This essay will argue for the importance of historical analysis in understanding development and social change. This essay will first provide an understanding of what historical analysis is, and from here look at the dominant theories comprising development and social change, and how these two entities are contrasted. Following this, an example of historical analysis will be used to demonstrate how historical analysis can provide depth and value when understanding development and social change. Finally, limitations to historical analysis will be considered. Throughout the course of this essay, references will be made to various theorists and scholars to support assertions. When considering the value of historical analysis, one must first understand what historical analysis is. Jupp (2006: 135-137) states that historical analysis is a method of “disciplined and systematic analysis” in order to examine the past. Jupp elucidates to explain that historical analysis can be utilised to challenge prevailing assumptions and social theories because it records the history of both dominant powers and marginalised groups, enabling new interpretation and the development of new theories. When studying oppressed and minority groups, historical analysis is valuable in aiding the development of alternative models of social change. Odell (2001: 161-163) substantiates this by stating that historical analysis is characteristically used to develop and critique diverse ranges of political and social theories. More specifically, historical analysis can be utilised to aid in illustrating a theoretical idea, to test a theory, or to generate a new theory. Historical analysis reveals more than theory can on its own, and can provide context and reasoning to... ... middle of paper ... ...reat to the credibility of historical analysis, and if are not overcome, lead to ineffectual and unreliable representations of history (Jupp 2006: 135-137). This would be detrimental when attempting to understand development and social change. Historical analysis plays a vital role in understanding development and social change. This argument has been substantiated with academic scholars and an example of historical analysis relating to modernization. As with all social theories, when considering modernization theory, it is vital to also incorporate comprehensive historical analysis to provide context and to rationalise discrepancies and anomalies. Alone, modernization theory is not enough to contextualise development and social change; however, when combined with historical analysis it can provide further depth and understanding into development and social change.
“One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.”
After a forty years absence, the cultural evolution method was revived in the mid-twentieth century. At first, many rejected the revival of this method, even though they were still using some aspects of the method, i.e. the stages of a cultures development. The twentieth century cultural evolution method differed from the earlier model in a few ways, but the main difference was in the definition of “progress.” During the nineteenth century, “progress” was broadly defined as “the betterment or similarity to modern European culture” (Dunnell, 1988; pg 176-177). During the twentieth century, however, “progress” took the definition of “ the increase in the amount of energy captured by society” (Dunnell, 1988; pg 177). This simply means that the “least developed” cultures used less energy than “more developed” cultures (Dunnell, 1988).
The patterns of living that the world witnesses today are greatly influenced by history. This is because of the fact that history plays an immense role in forming one’s future; the abundant interactions socially, economically, politically, result in repercussions that can hardly be unraveled. However, this does not in anyway mean that one cannot trace today’s state of affairs back to its roots. Tracing today’s occurrences back to their origin is possible due to the fact that the agents’ (nations) origins are known.
“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” This famous quote from Edmund Burke is one that many of us are familiar with. In spite of this, many people disregard history, branding it as unimportant or irrelevant to modern-day situations. However, history is actually a quite important subject with a myriad of lessons to be learned for anybody to apply now and in the future. Additionally, history gives us much needed information about our past, keeping us from forgetting why our nations became the way they are. It allows us to draw parallels between modern events and past events to collect our best judgment and gives us the important knowledge of the origin of our modern world, giving extra credibility
There were major shifts in human development over different times of human existence, two of
The rise of development theory has been an interesting phenomenon. In the latter half of the 20th century, many theorists have tried to explain the origins of "under-development." The debate over the idea of development has been intense, and has led to the emergence of two contending paradigms: Modernization theory and dependency theory. Upon close investigation, one realizes that both theories are problematic. This paper is based on readings of Escobar, Martinussen, Cruise O'Brien, and Pieterse. The purpose of this paper is to chronicle the origins and growth of development discourse, and to show how both paradigms share three flaws: an economist approach to social change, and an ethnocentric and teleological worldview of development, and the perceived universal application of the West's development experience throughout the developing world.
Paul de Man once said, “Modernity exists in the form of a desire to wipe out whatever came earlier, in the hope of reaching at least a point that could be called a true present, a point of origin that marks a new departure.” But what is he really trying to say? Modernity takes out the old and brings in the new, continually upgrading to something else? Modernity appears as a concept of change. It most commonly refers to the social conditions, processes, and discourses resulting from the Age of Enlightenment. The concept of modernity captures the progress of societies, from primitive civilizations, which evolved gradually through discrete stages, reaching a modern age characterized by industrialization and capitalism, concluding in the current, post-modern state of globalization which shapes contemporary society with ever increasing coercion. Modernity can be placed into many different time periods. There are two, however, that are the most relevant: Early modernity and Classical modernity. Early modernity consisted of theorists such as Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville. Classical modernity consisted of theorists such as Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. Many theorists have defined their own form of “modernity” which will be discussed throughout this paper.
