MODERNIZATION

MEANING
The term modernisation “does not denote any philosophy or movement, but it only symbolises a process of change. In fact, “Modernisation” is understood as a process which indicates the adoption of the modern ways of life and values”. The term was being used previously to refer only "to change in economy and its related effect on social values and practices". It was also described as a process that changed the society, from primarily agricultural to primarily industrial economy. As a result of the change in the economy, the society itself underwent changes in values, beliefs and norms. But, today the term is given a broader meaning.
Today, the term, ‘Modernisation’ is understood as an attempt, on the part of the people, particularly those who are custom-bound, to adopt themselves to the present time, conditions, styles, and ways in general. It indicates a change in people's food habits, dress habits, speaking styles, tastes, choices, preferences, ideas, values, recreational facilities and so on. It is also described as “social change involving the elements of science and technology”. The scientific and technological inventions have brought about remarkable changes in the whole system of social relationship and installed new ideologies in the place of traditional ones.
M.N. Srinivas, however, criticises the concept of Modernisation, according to him, it is a value-loaded term. He says that “Modernisation is normally used in the sense that it is good. He, therefore, prefer to use the term ‘Westernisation’ which characterises the changes brought about in Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule”. Yogendra Singh, on the other hand, defends the concept of modernisation. According to him, it is broader than the two processes of Sanskritisation and Westernisation. It is, indeed a 'cultural universal' and not necessarily confined to any single society. Like science, modernity is not an exclusive possession of any one ethnic or cultural group. It belongs to the humanity as a whole. This does not mean that everywhere it should reveal the same pattern. It need not always take place on the model of England, Germany, France or America. It can take place on the model of Russia, India, Japan, Australia, or any other country for that matter. What is essential to modernisation is this - a commitment to “scientific world view” and a belief in the humanistic and philosophical viewpoint of science on contemporary problems.
DEFINITION
1. Daniel Lerner.
Daniel Learner who introduced the term "Modernisation" for the first time in his study of the middle-Eastern societies—uses it to refer to the changes brought about in a non-Western country by contract, direct or indirect with a Western country. To quote his own words : “Modernisation is the current term for an old process of social change whereby less developed societies acquire the characteristics common to more developed societies”.

2. Smelser.
Modernisation refers to “a complex set of changes that take place almost in every part of society as it attempts to be industrialised. Modernisation involves ongoing change in a society's economy, politics, education, traditions, and religion”.
3. Alatas.
“Modernisation is a process by which modern scientific knowledge is introduced in the society with the ultimate purpose of achieving a better and a more satisfactory life in the broadest sense of the term as accepted by the society concerned”.
4. Rutow and Ward (1964)
The basic process in Modernisation is the application of modern science to human affairs.
5. Eisenstadt
Modernisation refers to both (a) structural aspects of social organisation, and (b) socio-demographic aspects of societies.

CHARACTERISTIC OF MODERNISATION

As it has already been mentioned, the process of modernisation has different dimensions. The spirit of modernisation is expressed in different areas such as - social organisation, culture, political field, economy, education, etc., in different ways. Broadly speaking, the process of modernization reveals the following important characteristics:
Modernisation includes – “a temple of science, reason and rationalism, secularism, high aspiration and achievement orientation, overall transformation of attitudes norms and values, creation of new functional institutions, investment In human resources, a growth oriented economy, a national interest rather than kin, caste, religion, region or language oriented interests, an open society, and a mobile person” - (Ram Ahuja  “Indian Social System”).
According to B. Kuppuswamy, “the main feature of Modernisation is the building up of an ‘open society’ in which individuals of talent, enterprise and training can find places in the society appropriate to their achievement... The process of Modernisation involves an increase in social unrest till the social system is responsive to the new aspirations built up by the Modernisation process”. It should, however, be noted that the same process of modernisation institutes appropriate change in the social system to meet the rising expectations of the people.

CAUSES OF MODERNISATION
What factors condition modernisation? What conditions lead to modernisation? What conditions hinder it? In exploring suitable answers to these questions sociologists look within the society to discover the various factors, groups, people and agencies and instruments that contribute to modernisation. Modernisation is not caused by any single factor. It is the net result of a number of factors.
Myron Weiner speaks of five main instruments which make modernisation possible :
Education, mass communication, ideology based on nationalism, charismatic leadership and
coercive governmental authority.

