Sociology of Development

Modernization theory
Modernization refers to specific location to given period of time
which is the result of westernization and it takes a contrast to
its traditional society'.
Emergence of modernization: -
David Harrison quote that there is no Modernization theory.
Rather this term is shorthand for a variety of perspectives that
were applied by non-Marxists to the third world in 1950s and
1960’s the dominant themes of such perspectives arose from
established sociological traditions involve the interpretation
often consciousness of the conscience of classical sociology
evolutionism diffusionism structural functionalism systems
theory and interactionism all combined to help form mismatch
of ideas that came to be known as modernization theory.
we can trace back the emergence of modernization theory or
perspective from three historical roots which was raised during
post-World War 2
1. first rise of us as a superpower
2. Second spread of united communist movement also
known as communism
 3. disability degradation of European colonialization which
led to the formation or rise of the third world countries in
Asian Africa and Latin American continents.
modernization perspective is an interdisciplinary innovation
and modernization schools were established during 1950s
during those. There is no particular guide to guide the scholars
so they depend on 2 important theories 2 draw their
prospectus of modernization
1 is evolutionary theory
second is functionalistic perspective.
Evolutionary theory
According to evolutionary theory - Societies develop in stages,
progressing from simple to complex forms, much like biological
evolution. Change is gradual, cumulative, and directional. In
many respects, the beginning of modernization theory can be
traced to antiquity of evolutionary theory ad it is also a
development from traditional to modern industrial society.
Philp’s k bock core idea of modernization theory Post–World
War II theory rooted in economics, sociology, and political
science. Argues that traditional societies can develop into
modern ones by adopting Western-style institutions, values, and
technologies. Evolutionary theory can be drawn out of two
important revolutions which was happened during late 18th
century and early 19th century the first one is French Revolution
which gives the ideology of new principles known as liberty
equality and fraternity where we can see the overthrown of
monarchy and establishment of republican form of government
for the first time in decades.
Industrial revolution is a form of revolution which gave new
ways to rise of productivity in textiles and automobiles and it
revolutionize the society from agrarian to modern industrial
society.
Question
Evolutionary in nature but not in revolutionary approach?
social change has often contrasted evolutionary and
revolutionary approaches. An evolutionary process refers to
gradual, cumulative, and adaptive transformation within a
society’s existing structures, while a revolutionary process
involves abrupt, fundamental, and often disruptive shifts that
replace one system with another. Thinkers like Herbert Spencer
and later anthropologists such as Philip K. Bock emphasized
that many social changes including those envisioned in
modernization theory are evolutionary in nature, as they build
on prior institutions and cultural patterns rather than
dismantling them entirely.
ideological perspective, evolutionary change is grounded in the
belief that societies progress through incremental
improvements, guided by reason, innovation, and the
refinement of institutions, without the disruptive upheaval of a
revolution. Thinkers influenced by liberal modernist ideology,
such as Auguste Comte or Herbert Spencer, conceptualized
change as a natural unfolding of social complexity, where
reforms replace the need for radical breaks. In this view, change
is legitimized when it preserves social order and continuity,
aligning with capitalist-democratic ideals that see stability as a
precondition for progress. In contrast, revolutionary approaches
—often tied to Marxist or radical ideologies—frame gradualism
as insufficient for dismantling structural inequalities, but the
evolutionary stance prioritizes consensus and avoids
destabilizing conflict.
From a functionalist perspective, as developed by scholars like
Talcott Parsons, evolutionary change maintains the integrity of
the social system by allowing institutions to adapt organically to
new demands while preserving equilibrium. Functionalists see
social systems as interdependent structures, where sudden
revolutions risk disrupting the functions that maintain societal
cohesion. Instead, incremental changes such as gradual policy
reforms, technological innovations, or shifts in social norms are
understood as adaptive responses that enhance the system’s
capacity without threatening its core stability. In this light,
evolutionary change is not passive but a continuous
recalibration, ensuring that societal functions (economic
production, governance, socialization) remain effective amidst
shifting conditions. Thus, both ideologically and functionally,
evolutionary but non-revolutionary change is framed as an
orderly, adaptive, and stability-preserving pathway to progress.
Marion Levis theory sociological approach
Marion J. Levy, in his seminal book “Modernization and the
Structure of Societies” (1966), Modernization late comers and
survivors (1972) provided one of the most systematic
sociological explanations of modernization. His thesis [ Title of
his thesis: - relatively modernized societies v/s relatively non
modernized societies.] emphasizes that modernization is
essentially a process of structural differentiation, where
