader concern with creating structures capable of managing
social change.
Huntington’s later work also linked modernization with identity crises, suggesting that as
traditional bonds weaken, individuals seek new sources of belonging—often found in religion.
This argument supports the idea that modernization, while promoting secular and rational
values, also triggers countermovements rooted in cultural and civilizational identities. Such
tensions complicate the linear and progressive narrative of modernization, revealing deeper
conflicts that may arise in a rapidly globalizing world.
In conclusion, structural functionalism provides the intellectual scaffolding for understanding
modernization theory. It conceptualizes societal change as a movement toward increased
differentiation, specialization, and rational organization. At the same time, it highlights the
integration problems and identity disruptions that emerge during this process. Through the
contributions of theorists like Durkheim, Tönnies, and Huntington, modernization theory has
come to reflect both the promises and contradictions inherent in the transformation from
traditional to modern societies.
### Political Conservatism and Elitism
One of the central critiques of structural functionalism is its political conservatism. While it
provided a more nuanced sociological understanding of economic actors than classical
economics, it remained committed to preserving the existing social order. In modernization
theory, this translated into an emphasis on elite-led development, where stability and control
were prioritized over transformative change. Critics argue that the theory supports social
hierarchies by framing them as functional necessities, thereby justifying inequalities and
discouraging dissent.
### Structural Functionalism and Neoliberalism
Modernization theory, as influenced by structural functionalism, often aligns with neoliberal
values. Both frameworks assume that competition—between individuals or societies—is natural
and necessary for progress. This logic is not only used internally to enforce conformity but also
externally to justify expansion and domination, echoing the dynamics of imperialism. Such
thinking reduces development to a survival-of-the-fittest model, where control and order are
paramount.
### Alvin Gouldner’s Critique: Order Over Conflict
Sociologist Alvin Gouldner offered a pointed critique of Parsons’ version of structural
functionalism, accusing it of privileging value transmission over value creation. By emphasizing
social stability and downplaying conflict, the theory overlooks crucial aspects of social dynamics,
such as resistance, power struggles, and exploitation. Gouldner argued that structural
functionalism views change as gradual and non-threatening, reinforcing the interests of
dominant groups. Its vision of social development is unidirectional and equilibrium-focused,
which makes it ill-suited to explain revolutionary or transformative change.
### Functionalism’s Teleological Bias
Anthony Giddens provided a more theoretical critique of functionalism by identifying its
**teleological** character. He argued that functionalist theory presumes that history moves
toward a pre-determined end, which limits the understanding of purposeful human action.
Functionalism borrows from biology, treating societies as systems with needs, but Giddens
maintained that societies do not have “needs” in the same sense as organisms. Instead,
individuals possess desires and make decisions based on conscious intentions, a fact that
functionalism often obscures.
### Giddens on Structure, System, and Human Agency
Giddens further challenged structural functionalism for conflating “structure” and “system.” While
functionalism treats structures as fixed and self-regulating, Giddens emphasized that structures
are continuously produced and reproduced through human action. This insight led to his theory
of **structuration**, where human agents, through reflexivity and intentionality, actively shape
and reshape social systems. Unlike functionalist homeostasis, which implies automatic
adaptation, Giddens highlighted human agency and the role of knowledge, monitoring, and
interpretation in guiding social behavior.
### Change, Power, and the Role of Human Action
A key aspect of Giddens’s critique is the insistence that social change cannot be understood as
purely adaptive or externally driven. Structural functionalism attributes change to outside shocks
or slow evolutionary pressures, neglecting internal struggles and the conscious efforts of social
actors. Giddens, drawing on Marx, argued that humans do not merely adapt to nature but
transform it. In his view, power is not a by-product of systems but a central element of human
action. Agents act with the intent to influence outcomes, and in doing so, they reproduce and
sometimes transform social structures.
---
### Conclusion
The critique of structural functionalism centers on its limited capacity to explain social change,
its conservative political implications, and its neglect of agency, conflict, and power. While it
provided the intellectual foundation for much of modernization theory, its focus on stability, elite
control, and gradual differentiation has drawn significant criticism. Alternative approaches, such
as Giddens’s structuration theory, offer more dynamic and actor-centered accounts of social
development, challenging the static and system-bound logic of functionalist thought.