1. Education
Education, that too higher education, pertaining to the fields of science and technology, provides the basis of modernisation. Education involves a sense of national loyality and creates skills and attitudes essential for technological innovation. Edward Shils has also emphasised the role of education in the process of modernisation. Still people like ArnoldAnderson feel that formal education is not sufficient for teaching skills. University education may increase the number of students with degrees without an increase in the number of people with modern skills and attitudes. By this we cannot underscore the importance of education in national development which is believed to be associated with modernisation. "National development depends upon a change in knowledge - what people know, skills - what people can do, and attitudes - what people can aspire and hope to get”. This is the reason why in the recent decades education including mass communication is given utmost importance.
2. Mass Communication
The process of modernisation hinges on the phenomenon of mass communication. The development of mass communication (including newspapers, periodicals and magazines, T.V., radio, telephone, movies, etc.) is an important means of spreading modern ideas at a faster rate. The function of mass media is to open up to the large masses in society, new information, new thought, new attitude and new aspirations which lead them to new achievement. "The mass media is the device that can spread the requisite knolwedge and attitudes quickly and widely". The only danger with the mass media is that if these are controlled by the government, they will spread only one-sided view that suits their political ideology. But in democracies, however, the press is often given sufficient independence to express its views.
3. Ideology Based on Nationalism
Nationalism and democracy are very much linked with modernisation. Nationalism is connected with national awareness and political consensus. As far as the West is concerned, the democratic system came to be strengthened along with the development of nationalism. The nationalistic ideologies serve as unifying influence in bridging social cleavages within plural societies. They also help the political elite in changing the behaviour of masses of people. Mass media plays a vital role in democratic societies to spread modern views, ideas, values, etc., by persuading the masses. But it is argued out that even though the political elite have modern ideology. Their mere possession of it does not guarantee development from the modern perspective.
4. Charismatic Leadership
A Charismatic leader is in a better position to impress upon the people to adopt modern beliefs, values, practices and behaviour patterns. But the danger involved here is that this popular leader may take the undue advantage of his position and use modern values, ideas etc., for his personal glorification rather than for the national development.
5. Coercive Governmental Authority
A strong and stable government may adopt coercive measures to compel people to accept the modern values and ways of life. It may also bring pressures on other governments and people to follow the same. The Government of America under the presidentship of George Bush (The previous President of U.S. A.) made use of various tactics and strategies to bring pressure on the underdeveloped and developing countries to follow the modern ways and practices.
6. Other Factors
To the list of factors explained above, we may add two other factors :
(a) urbanisation and industrialisation; and (b) universal legal system.
(a) Urbanisation and Industrialisation
Urbanisation and industrialisation are the two interrelated processes that are assumed to be invariably linked up with modernisation. These two processes can also be understood as two factors that accelerate the tempo of modernisation. 'Urbanisation' refers to the process of growth and expansion of cities. Most of the modernised countries are either dominated by the cities or under the grip of the process of urbanisation. “Industrialisation” refers to the unprecedented growth and expansion of industries. It has become virtually the sine quo non of economic and technological development.
(b) Universal Legal System
In a traditional society bound by traditional values and customs the rate of change is relatively slow. But a society that functions on the basis of the universally accepted legal system is bound to be more ‘open’. The “rule of law” is indeed, one of the prerequisites of Modernisation. The present legal system places premium on the individual protecting his rights and assuring his freedom. This role of the legal system supports the cause of “Individualism”. The modern legal system has contributed a great deal to the scientific management of the industries.

WESTERNIZATION

The role of ‘Westernisation’ has been very significant in understanding the socio-cultural changes of modern India. British rule produced radical and lasting changes in the Indian society and culture. The British brought with them, (unlike the previous invaders) new technology, institutions, knowledge, beliefs, and values. These have become the main source of social mobility/or individuals as well as groups. It is in this context, M.N. Srinivas, a renowned sociologist of India, ‘introduced the term’ ‘Westernisation’ mainly to explain the changes that have taken place in the Indian society and culture due to the Western contact through the British rule.

Definition of the Term “Westernization”

According to M.N. Srinivas, ‘Westernisation’ refers to ‘the changes brought about in Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule and the term subsumes changes occurring at different levels - technology, institutions, ideology, values (Ref.: “Social Change in Modern India” By M.N. Srinivas)

M.N. Srinivas criticises Lerner’s concept of ‘modernisation’ on the ground that it is a value loaded term. According to him, “Modernisation” is normally used in the sense that it is good. He, therefore, prefers to use the term ‘Westernisation’. He describes the technological changes, establishment of educational institutions, rise of nationalism and new political culture, etc. as almost the bye-products of Westernisation or the British rule of two hundred years in India. Thus, by Westernisation, Srinivas primarily meant the British impact.

“During the 19th century the British slowly laid the foundations of a modern state by surveying land, settling the revenue, creating a modern bureaucracy, army and police, instituting law courts, codifying the law, developing communications - railways, post and telegraph, roads and canals establishing schools and colleges, and so on...” (Srinivas). The British brought with them the printing press which led to many-sided changes. Books and journals made possible the transmission of modem as well as traditional knolwedge to large number of Indians. Newspapers helped the people living in the remote corners of the country to realize their common bonds and to understand the events happening in the world outside.