societies move from relatively simple, traditional forms to more
complex and functionally specialized system.
1. How Modernization defined?
modernization is defined by the extent to which tools are
used to increase our inanimate source of power.
* Distinct from other through inanimate source of power.
*it is a form of matter or degree
Levi divided countries into two parts developed and
developing or 3rd world countries - the development of Third
World countries can be understood as their transition from
non-modern to modern societies Modernization in these
 countries occurs through industrialization, expansion of
education, urbanization, bureaucratization, and the adoption
of new technology.
2. Differences Between Relatively Modernized and Non-
Modernized Societies
Levy compared modernized and non-modernized societies
using specific indicators:
 Specialization of Organizations: Modern societies exhibit
greater specialization, as seen in Émile Durkheim’s division
of labor, where different institutions take on distinct roles
(e.g., education, healthcare, law enforcement). By
contrast, in traditional societies, functions are often
undifferentiated and performed within the family or
community. In modern societies, organizations (schools,
banks, companies) are highly specialized, while in
traditional societies, one institution (like family or religion)
performs multiple roles.
 Interdependency of Organizations: Drawing from
functionalism and Durkheim, Levy argues that modern
institutions are more interdependent. For instance,
industrial production relies on educational systems for
skilled labor, legal systems for regulation, and markets for
distribution. Traditional societies are less tightly
interlinked, as local economies remain self-sufficient.
 Relationship Emphasis: Talcott Parsons’ “pattern variables”
help explain how modern societies emphasize
universalism, achievement, and functional specificity,
whereas traditional societies rely on particularism,
ascription, and diffuse roles. For example, in modern
economies, hiring depends on merit and qualifications,
unlike kinship or caste-based systems in traditional
societies.
 Degree of Centralization: Traditional societies are highly
centralized around rulers or kin groups, while modern
societies distribute power through bureaucracies and
democratic systems.
 Generalized Media of Exchange and Market: Modern
societies rely on money and advanced markets, while non-
modern societies depend more on barter or subsistence
exchange.
 Bureaucracy and Family Culturalization: Bureaucratic
systems dominate in modern societies, whereas family and
kinship dominate decision-making in non-modern ones.
 Town–Village Interdependency: In modernized societies,
towns and villages are linked through trade,
communication, and migration, unlike traditional societies
where villages are relatively isolated.
For example, comparing the U.S. (a highly modernized society)
with rural tribal societies in Africa illustrates these contrasts in
institutions, markets, and relationships.
3. Perspectives on Third World Modernization
Third World modernization is often uneven and hybrid
traditional institutions coexist with modern structures. Levy
noted that these societies face tensions between old values and
new roles. For instance, in India, family and caste systems still
influence politics and economics despite growing bureaucratic
rationality. Similarly, in Latin America, modernization through
urbanization and industrialization has coexisted with persistent
rural underdevelopment and inequality. This perspective shows
that modernization is not uniform but shaped by local histories
and cultural patterns.
4. Why Modernization Occurs?
Levy argued that modernization occurs because societies must
adapt to internal pressures (population growth, economic
needs, social mobility) and external pressures (colonialism,
global trade, technological diffusion). Modernization becomes a
necessity for survival in a global system dominated by modern
industrial powers. For example, Japan’s Meiji Restoration (1868)
was driven by the realization that without modernization
industrialization, military reform, education reforms it would
remain vulnerable to Western domination. Thus, modernization
occurs as a response to both internal aspirations and external
challenges.
Neil Smelser theory
Neil Smelser, an American sociologist, is widely recognized for
his contribution to the theory of modernization through his
book *Social Change in the Industrial Revolution* (1959).
Smelser was influenced by the functionalist perspective,
especially from scholars like Talcott Parsons, and he attempted
to explain how social structures evolve during the process of
modernization. His work focuses on the structural
differentiation of society and the accompanying problems that
arise when societies undergo development. Smelser
emphasized that modernization is not a simple linear process
but a complex transformation of social institutions, values, and
cultural orientations. He viewed modernization as structural
change in which societies shift from traditional, undifferentiated
systems to modern, specialized, and interdependent
institutions.
A central concept In Smelser’s theory is **structural
differentiation**. According to him, development or
modernization occurs when broad, multifunctional institutions
in traditional societies gradually split into specialized
institutions with distinct functions. For example, in pre-modern
societies, the family often performed multiple functions:
economic production, education of children, religious practices,
and emotional support. With modernization, these functions
became separated economic production moved to factories and
workplaces, education became institutionalized in schools, and