### Structural Functionalism and the Origins of Modernization Theory
Despite being heavily critiqued, structural functionalism continued to shape sociological
discussions of development well into the 1970s. One of its main contributions was the
formulation of **modernization theory**, which viewed development as a linear, evolutionary
process through which societies transformed from "traditional" to "modern." This framework
borrowed heavily from the structural-functionalist approach, particularly from the ideas of Talcott
Parsons. It emphasized the need to study how social structures change and how societies move
toward a modern industrial state.
### Eisenstadt and the Modern Industrial Model
Sociologist **S. N. Eisenstadt** was one of the leading proponents of this theory. According to
him, modernization theory aimed to assess how similar a given society was to the model of a
modern industrial society. This model served as a benchmark, and the level of development was
determined by how closely a society’s institutions, structures, and values matched this ideal.
Eisenstadt emphasized that development involved a process of **social transition**—moving
from traditional structures toward more complex, rational, and specialized systems that
characterize modernity.
### The Role of Differentiation and Value Change
A central element in modernization theory was the idea of **structural differentiation**, which
refers to the increasing specialization of roles and institutions within society. For Eisenstadt,
modernization involved several key shifts:
* The creation of **free resources** not bound by inherited group identities (ascriptive groups
like caste or tribe).
* A shift from local, ethnic, or clan-based identities to **national or even supranational
identifications**.
* The emergence of **specialized roles and regulatory mechanisms** across all major
institutional sectors, such as market systems in the economy, political parties and voting in
politics, and bureaucracies in administration.
Modernization also meant the **erosion of traditional values** and the rise of attitudes that
supported innovation, meritocracy, and rational decision-making. As traditional elements
declined, societies were seen as more capable of managing and absorbing continuous change.
### Sectoral Dimensions of Modernization
Modernization theory explained transformation across various dimensions of society:
* **Economic modernization** involved occupational specialization, industrialization, and the
spread of market mechanisms.
* **Social and spatial modernization** referred to processes like **urbanization**, **mobility**,
and the **expansion of education**, which helped break traditional constraints.
* **Political modernization** included the spread of democratic institutions, decline of traditional
elites, and the development of participatory politics.
* **Cultural modernization** emphasized **secularization**, the **separation between religion
and philosophy**, and the rise of a new **intelligentsia**—a modern class engaged in critical
and rational thinking.
Modern societies were characterized by the spread of **modern communications media**,
which transmitted elite-produced culture to the masses. This helped instill new attitudes focused
on **individual self-advancement**, or what Ferdinand Tönnies referred to as *gesellschaft*—a
form of social organization centered on personal autonomy, impersonal relationships, and
contractual ties.
### Modernization and U.S. Political Science
These ideas found strong resonance in political science during the 1950s and 1960s, especially
within the **U.S. Social Science Research Council’s Committee on Comparative Politics**,
which was established in 1954. This committee helped integrate sociological modernization
theory into the study of **Third World development**. At the time, U.S. foreign policy also began
to view development as a strategic concern, especially in the context of Cold War rivalry with the
Soviet Union. Thus, modernization theory became a tool for **countering communist influence**
in the Global South.
Many scholars did not see a conflict in aligning academic work on development with the foreign
policy goals of the U.S. government. They saw modernization as a **non-communist path** to
national progress and political stability. Through this lens, development was seen as a
**gradual, evolutionary process** driven by increasing human capacity for innovation,
adaptation, and goal-setting.
### The Development Syndrome and Its Contradictions
According to these modernization theorists, the so-called **development syndrome** included
multiple interrelated features: increased equality, greater system capacity, and further structural
differentiation. However, these processes also produced **social tensions and strain**. In
traditional societies, such strain could disrupt or halt modernization altogether. **James
Coleman (1971)** observed that while development improved capabilities and participation, it
also introduced instability due to the erosion of established norms and values.
### Decline and Critique of Modernization Theory
By the late 1960s and 1970s, several factors led to a decline in the popularity of modernization
theory. One key reason was growing opposition to the Vietnam War and widespread criticism of
U.S. foreign policy. Many began to question the close ties between modernization theory and
American political interests. In this climate, political science turned away from
structural-functional and modernization approaches and looked to **alternative frameworks**
such as **dependency theory**, which offered a more critical perspective on development and
global inequality (Wiarda 1998).