More than any other thing the Western education had an impact on the style of living of the people. They gave up their inhibition towards meat-eating and consumption of alcohol. They also adopted Western style of dressing and dining. As Gandhiji wrote in his “Autobiography”, educated Indians undertook the task of' 'becoming English gentlemen in their dress, manners, habits, choices, preferences, etc.” It included even learning to appreciate Western music and participating in ball dancing. Western education resulted in a big change in the outlook of those educated.

M.N. Srinivas says that it is necessary “to distinguish conceptually between Westernisation and two other processes usually concomitant with it. - Industrialization and Urbanisation.” He gives two reasons for this: “'(i) Urbanization is not a simple function of' 'industrialisation'” and there were cities in Pre-industrial world” also. “'(ii) There are cases of rural people who are more urbanised than urban people”.

MAIN FEATURES OF WESTERNISATION

1. In comparison with Sanskritisation, Westernisation is a simpler concept. As it is already made clear, it explains the impact of Western contact (particularly of British rule) on the Indian society and culture. M.N. Srinivas defends the uses of the term when he says that there is “need for such a term when analysing the changes that a non-Western country undergoes as a result of prolonged contact with a Western one”.

2. Westernisation Implies, according to Srinivas, “certain value preferences”. The most important value, which in turn subsumes several other values, is “humanitarianism”. It implies “an active concern for the welfare of all human beings irrespective of caste, economic position, religion, age and sex”. He further observes that equalitarianism and secularisation are both included in humanitarianism. Humanitarianism underlay many of the reforms introduced by the British in the first half of the 19th century. As British rule progressed "rationality and humanitarianism became broader, deeper and more powerful...” The humanitarian outlook among the Westernised elite led first to social reform movement and later on to the independence movement. They were actually aware of existing social evils like child marriage, taboos against widow remarriage, seclusion of education, taboos against intercaste marriages, intercaste dining, untouchability etc. Social reform

movements started with the efforts of Raja Ram Mohan Roy who founded the “Brahma Samaj”, Arya Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Sri Ramakrishna Mission and such other movements that followed later, too had imbibed in them the humanitarian values.

3. Westernisation not only includes the introduction of new institutions (for example, newspapers, elections, Christian missionaries) but also fundamental changes in old institutions. For example, India had schools long before the arrival of the British. But they were different from the British-introduced schools in that they had been restricted to upper caste children and transmitted mostly traditional knowledge. Other institutions such as the army, civil service and law courts were also similarly affected.

4. The form and pace of Westernisation of India varied from region to region and from one section of population to another. For example, one group of people became Westernised in their dress, diet, manners, speech, sports and in the gadgets they used. While another absorbed Western science, knowledge and literature, remaining relatively free from certain other aspects Westernisation. For example, Brahmins accepted the Western dress habits and educational systems and also used gadgets such as radio, television, car, telephone etc. But they did not accept the British diet, dancing, hunting and such other habits. This distinction is, however, only relative and not absolute.

5. According to Srinivas, Westernisation pervades political and cultural fields also. He writes “In the political and cultural fields, Westernistion has given birth not only to nationalism but also to revivalism communalism, ‘casteism’, heightened linguistic consciousness, and regionalism. To make matters even more bewildering, revivalist movements have used Western type schools and colleges, and books, pamphlets and journals to propagate their ideas”

6. As M.N. Srinivas claims, “The term Westernisation unlike ‘Modernisation’ is ethically neutral. Its use does not carry the implication that it is good or bad, whereas modernisation is normally used in the sense that it is good.”

7. According to Srinivas, “the increase in Westernisation does not retard the process of Sanskritisation. Both go on simultaneously, and to some extent, increase in Westernisation accelerates the process of Sanskritisation. For example, the postal facilities, railways, buses and newspaper media, which are the fruits of Western impact on India render more organised religious pilgrimages, meetings, caste solidarities, etc., possible now than in the past”

8. The term Westernisation is preferable to ‘Modernisation’, M.N. Srinivas asserts. “He contends that modernisation presupposes' rationality of goals' which in the ultimate analysis could not be taken for granted since human ends are based on value preferences and "rationality could only be predicted of the means not of the ends of social action". He considers the term "Modernisation" as subjective and the term 'Westernisation' as more objective. (Whereas writers such as Daniel Lerner, Harold gould, Milton Singer and Yogendra singh consider the term 'Modernisation as more preferable in place of Westernisation).