religious activities were taken up by formal organizations like
churches. The family, in modern contexts, primarily retained its
role of emotional support and child-rearing. This shift from
multifunctional to specialized institutions demonstrates how
modernization restructures the fabric of society.
Smelser also stressed the importance of **functional
interdependence**. As institutions differentiate, they become
more specialized and dependent on each other to fulfill societal
needs. For instance, in a traditional village economy, production
and consumption may occur within the same household,
making each unit largely self-sufficient. In modern industrial
societies, however, factories depend on schools to provide
trained workers, governments to enforce labor laws, and
markets to distribute goods. This interconnectedness makes
modern societies more efficient but also more vulnerable to
disruptions. For example, if an education system fails to
prepare individuals with adequate skills, it directly affects the
economy and labor market. This interdependence, therefore,
creates both opportunities for growth and potential social
problems.
Another crucial theme in Smelser’s theory is value conflict.
Modernization brings rapid social change, which often
generates tensions between traditional values and modern
demands. As societies modernize, traditional norms may lose
their authority, creating conflicts within communities and
between generations. For example, in many developing
countries, young people adopt modern values related to gender
equality, career aspirations, and lifestyle choices, which often
clash with traditional expectations such as arranged marriages
or patriarchal family structures. Smelser argued that such
conflicts are an inevitable part of modernization because
structural differentiation disrupts established cultural patterns.
Smelser also highlighted the role of **structural strain** and
social problems during modernization. Structural strain arises
when new social institutions do not adequately replace the
functions of traditional ones, or when differentiation leads to
gaps in fulfilling essential needs. For instance, as extended
families break down in urban, industrial societies, issues such as
loneliness among the elderly or lack of childcare for working
parents emerge. Similarly, as new economic and political
institutions evolve, inequalities and social distances may widen,
leading to unrest or conflict. Smelser suggested that
modernization does not eliminate social problems but instead
transforms their nature. For example, where pre-modern
societies might struggle with subsistence and food shortages,
modern societies grapple with unemployment, alienation, and
social violence.
A related dimension of Smelser’s theory Is his recognition of
**multiple functions of traditional structures** and the
problems created when these functions are redistributed. He
noted, for instance, that the transition from extended families
to nuclear families can generate challenges. In traditional
settings, extended families provided economic security, care for
the elderly, and socialization for children. When modernization
reduced the family to a smaller, nuclear unit, the absence of
extended support systems created problems such as the need
for welfare institutions or state intervention. This shows that
modernization is not always smooth but often produces new
tensions and requires adaptive mechanisms.
Smelser’s insights also extend to **new agencies and
institutions** that emerge during modernization. As older
institutions lose some of their roles, new organizations step in
to handle specialized functions. For example, where
communities once managed social order informally, modern
societies rely on bureaucratic institutions like the police and
courts. Similarly, voluntary organizations, NGOs, and
professional associations become important actors in
addressing social issues that traditional institutions can no
longer manage.
Importantly, Smelser’s theory avoids overly deterministic or
optimistic interpretations of modernization. Unlike some
modernization theorists who viewed development as a
straightforward path toward progress, Smelser emphasized that
modernization is accompanied by problems, conflicts, and
strains. He warned that modernization without proper planning
could lead to instability rather than development. For instance,
if industrialization occurs without sufficient investment in
education or healthcare, it can result in exploitation, inequality,
and social unrest. His functionalist perspective, however,
suggested that societies tend to adapt and create new
structures to restore balance, though this process can be
uneven and conflict-ridden.
A concrete example of Smelser’s theory can be observed In the
industrial revolution in England, which he studied closely. The
shift from agrarian to industrial society led to the differentiation
of work, education, and family life. Factories took over
production, schools became responsible for education, and new
political movements emerged to represent workers’ rights.
However, this process also created problems like poor working
conditions, child labor, and class conflicts, illustrating Smelser’s
point that modernization brings both development and new
strains. Similarly, in contemporary contexts, countries like India
illustrate Smelser’s framework. The movement from rural
agricultural systems to urban industrial and service economies
has produced structural differentiation (specialized education,
corporate sectors, IT industries) but also value conflicts
(between traditional family roles and modern career
aspirations) and structural strains (like unemployment, social
inequality, and urban poverty).

