Modernization and Revlution

Polisci 311 Xiangzhen Liu

Modernization and Revolution

Huntington links revolution tightly with modernization. He says that a revolution is a rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic change in the dominant values and myths of a society, in its political institutions, social structure, leadership, and government activity and policies. He argues that revolution is one way of modernizing a traditional society.

So in the theory of Huntington, there are two kinds of societies: the traditional society and the modern society. The traditional society which exists before the beginning of modernization is highly stable and with limited political participation. After revolution, modernization is achieved. Another form of steady society is created. Some factors (not complete) features such a society: 1, the highly developed domestic economy; 2, constitutional form of government; 3, opposition expressed freely and legally; 4, mature civil society. Huntington describes the development of revolution. However, the following part presents the picture of revolution in more detail and tries to reveal that revolution is not surely the bridge linking traditional society and modern society..

Usually, the revolution can be divided into several stages:

1, Social mobilization and social stability

Modernization theory has two key hypotheses. One is the antithesis between tradition and modernity. The other is the antithesis between social mobilization and social stability. Social mobilization means that new groups step into political life. When a new political power which is against existing political institutions has formed and is becoming stronger and stronger, the traditional society is in danger of disintegration. Some conflicts emerges which cannot be resolved by traditional methods. More and more social members are involved in acting against the existing social institution and public order.

Along with the steady growth of social mobilization, traditional society declines and disappears in the end. It is the conflicts among various groups that leads to the end of traditional society.

2, The invalidity of traditional values

Values might refer to a set of rules which control people’s actions in social life.

Social values adjust and change all the time. Otherwise, the civilization would decline.

But mobilization is quite different from adjustment. The latter is a kind of gradual, limited change, and will not cause the end of traditional society in most of cases.

The validity of traditional values is in doubt when some problems not only cannot be resolved by traditional methods, but also cannot be settled within the existing social framework. Compared to that in western countries, traditional values become invalid much more sharply in non-western countries. In the original place of modernization, the invalidity of traditional values is the result of self-examination or introspection, that is, new values has already been created before old ones are disposed. Traditional values are found useless during introspection. On the contrary, the traditional values become invalid at the very beginning of the revolution in non-western countries. In western countries, although the change of ideas is the result, it is also one of the conditions of revolution in non-western countries. The invalidity of traditional values is the first step to social mobilization. At this stage, only a few persons who are in the front line of cultural conflicts can feel such a crisis. The whole society is in order and far away from upheaval at that time.

3, The split of the elite

The elite split when traditional values become invalid. This also deepens the social mobilization. The elite who are in the front line of cultural conflicts and who belong to the minority culture realize first the dilemma the society is facing. Even though the mass are more and more involved in the social activity during modernization, the elite in traditional society act first at the very beginning of modernization, just as in other historically important events.

At first, the elites split into revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries.

Revolutionaries advocate change in the political institutions while counterrevolutionaries object any alternation. The focus between revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries is whether or not the exist institutions should be changed in order to deal with new circumstances. If the power of counterrevolutionaries is not so strong, the central government might lead an effective reform, just like the case of Japan. However, if the power of revolutionaries is less than that of counterrevolutionaries, the prospect of modernization is obscure. Ironically, the more powerful the counterrevolutionaries are , the more probable the society steps into violent revolution. Then another group, the radicals, emerges from the revolutionaries. Now, three groups, moderate, counterrevolutionaries, and radicals are struggling for power.

In the early stage of modernization, when the society splits according to different political ideas, who makes public policies becomes very crucial. Generally, the group that owns the greatest power and has the most substantial social foundation makes policies. In such circumstances, both political principles and political skills are needed to keep the society in order. When the moderates control the government, the society seems to be stable for some time if the moderates master the skill of negotiation and cooperation. However, this kind of order is weak and can easily be disturbed even by an accident, because the social foundation is changing.

4, The conflict between the radicals and the counterrevolutionaries

Usually, the revolutionaries and the counterrevolutionaries can exist in the same political system. But after the creation of the radicals, it is impossible to keep the old political framework untouched. When the radicals stand in the front of history, they resort to violent tools in order to realized their ideas absolutely. In the eyes of the radicals, the only aim of revolution is to overthrow the existing government , to smash the old social order, to build up a completely new set of social and political institutions.

If modernization is defined as radical changes in politics, economy, society and culture, each country that seeks modernization might experience revolution. But the time the revolution lasts is quite different in different countries. In England, it takes 20 years to complete the revolution, from 1640 to 1660; 26 years in France, from 1789 to 1815; 8 years in America, from 1775 to 1783. The time a revolution takes has great effects on the social development after conflict and disorder.

Revolution stops only when the old social order disappeared completely. In other words, revolution will not end unless the radicals come into power. During the conflicts between the radicals and the counterrevolutionaries, most social resources are used up. The development of domestic economy slows down. The longer the revolution lasts, the more severe the revolution is, the less successful the modernization is. The revolution can lead to modernization, but it is the most painful road of modernization one country might have.

5, After revolution

Order and revolution are two wholly different values. During the progress of modernization, revolution destroys various orders belongs to traditional society.

However, when the radicals succeed, when they come into power, some problems remain unsolved. (Engles discusses the social disorder caused by the conflicts between ideal society and reality after France Revolution.) Disappointed by the social reality after revolution, social members regard economic development as the most important thing.

Political rights become trivial suddenly, they can be dispended to get social stability and order.

The immediate result of revolution is not modernization, at least it is the case in some South-east Asian countries and Latin-American countries. Military dictatorship can result in some countries. The results are not the same in western and non-western countries might because domestic social conditions and international environment are greatly different in these two kinds of countries.