Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T18:10:37.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of the Convergence of Industrial Societies: A Critical Look at the State of a Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Ian Weinberg
Ian Weinberg
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Are industrial societies becoming alike? This crucial question, unfortunately sometimes treated as an assumption, has been of central theoretical interest since the appearance of the social sciences. The philosophes, with their optimistic belief in progress, were theorists of convergence because they believed in the perfectibility not of particular groups in society, but of all ‘mankind’. It was a radical, anti-relativistic notion to believe that Man not Men was the basic unit of study, the premise for speculation. For if Man acted the same everywhere, then forms of social organization must share essential analytic properties and be proceeding toward an equivalence of structural arrangements. Morally, good was to be found everywhere. Samuel Johnson remarked that ‘the King of Siam sent ambassadors to Louis XIV, but Louis XIV did not send ambassadors to the King of Siam’. But Johnson sent his literary imagination on a diplomatic mission to Abyssinia in Rasselas, presumably to clear his mind of such ethnocentric cant. The cult of the Noble Savage was not only an aspect of eighteenth-century Romanticism, but an indication that Europeans, even Frenchmen, had something to learn from the simple lives of their primitive contemporaries. Like the philosophes many thought that the state, in the form of the benevolent despot, assured continual improvement, and often saw middling groups of intellectuals as allied with or advisory to the king in this great enterprise. It did not seem improbable that societies would converge to a similar political structure—with a strong state, an intellectual elite, and a mature opinion publique, a phrase that originated in pre-revolutionary eighteenth-century France.

Type
Ideology in Social Science
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 1969 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note * This paper is a revised version of one delivered at the 1967 meetings of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco. I am indebted to Marion J. Levy Jr., Charles Tilly and Gerald Rosenblum for comments, though naturally my criticisms and conclusions are my own responsibility. I am grateful to the Humanities and Social Science Research Fund of the University of Toronto for support, and to my research assistant, Samrendrah Singh.

page 1 note 1 Bury, John B., The Idea of Progress (New York: Dover, 1955);Google ScholarBecker, Carl, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935);Google ScholarMartin, Kingsley, French Liberal Thought In the Eighteenth Century (New York: Harper & Row, 1963).Google Scholar

page 2 note 1 Bramson, Leon, The Political Context of Sociology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 2 note 2 See deMaistre, Joseph, On God and Society (Chicago, Illinois: Henry Regnery, 1959). This work was written in 1808-1809.Google Scholar

page 2 note 3 Masur, Gerhard, ‘Distinctive Traits of Western Civilization: Through the Eyes of Western Historians’, American Historical Review, 67, No. 3 (04 1962), 608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 3 note 1 Hoselitz, Bert F., ‘Karl Marx on Secular Economic and Social Development’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6 (1964), 162.Google Scholar

page 3 note 2 Spiegel, Henry William, ‘Theories of Economic Development: History and Classification’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 16, No. 4 (09 1955), 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 3 note 3 Fay, Sidney B., ‘The Idea of Progress’, American Historical Review, 52, No. 2 (01 1947), 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 3 note 4 Criticizing current ‘agro-fugal’ models of economic development, Postan pointed out that ‘most of the reasons which people advance in favor of the overwhelming emphasis on industry are economic, and most of the economic reasons are historical’. Postan, M. M., ‘Agricultural Problems of Under-Developed Countries in the Light of European Agrarian History’, Second International Conference of Economic History, II (Aix-en-Provence, 1962), 11.Google Scholar

page 4 note 1 Inkeles, Alex and Rossi, Peter, ‘National Comparisons of Occupational Prestige’, American Journal of Sociology, 61 (01 1956), 329–39;CrossRefGoogle ScholarLipset, Seymour Martin and Bendix, Reinhard, Social Mobility in Industrial Society (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1959);Google ScholarDavis, Kingsley, ‘The Demographic Transition’, in Amitai and Eva Etzioni, eds, Social Change (New York: Basic Books, 1964), pp. 187–94;Google ScholarNimkoff, M. K., ‘Is the Joint Family an Obstacle to Industrialization?’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, I (1960), 109–18;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMoore, Wilbert E. and Feldman, Arnold, Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960);Google ScholarLevy, Marion J. Jr., ‘Some Structural Problems of Modernization and “High Modernization”: China and Japan’, in Szczepanik, E. F., ed., Proceedings of the Symposium on the Economic and Social Problems of the Far East (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, 1962), p. 10;Google ScholarLipset, Seymour Martin, ‘Economic Development and Democracy’, in Political Man (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor, 1959), chapter 2, pp. 27–63.Google Scholar