In conclusion, Neil Smelser’s theory of modernization provides a

nuanced understanding of social development by focusing on
structural differentiation, interdependence, value conflict, and
structural strain. His framework explains how modernization
reshapes traditional societies into complex, specialized systems,
while also highlighting the tensions and problems that arise in
the process. By recognizing both the opportunities and the
challenges of modernization, Smelser’s theory remains relevant
for analyzing social change in both historical and contemporary
contexts.
Ww Rostow’s theory
Introduction
Walt Whitman Rostow, an American economist and political
theorist, is best known for his **modernization theory of
economic growth**, which he proposed in the 1960s. His
theory emerged during the Cold War period, when Western
nations sought to explain and encourage the development of
newly independent countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Rostow argued that all societies progress through a set of stages
of economic development and that modernization is a linear
process leading toward industrialization, mass consumption,
and prosperity. His theory, while optimistic, was deeply
influenced by Western experiences—especially the
industrialization of Europe and North America.
Book
Rostow presented his theory in his influential book *“The
Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto”*
(1960). The title itself reflected his intention to provide an
alternative to Marxist theories of development. Rostow
proposed that every country could achieve modern economic
growth if it followed the right policies and passed through five
distinct stages. His framework became a cornerstone of
modernization theory and shaped U.S. development policies
during the mid-20th century.
The Five Stages of Economic Development.
1. The Traditional Stage
This is the **pre-modern stage** of society, dominated by
subsistence agriculture, primitive technology, and limited trade.
Productivity is low, social structures are rigid, and most people
live in rural communities. Economic growth is stagnant because
surplus production is minimal. For example, medieval Europe
before the agricultural revolution, or pre-colonial African
societies, can be seen as traditional economies. In this stage,
cultural values are often oriented toward religion and tradition
rather than progress or innovation.
2. Transitional Stage (Preconditions for Take-Off)
In this stage, societies begin to lay the groundwork for
development. There is a **shift in mindset** from traditional
values to modern aspirations, such as improving productivity
and embracing science and technology. Investment in
infrastructure—roads, railways, ports, and education—becomes
important. New leadership often emerges, encouraging
openness to trade and innovation. For instance, Britain during
the 17th and early 18th centuries, with its agricultural
improvements, colonial trade expansion, and early
mechanization, represents this stage. Similarly, India today is
experiencing preconditions for further take-off with its
investment in digital infrastructure, manufacturing, and
education reforms.
3. Take-Off Stage
The take-off stage is the **critical turning point** where
economies experience sustained growth. Industrialization
begins, investment rates rise sharply, and specific sectors (like
textiles, steel, or IT in modern contexts) expand rapidly.
Urbanization accelerates as labor shifts from agriculture to
industry. This stage requires political stability, investment in
technology, and mobilization of capital. Britain’s Industrial
Revolution in the late 18th century is the classic example, where
factories, mechanization, and trade transformed the economy.
Japan in the late 19th century also exemplifies this stage when it
rapidly industrialized after the Meiji Restoration.
4. Drive to Maturity
In this stage, growth becomes **self-sustaining** as new
industries replace older ones and technological innovation
spreads across the economy. The society becomes more diverse
and sophisticated, with increasing emphasis on education,
professionalization, and social mobility. Exports expand beyond