SANSKRITIZATION AND BRAHMINIZATION

Sanskritisation is a much broader concept than Brahminisation. M.N. Srinivas preferred it to Brahminisation for some reasons:

(i) Sanskritisation is a broader term and it can subsume in itself the narrower process of Brahminisation. For instance, today, though by and large, Brahmins are vegetarians and teetotalers, some of them such as Kashmiris, Bengalis and saraswath Brahmins eat non-vegetarian food. Had the term ‘Brahminisation’ been used, it would have become necessary to specify which particular Brahmin group was meant.
(ii) Further, the reference groups of Sanskritisation are not always Brahmins. The process of imitation need not necessarily take place on the model of Brahmins. Srinivas himself has given the example of the low castes of Mysore who adopted the way of life of Lingayats, who are not Brahmin but who claim equality with Brahmins. Similarly, the smiths (one of the lower castes) of Mysore call themselves Vishwakarma Brahmins and wear sacred threads and have sanskritised some of their rituals. (Still, some of them eat meat and drink liquor. For the very same reason, many castes, including some untouchable castes do not accept food or water from their hands). The lower castes imitated not only Brahmins but also Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Jats, Shudras, etc. in different parts of the country. Hence the term Brahminisation does not completely explain this process. M.N. Srinivas himself acknowledged this fact and wrote: “I now realise that, I emphasized unduly the Brahminical model of Saskritisation and ignored the other models Kshatriya, Vaishyas and Shudra...” (“Social Change in Modern India - 1971).

SANSKRITIZATION

Sanskritization is a process by which a “low” Hindu caste, or tribal or other group, changes its customs, ritual, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high, and frequently, a “twice” born caste. It is followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy than traditionally concealed to the claimant caste by the local community. Such claims are made over a period of time, sometime a generation or two before they are conceded

(Srinivas, 1966).

The concept of Sanskritization is given by M. N. Srinivas. According to him, Sanskritization had been occurring throughout the Indian history. It may be viewed as the model of social mobility in India. To understand this concept it is important to distinguish between two related concepts of Varna and caste. Varna is an all-India framework and in this framework human society is divided into four hierarchical groups (Varnas). They are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra. Untouchables are outside the Varna system. On the other hand caste refers to hereditary, endogamous groups which form a hierarchy, each having a traditional association with one or two occupations. Castes groups maintained relations in terms of purity and pollution. There were many castes which were only regional in character. Regarding hierarchy, in each region there are certain castes which are considered to be at the top and certain other castes are considered to be at the bottom. An interesting aspect of the caste system has been that the claims to position are contested and there is no general agreement regarding hierarchy, at least at the middle level.

Further, through Sanskritization, i.e., by changing customs, rituals, ideology and way of life towards upper castes people belonging to a particular caste claim a superior status on the caste hierarchy. This may or may not be granted by others and sometimes the matter reached the king who gave the final verdict. At times castes would fight violently till a status claimed by them is granted to them. Srinivas maintained that Sanskritization, however, led only to positional change but not structural change. This means that the perceived positions of different castes may change but it would not affect the Hindu belief in caste hierarchy. To be Hindu is to belong to a caste with a relative place in the hierarchical division.

Srinivas agrees that Sanskritization was only one source of mobility in Hindu society. Initially, he observed that Sanskritization means emulating the life styles of Brahmins. In his later works, however, he maintained that Indian culture being highly varied and the beliefs about status of a Varna being dependent on local culture, there were several models of Sanskritization:

Brahmin model, Kshatriya model, Vaisya model; and Shudra model. 

Thus Brahmin model was only one of them. The concept of dominant caste supplemented the concept of Sanskritization in some way. At some places if the tribal groups were dominant, the other groups followed the tribal customs and thus one can also speak of a tribal model of Sanskritization.

The following example shows the process.
Imagine that an outsider or an untouchable group decides to enter the caste society. By accumulating power they can enter the caste hierarchy at the level of Kshatriyas. Then the people belonging to caste of genealogists and bards create genealogical links and myths about them. Subsequently the outside or untouchable groups acquire the high Kshatriya status. Secular power influences ritual ranking. For a long time Sanskritization may have worked.

The major factors in Sanskritization were:

· Fluidity of political system with bardic caste having the special privilege of legitimization of the origin of different castes and Varnas
· Position of the dominant caste
· Pilgrimage
· Migration of values and beliefs from great tradition to little tradition
· Secular factors in determining the position of caste (in addition to pollution and purity)
· Migration to new areas
· Bhakti movement that established the idea of equality before God and thus the idea of
equality among different groups and castes
After independence of the country, the issue of social mobility became more complex and cases of Sanskritization, de-Sanskritization as well as re-Sanskritization (Singh, 1974) were observed. Due to the policy of positive discrimination adopted by Indian government now an increasing number of groups laid claim to backward status rather than high status. Some of them claim a backward status in state matters and a forward status in society.

Source: Open sources