Concepts of Modernization in Western Sociology: the Methodological Aspect

This article examines concepts of modernization in Western sociology. It outlines two main models: isomorphic and non-isomorphic. The criteria for thus outline is the principle of correlation of the real (economic relationships) and symbolic (cultural and political subsystems). In the isomorphic model, modernization is understood to be a comprehensive, societal process affecting all areas of society. It maintains the view of the necessity of some general characteristics of the transition to a modern society which allow such a transition to be termed modernization. The undervaluation of socio-cultural specifics of non-western societies characterizes this approach, which complicates the process of their Westernization. This is partly related to a reduction in modernization in favor of differentiation. In a range of cases, the understanding of the correlation between economic and political modernization moves from a correlational relationship to a causal one. Moreover, in the isomorphic model, the stadial and civilizational approaches are sufficiently similar to one another than they become mutually interchangeable. Supporters of the non-isomorphic model broaden the boundaries of what is understood to be modernization, as opposed to Westernization. This broadening of these definitions has theoretical, methodological and practical significance. This helps to evaluate the ability of various civilizations to enter the modern world and develop in it. Along with this, among some supporters of the non-isomorphic model a tendency has been observed of the erosion of the idea of modernization due to the inclination towards the identification of many types of modernization in many societies, the reduction of modernization in favor of transformation, and the undervaluation of exogenous factors. Criticisms of S. Lipsett’s approach comes down to the principle of correlation between profit and democracy. In the non-isomorphic model, the balance between the stadial and civilizational approaches often interrupted in favor of the previous one. Supporters of both models are separated by the principle of correlation between the real and symbolic in Lipsett’s approach. One group adopts it, the other criticizes it. However, the weaknesses of the Lipsett approach are not a justification for rejecting it. It is sufficient to view it as a series of hypotheses, compared with which the concept of “multiple modernizations” problematic more problematic.