raw materials to include manufactured and technologically
advanced goods. For example, the United States in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries fits this stage, when it moved from an
agricultural economy to one dominated by steel, automobiles,
and infrastructure development. South Korea in the late 20th
century is another example, where rapid industrialization
expanded into electronics, automobiles, and shipbuilding.
5. High Mass Consumption Stage
The final stage is marked by **affluence and consumerism**.
Economies focus on producing durable goods (cars, appliances,
electronics) and providing services such as healthcare,
education, and entertainment. Living standards are high,
poverty declines, and societies emphasize welfare, democracy,
and leisure. This stage reflects modern Western countries such
as the United States, Canada, and Western Europe after World
War II. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S.
experienced a booming consumer culture with suburbanization,
mass automobile ownership, and expansion of higher
education.
Conclusion
W\.W. Rostow’s theory of modernization provides a linear
model of economic development, emphasizing that all societies
can progress from traditional subsistence economies to
advanced, industrial, and consumer-driven systems. His five
stages—traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off,
drive to maturity, and high mass consumption—offer a
framework to analyze historical development and
contemporary growth. While the model has been criticized for
its Western bias and oversimplification, it remains influential in
development studies. Real-world examples—from Britain’s
industrial revolution to South Korea’s rapid growth—
demonstrate how Rostow’s framework can help us understand
the transformation of societies through modernization.
David mc Cleland
Here’s a **600-word explanation of David McClelland’s theory
of modernization** in paragraph format, following your
requested structure with examples.
Introduction
David McClelland, a renowned American psychologist, is widely
recognized for his work on **human motivation and its role in
economic development**. Unlike other modernization theorists
who emphasized structural or institutional changes, McClelland
highlighted the **psychological factors** behind development.
His central idea was that societies modernize when individuals
develop certain motivations, especially the “need for
achievement.” By linking culture, personality, and economic
growth, McClelland’s theory provided a unique perspective on
how modernization depends not only on institutions or
technology but also on the psychological drives of people.
Book
McClelland presented his ideas in the book *“The Achieving
Society”* (1961). In this work, he argued that economic
development requires not only investments, infrastructure, and
policies but also a cultural orientation that promotes individual
ambition, competitiveness, and innovation. Drawing on
psychological experiments and historical studies, McClelland
suggested that nations with high levels of **achievement
motivation** in their population were more likely to modernize
and achieve economic growth. His theory influenced
development programs during the mid-20th century, especially
in countries like India, where training programs were
introduced to instill achievement motivation among
entrepreneurs.
Theory
At the core of McClelland’s modernization theory is the idea
that **individual motivations shape societal progress**. He
believed that certain cultures foster psychological traits that
encourage people to take risks, work hard, and seek success,
while others discourage such attitudes. Modernization, in his
view, required creating a culture that values achievement and
innovation. For instance, Protestant ethic values in Western
Europe, which emphasized hard work and personal
responsibility, were linked to the rise of capitalism and
industrialization. By contrast, societies that prioritize tradition
or group conformity over individual initiative may face barriers
to modernization.
McClelland identified **three major types of motivation**—
the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need