page 4 note 2 See Eisenstadt, S. N., ‘Modernization, Growth and Diversity’, India Quarterly, 20 (01–03 1964), 17–42;Google Scholar for an attempt to retain some of these criteria against contrary evidence see his ‘Breakdowns of Modernization’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 12, No. 4, (07 1964), 345–67;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBlack, Cyril E., The Dynamics of Modernization (New York: Harper & Row, 1966);Google ScholarSmelser, Neil J., ‘Mechanisms of Change and Adjustment to Change’, in Hoselitz, Bert F. and Moore, Wilbert E. eds, Industrialization and Society (The Hague: Mouton, 1966), chapter 2, pp. 32–54;Google ScholarDeutsch, Karl W., ‘Social Mobilization and Political Development’, American Political Science Review, 55, No. 3 (08 1961), 493–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 4 note 3 For arguments in favor of limited comparative studies, see Bendix, Reinhard, ‘Concepts and Generalizations in Comparative Sociological Studies’, American Sociological Review, 28 (1963), 533, in which he warns that ‘many concepts are generalizations in disguise’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 5 note 1 Sorokin, Pitirim A., ‘Mutual Convergence of the United States and the U.S.S.R. to the Mixed Sociocultural Type’, InternationalJournal of Comparative Sociology, I (1960), 143–76;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHorowitz, Irving Louis, ‘Sociological and Ideological Conceptions of Industrial Development’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 23, No. 4 (10 1964), 363;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDimock, Marshall E., ‘Management in the U.S.S.R.—Comparisons to the United States’, Public Admini stration Review, 20, No. 3 (Summer 1960), 139–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 5 note 2 For an attempt to use existing data, but specifically focusing on the convergence of advanced industrial societies, see Weinberg, Ian, ‘Modernization, Elites and Class’, in Weinberg, Ian, ed., English Society (New York: Atherton, in press).Google Scholar

page 5 note 3 Feldman, Arnold S., ‘The Nature of Industrial Societies’, World Politics, 12 (07 1960), 618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 5 note 4 Hodge, Robert W., Siegel, Paul M. and Rossi, Peter H., ‘Occupational Prestige in the United States, 1925-1963’, American Journal of Sociology, 70, No. 3 (11 1964), 286–303;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHodge, Robert W., Treiman, Donald J. and Rossi, Peter H., ‘A Comparative Study of Occupational Prestige’, in Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour Martin, eds, Class, Status and Power (New York: Free Press, 1966), pp. 309–21.Google Scholar

page 5 note 5 Goode, William J., ‘Industrialization and Family Change’, in Hoselitz, Bert F. and Moore, Wilbert E., eds, Industrialization and Society (The Hague: Mouton, 1966), chapter 12, pp. 237–59;Google ScholarLaslett, Peter, ‘The History of Population and Social Structure’, International Social Science Journal, 17, No. 4 (1965), 582–94;Google ScholarThe World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965).Google Scholar

page 5 note 6 Blumer, Herbert, ‘Early Industrialization and the Laboring Class’, Sociological Quarterly, 1, No. 1 (01 1960), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 5 note 7 Goldthorpe, John H., ‘Social Stratification in Industrial Society’, in Halmos, Paul, ed., The Development of Industrial Societies (Keele: 10 1964), pp. 97–123.Google Scholar

page 5 note 8 deSchweinitz, Karl Jr., Industrialization and Democracy (New York: Free Press, 1964).Google Scholar

page 6 note 1 Crozier, Michel, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964);Google ScholarHaire, Mason, Ghiselli, Edwin E. and Porter, Lyman W., ‘Cultural Patterns in the Role of the Manager’, Industrial Relations, 2, No. 2 (02 1963), 95–117.Google Scholar

page 6 note 2 In their typology, the elites are the middle class, dynastic elites, revolutionary intellectuals, colonial administrators and nationalist leaders. Kerr, Clark, Dunlop, John T., Harbison, Frederick and Myers, Charles A., Industrialism and Industrial Man (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964).Google Scholar

