ABSTRACT

12. ‘Modernity entails democracy, and democracy in the new states, even where it is not representative, must above all be egalitarian* Shils, 1962, pp. 9/10.13. This may reflect as much on the character of the targets as on anything else. Seers, 1970, makes some telling points about the nature of the conventional statistical indicators of economic growth.14. Just how nominal this ‘socialism’ could be is indicated by the appreciation of its expression in the ideas of Senghor and Kenyatta by American ambassadors Mercer Cook and William Attwood (Senghor, 1964; Attwood, 1967). The ‘Colloquium on Policies of Development and African Approaches to Socialism’ held in Dakar in Decem­ber 1962, represented the early nadir of this ‘ideology’. Jean Lacouture observed that ‘The distinction, always somewhat artificial between “revolutionary” and “reformist” Africa now seems altogether obsolete.. . . What is even more striking is that nobody challenged the necessity of calling upon foreign aid and investment’. Quoted in Arrighi and Saul, 1968, p. 158; see also Zolberg, 1964.15. For observations on the use of this and other Parsonian pattern variables, see Frank, 1967, p. 24 ff.16. See, inter alia, the monographs of Epstein, 1962; Hill, 1963; Belshaw, 1964. Recent theoretical essays relating to modernization by anthropologists are Belshaw, 1965; Nash, 1966.17. The notion of different ‘routes’ to modernity is most clearly seen in the construc­tion of typologies of modernizing Elites-this is illustrated with reference to industrial­ization in Lamb, 1952; and, notably, Kerr et al, 1964. Typologies of regimes have con­stituted a major analytical tool in the political modernization literature-see Coleman, 1960; Shils, 1965; Apter, 1963b, 1967.18. Differential economic and financial mechanisms related to ‘degrees of backward­ness’ within the pre-1914 European economy are analysed by Gerschenkron, 1952, 1962. Barrington Moore, Jr., 1967, is an outstanding wide-ranging comparative study which deserves to have a major influence in ‘bringing back history* into the sociology of development.19. Rostow, 1967, pp. 162/4; Andreski, 1968, although in this case the characteriza­tion of what is ‘pathological’ stems from the idiosycratic and highly irascible perspective of the author rather than from the dictates of an explicit model of modernization.20. Quoted in Worsley, 1964, p. 52; Kiernan, 1969, provides a wealth of references in a fascinating historical survey of ethnocentric attitudes, many of which remain unnervingly familiar.21. Quoted by Gough, 1969, p. 144. See also Africa Research Group, 1969; Chomsky, 1969.22. See the excellent resume by Lukes, 1968. This type of reductionism, of course, militates against the rationale of any social science. The ‘sociologism’ of Emile Durkheim, for example, expressed a reaction against the analytical individualism of much nineteenth-century thought.23. For a theoretical discussion, see Gouldner, 1959.24. Moore, 1963; Bendix, 1963, 1967b. Moore, the foremost American sociologist of industrialization, is really a critic within modernization theory, as, say, Robert Merton, is within functionalism. Bendix is a historical and comparative sociologist in the Weberian tradition.25. See, inter alia, Shils and Finch, 1949; and for interpretations of Weber’s meth­odology, Aron, 1968; Freund, 1968; Parsons, 1968.26. Parsons, 1968, pp. 601/10-’The Ideal Type and Generalized Analytical Theory*. Parsons’ criticism of Weber is that the latter was too hesitant to go beyond a certain level of abstraction.27. Industrialization, of course, may be the crucial mechanism in many cases. However, there has been a reaction against the tendency to overemphasize the role of industrialization-see, for example, Nettl and Robertson, 1968, pp. 38/42.28. Smelser, 1963; and the comments on the differentiation model by Nettl, 1967, p. 110 ff.29. This tendency in the work of Parsons has been criticized by, among others, Lockwood, 1956; Mills, 1959, Ch. 2; van den Berghe, 1967, Ch. 11.30. Some ‘modernizers* themselves have used this argument but looking to the

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067
5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG© 2023 Informa UK Limited