... They seem to “rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes” (King 534).
In international parlance, development encompasses the need and the means by which to provide better life for people in poor countries and it includes not only economic growth, although that is crucial, but also human development like...
As Berger says, “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms” (157). The upper class mystifies us to stay in control; without being able to see things in our own way, we are being deprived from our right to understanding ourselves and placing ourselves in a role of society.
Rodney’s argument is broken down into six chapters each consisting of several subdivisions and case studies supporting his principle argument. The first chapter works towards defining the terms of development and underdevelopment and argues the comparative nature of these terms; a country is only ‘underdeveloped’ by European standards. This chapter begins by tracing European development from its early stages of communalism through feudalism and finally capitalism. Then, he works towards developing an understanding of the term ‘underdevelopment’ and through an analysis of a variety of development indices what it constitutes in present day society: “In Niger, one doctor must do for 56, 140 people; in Tunisia one doctor for every 8,320 Tunisians”(18). The Marxist concept of inherent inequalities within the international capitalist system un...
Modernization is defined as the conversion from the former civilizations in society to contemporary society; as it is establish today in the West. It models a perspective of economic, social, and cultural progress that enlightens the global disparity in terms of modifying levels of scientific improvement between societies. By presenting modern approaches in underdeveloped countries, societies will be knowledgeable of solidifications in their economies. This dominant theory refers to a variety of believers of Karl Marx’s perspectives that encourage the explanation of improvement or underdevelopment of countries. Everyone isn’t a fan of Karl Marx’s perspective. The mutual features between Max Weber and Emile Durkheim also interpret the developmental illustration of this theory. Development implies the bridging of these gaps by an imitative process, occurring in stages, such that traditional sectors and/or countries gradually assume the qualities of the 'modern' western. Max Weber observed that with modern civilization the societies would only profit from rationality. The title of Durkheim’s book, Division of Labor in Society, basically summarizes how he views modernization. Durkheim’s believes that with modernization will be the creation of a growing division of labor. He expects the flop of modern social unions in modernization might lead to anomie. Elevation in anomie will eventually cause a growth in crime rates. The theory is in fact a unilinear, ethnocentric theory and it is with all its shortcomings which one can conclude that it provides an unworkable guide to Caribbean development.
Modernisation theory has been a dominant theory since post-World War II (McMichael 2012:5) to describe development and social change. It is structured and outlined through five different stages of 'development ladder' proposed by Walt Whitman Rostow in The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. (1961:4) The first premise of modernisation theory reflected by 'development ladder' is that development happened in a sequential process through stage by stage while the second premise underpinned by ‘development ladder’ is conformity towards West's values and norms. However, these two premises are found to be problematic as they are neglecting the differences in societies and assuming that the 'development ladder' system is applicable to all societies. Thus, Rostow's 'development ladder' is highly challenged as it gathers a lot of critiques.
Development originated in the colonial era, when Europeans constructed domestic and imperial government systems and concentrated within the emerging national states as industrial system fueled by the products of colonial labor regimes (McMichael, p. 2). In the 19th century, development was understood philosophically as the improvement of humankind. European political elites interpreted development practically, as a way to socially engineer emerging national societies (McMichael, p. 3). In the post WWII, United State was concerned how to shape the future of the newly independent states in ways that would ensure that they would not be drawn into the communist Soviet bloc. Motivated by this concern, the United States enlisted its social scientists
Modernization is the term used for the transition from the traditional society of the past to modern society as it is found today in the West. Modernization theory refers to a variety of non-Marxist perspectives which have been put forward to explain the development or underdevelopment of countries. Modernization theory is a model of economic and social development that explains global inequality in terms of differing levels of technological development among societies. Modernization theory presents the idea that by introducing modern methods in "technology, agricultural production for trade, and industrialization dependent on a mobile labour force," the underdeveloped countries will experience a strengthening in their economies. Modernization theory offers an account of the common features of the process of development drawing on the analysis of Durkheim and Weber. Development implies the bridging of these gaps by an imitative process, occurring in stages, such that traditional sectors and/or countries gradually assume the qualities of the 'modern' western countries. There are many proponents of Modernization Theory, such as, Walter Rostow, W.A. Lewis, Talcott Parsons, and Daniel Lerner, however the theory has it's roots in the ideas of Durkheim and Weber. The proponents of the modernization theory all felt that the rest of the world needed to look to the Western model of modernity and pattern their society like the West in order to progress. Modernization theory was developed as an alternative to the Marxist account of social development. Modernization Theory Divides the World into two kinds of societies: "modern" and "traditional." Traditional societies are backward looking : Dominated by religious a...