page 6 note 3 Feldman, Arnold S. and Moore, Wilbert E., ‘Industrialization and Industrialism, Con vergence and Differentiation’, Transactions Fifth World Congress of Sociology (Washington, D.C., 1962), p. 146.Google Scholar

page 6 note 4 Moore, Wilbert E., ‘Creation of a Common Culture’, Confluence, 4 (07 1955), 238.Google Scholar

page 6 note 5 See his Social Change (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963).Google Scholar

page 6 note 6 Inkeles, Alex, ‘Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to Experience, Perception, and Value’, American Journal of Sociology, 66, No. 1 (07 1960), 1–31; see also hisCrossRefGoogle Scholar‘The Moderni zation of Man’, in Weiner, Myron, ed., Modernization (New York: Basic Books, 1966), chapter 10, pp. 138–50; andGoogle ScholarWeisskopf, W. A., ‘Industrial Institutions and Personality Struc ture’, Journal of Social Issues, 7, No. 4 (1951), 1–6; for an attempt to ‘psychologize’ Weber and to find the psychic source of modernization in late sixteenth-century English Puritanism, seeCrossRefGoogle ScholarBarbu, Zvedei, ‘The Origins of English Character’, in Problems of Historical Psychology (New York: Grove Press, 1960), pp. 145–218.Google Scholar

page 7 note 1 See e.g., McClelland, David C., The Achieving Society (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1961);CrossRefGoogle ScholarLeVine, Robert A., Dreams and Deeds (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966);Google ScholarRosen, Bernard, ‘The Achievement Syndrome and Economic Growth in Brazil’, Social Forces, 42, No. 3 (03 1964), 341–51;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBradburn, Norman N. and Berlew, David E., ‘Need for Achievement and English Industrial Growth’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 10, No. 1 (10 1961), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 7 note 2 Levy, Marion J. Jr., Modernization and the Structure of Societies (Princeton, N.J.: Prince ton University Press, 1966), vol. 2, p. 709.Google Scholar

page 7 note 3 Ibid., p. 710.

page 7 note 4 Theodorson, George A., ‘Acceptance of Industrialization and Its Attendant Consequences for the Social Patterns of Non-Western Societies’, American Sociological Review, 18, No. 5 (10 1953), 477–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 7 note 5 See Gerschenkron, Alexander, ‘Typology of Industrial Development as a Tool of Analysis’, Second International Conference of Economic History, 2 (Aix-en-Provence, 1962) 487–505. Gerschenkron does not deny the processual similarity of industrialization in Western Europe, but disagrees with the validity of the model for Eastern Europe, and, by implication, with con temporary underdeveloped areas where the level of D is obviously high. See hisGoogle Scholar‘Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective’, in Hoselitz, Bert F., ed., The Progress of Under developed Areas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 3–29.Google Scholar

page 8 note 1 Apter, David E., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 460.Google Scholar

page 8 note 2 Ibid., p. 447.

page 8 note 3 Ibid., p. 459.

page 8 note 4 Saint-Simon wanted to create a ‘Council of Newton’ to run a world dislocated by the French Revolution. See his ‘Letter from an Inhabitant of Geneva to His Contemporaries’ (1803), in Markham, Felix M. H., tr. and ed., Saint-Simon, Selected Writings (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952), pp. 1–11. That such theories are influenced by economic cycles is argued byGoogle ScholarFeuer, Lewis S., ‘What is Alienation ? The Career of a Concept’, New Politics, 1 (Spring 1962), 116–34.Google Scholar

page 8 note 5 Wilbert E. Moore says that the functional equilibrium model ‘is the actual mainstay for the impressive body of generalizations concerning the consequences of modernization’, in ‘Social Change and Comparative Studies’, International Social Science Journal, 15, No. 4 (1963), 524; see alsoGoogle ScholarParsons, Talcott, Societies-Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966);Google ScholarSmelser, Neil J., ‘The Modernization of Social Relations’, in Weiner, Myron, ed., Modernization (New York: Basic Books, 1966), chapter 8, pp. 110–21;Google ScholarLevy, Marion J. Jr., op. cit.; Eisenstadt, S. N., Essays on Sociological Aspects of Political and Economic Development (The Hague: Mouton, 1961);Google Scholar‘Social Change, Differenti ation’, American Sociological Review, 29, No. 3, (06 1964) 375–86; Modernization, Protest and Change (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966); and the references to some of his other work in note 2 on p. 4;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFeldman, Arnold S., ‘Evolutionary Theory and Social Change’, in Barringer, Herbert R., Blanksten, George I. and Mack, Raymond W., Social Change in Developing Areas (Boston: Schenkman, 1965), chapter 11, pp. 273–84;Google ScholarBock, Kenneth E., ‘Evolution, Function and Change’, American Sociological Review, 28, No. 2 (04 1963), 229–37;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMarsh, Robert M., Comparative Sociology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967), p. 29.Google Scholar

page 8 note 6 Levy says, ‘A society will be considered more or less modernized to the extent that its members use inanimate sources of power and/or use tools to multiply the effects of their efforts’, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 11.