for power. He argued that among these, the need for
achievement was the most crucial for modernization and
economic development, although the other two also play roles
in shaping social behavior and leadership.
1. Need for Achievement
The **need for achievement ** refers to the internal drive to
excel, succeed, and accomplish challenging goals. Individuals
with high nAch are willing to take calculated risks, work
persistently, and seek innovative solutions. According to
McClelland, societies with a larger number of people motivated
by achievement are more likely to experience entrepreneurship,
industrial growth, and modernization.
For example, the rise of small business entrepreneurs in post-
independence India illustrates this concept. McClelland’s own
research in India in the 1960s involved training programs to
increase achievement motivation among local entrepreneurs.
Those who received such training were more likely to start
businesses, expand production, and contribute to economic
growth. Similarly, Silicon Valley in the United States provides a
modern example, where individuals driven by high achievement
needs created global innovations in technology.
2. Need for Affiliation
The **need for affiliation ** refers to the desire for close
relationships, belonging, and social acceptance. People with
high nAff are motivated to maintain harmony, avoid conflict,
and be liked by others. While this motivation is essential for
creating social bonds and cooperation, McClelland argued that
excessive focus on affiliation could sometimes hinder
modernization.
For example, in traditional rural societies, people may prefer
maintaining family ties, community acceptance, and social
conformity over pursuing individual risk-taking ventures. This
can reduce entrepreneurship and innovation. However,
affiliation is not always a barrier; it can also create networks of
trust and cooperation that support collective efforts in
development. Microfinance initiatives, such as the Grameen
Bank in Bangladesh, succeed partly because they build on
strong group affiliations and trust among community members,
enabling poor women to participate in entrepreneurial
activities.
3. Need for Power
The **need for power ** refers to the drive to control,
influence, or lead others. Individuals with high power
motivation seek authority, status, and recognition. According to
McClelland, power motivation can play both positive and
negative roles in modernization. When channeled
constructively, power motivation encourages leadership,
institution-building, and mobilization of resources for
development. For instance, strong political leaders like Lee Kuan
Yew in Singapore used their influence to transform their nations
into modern, industrialized economies.
However, if power motivation is misused, it can lead to
authoritarianism, corruption, and exploitation, which hinder
development. For example, in many post-colonial African states,
leaders driven by personal power often centralized authority,
leading to political instability and economic stagnation. Thus,
McClelland emphasized the need for balancing power
motivation with achievement-oriented values to ensure
modernization benefits society as a whole.
Conclusion
David McClelland’s theory of modernization highlights the
psychological foundations of development. Through his book
*The Achieving Society*, he argued that motivations—
especially the **need for achievement**—are crucial drivers of
economic progress. While the need for affiliation ensures social
harmony and the need for power enables leadership, it is
achievement motivation that sparks entrepreneurship,
innovation, and sustained modernization. His theory not only
explained historical patterns of growth, such as the industrial
rise of the West, but also influenced development programs in
countries like India. By emphasizing the role of human
psychology and culture, McClelland provided a distinctive
perspective on modernization, showing that development is not
just about economic resources but also about the motivational
energies of people.
freedom
Alex Inkles
Got it 👍
Here’s a **detailed explanation of Alex Inkeles’ theory of
modernization** in paragraph format with examples:

### Introduction

Alex Inkeles was a prominent American sociologist who

contributed significantly to the study of modernization during
the mid-20th century. Unlike economists such as Rostow or
psychologists like McClelland, Inkeles emphasized the
**individual-level changes in attitudes, values, and behavior**
that accompany modernization. He believed that modernization
is not only about economic growth or structural transformation
but also about creating a **modern man**—an individual with
a mindset suited to the challenges of industrial and democratic
societies. Inkeles’ research was empirical and comparative,
focusing on how individuals in developing nations adapted to
modernization processes.

### Book and Research

Inkeles outlined his ideas in works such as *Becoming Modern:
Individual Change in Six Developing Countries* (with David
Smith, 1974). Based on large-scale surveys conducted in
countries like India, Pakistan, Chile, Argentina, Israel, and
Nigeria, Inkeles and Smith analyzed how individuals’ attitudes
shift as societies modernize. Their findings highlighted that
**modernization at the societal level is closely linked to the
development of modern personality traits at the individual
level.**

### Theory of Modernization

Inkeles’ theory revolves around the concept of the **“modern

man.”** He argued that modernization is successful when
individuals develop certain psychological orientations that align
with industrial and democratic values. These orientations
include openness to new experiences, belief in science and
technology, punctuality, efficiency, rational decision-making,
and active participation in civic life.

For Inkeles, modernization is not merely an external, structural

process but an **internal transformation of people’s attitudes
and worldviews**. He emphasized that without changes in
individual mentality, economic growth and institutional reforms
would not produce sustainable modernization.

### Features of the Modern Man (According to Inkeles)

Inkeles identified several traits that characterize the “modern

man”:

1. **Openness to New Ideas** – A willingness to adopt

innovations, whether technological, social, or cultural. For
example, a farmer shifting from traditional farming
methods to modern machinery demonstrates openness to
new ideas.

2. **Sense of Time and Punctuality** – Industrial societies

demand discipline and punctuality. For instance, factory
workers and office employees must adhere to strict
schedules, unlike subsistence farmers who work according
to seasonal cycles.
 3. **Faith in Science and Technology** – Modern individuals
believe in rational and scientific solutions rather than
relying solely on tradition or superstition. For example,
preferring medical treatment in hospitals instead of
traditional healers.

4. **Participation in Civic and Political Life** – A modern

man actively engages in institutions such as schools, trade
unions, or political organizations. For example, educated
youth in developing countries voting, joining NGOs, or
taking part in social campaigns.

5. **Orientation Toward Equality and Merit** – Modern

individuals tend to value equality of opportunity and
merit-based achievement, rather than status determined
by caste, kinship, or religion. For instance, modern
employment systems based on skills rather than birth
reflect this orientation.

### Examples of Inkeles’ Theory

Inkeles’ comparative surveys revealed that exposure to modern
institutions—such as schools, factories, mass media, and cities
—helps create modern individuals. For example:

* **Schools** teach punctuality, rational thinking, and

meritocracy, thereby fostering modern values.
* **Factories** require discipline, teamwork, and efficiency,
reshaping workers’ attitudes.
* **Mass Media** spreads new ideas and widens horizons,
influencing lifestyles and aspirations.
* **Urbanization** exposes individuals to diversity and
innovation, reducing reliance on rigid traditions.

For instance, a villager moving to the city for factory work is

likely to develop modern traits like punctuality, literacy, and
openness to new ideas. Similarly, women entering the labor
force in developing countries often experience empowerment
and modern attitudes about gender equality.

### Criticism
While Inkeles’ theory highlighted the importance of
psychological and cultural change, critics argue that it
**overemphasizes individual attitudes** and underplays
structural barriers like poverty, inequality, and political
instability. Furthermore, modernization does not always require
adopting Western-style values; societies may modernize while
retaining cultural traditions.
Conclusion
Alex Inkeles’ theory of modernization adds a valuable
perspective by focusing on the role of the **individual and
culture in the modernization process.** Through his concept of
the “modern man,” Inkeles demonstrated that economic
growth and structural reforms alone cannot guarantee
modernization unless individuals adopt new attitudes, values,
and behaviors aligned with modern society. His work reminds
us that modernization is not just about industrialization and
technology but also about transforming human mindsets to
embrace progress, rationality, and civic participation.