page 9 note 1 Moore, Wilbert E., The Impact of Industry (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 12.Google Scholar

page 9 note 2 See note 2 on p. 6.

page 9 note 3 See Shils, Edward, ‘The Intellectuals in the Political Development of the New States’, World Politics, 12 (04 1960), 329–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 9 note 4 Seligman, Lester G., ‘Elite Recruitment and Political Development’, Journal of Politics, 26 (1964), 612–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 9 note 5 See Keller, Suzanne, Beyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society (New York: Random House, 1963);Google ScholarGould, Jay M., The Technical Elite (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1966); for a dissenting view seeGoogle ScholarDahl, Robert A., ‘A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model’, American Political Science Review, 52, No. 2 (06, 1958), 463–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 10 note 1 Deyrup, Felicia J., ‘Limits of Government Activity in Underdeveloped Countries’, Social Research, 24, No. 2 (Summer, 1957), 197.Google Scholar

page 10 note 2 Arnold S. Feldman and Wilbert E. Moore, op. cit., p. 166.

page 10 note 3 Hoselitz, Bert F., Sociological Aspects of Economic Growth (Gleoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1960). Sociological theory has often been attracted by such easy dichotomies—particularly Tonnies‘ Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft and Durkheim’s mechanical and organic solidarity.Google Scholar

page 11 note 1 Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944);Google ScholarRostow, W. W., The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1960).Google Scholar

page 11 note 2 Zebot, Cyril A., The Economics of Competitive Coexistence: Convergence Through Growth (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964), p. 146.Google Scholar

page 11 note 3 Levy says, op. cit., p. 31, that ‘modernization is a general process; it touches us all’.

page 11 note 4 Hodgen, Margaret T., Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964); it has been argued that the urban revolution rigidified and led to the stagnation of Egyptian civilization at its highest point,CrossRefGoogle ScholarHawkes, Christopher, ‘The Prehistoric Roots of European Culture and History’, in Hawkes, Jacquetta, ed., The World of the Past (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1963), p. 491.Google Scholar

page 11 note 5 For the adverse effects of urbanization in new nations, see Hauser, Philip M., ‘Urbaniza tion: An Overview’, in Hauser, Philip M. and Schnore, Leo F., eds., The Study of Urbanization (New York: John Wiley, 1965), chapter 1, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar

page 12 note 1 Lerner, Daniel, ‘The Transformation of Institutions’, in Hamilton, William B., ed., The Transfer of Institutions (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1964), chapter 1, p. 14.Google Scholar

page 12 note 2 Nash, Manning, Primitive and Peasant Economic Systems (San Francisco: Chandler, 1966), pp. 110–19. Although Cantel approximated to as perfect an experimental situation as could be found outside of a laboratory, even Nash seems surprised at his findings.Google Scholar

page 12 note 3 Gooch, George P., History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Longmans, Green, 1928), p. 93.Google Scholar

page 12 note 4 See Levy, Marion J. Jr., ‘Structural-Functional Analysis’, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan, 1968).Google Scholar

page 13 note 1 For a somewhat similar critique, see Pullman, Donald R., ‘Social Change in Economic Development Theory’, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 3, No. 1 (02 1966).Google Scholar

page 13 note 2 Stanley R. Barrett, ‘The Achievement Factor in Igbo Receptivity to Industrialization’ Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology (forthcoming).

page 14 note 1 Belshaw, Cyril S., ‘Social Structures and Cultural Values as Related to Economic Growth,’ International Social Science Journal, 16, No. 2 (1964), 223.Google Scholar

page 15 note 1 Goldenweiser, A. A., ‘The Principle of Limited Possibilities in the Development of Culture’, Journal of American Folklore, 26 (1913), 259–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 15 note 2 Ibid., p. 269.