Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
The term “political modernization” is of late encountered with increasing frequency in the literature of political science. Its antecedents are somewhat diffuse. In the most general sense, it seems to represent a specialized adaptation of scholars' long-standing concern with the question of whether the process of social change is determinate or variable, random or patterned, continuous or episodic, cyclic or evolutionary. Within this tradition “political modernization” is a concept opposed in tendency to the relativistic character of much modern scholarship in the field of politics. It would seem to be oriented more in the direction of a patterned and evolutionary—although not necessarily determinate or value-laden—interpretation of social change.
1 This definition is adopted from Ward, Robert E. and Macridis, Roy C., eds., Modern Political Systems: Asia (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963), 445.Google Scholar
2 Hall, John W., “Feudalism in Japan: A Reassessment” (unpublished paper, 1962), 47.Google Scholar
3 Dore, Ronald P., “The Legacy of Tokugawa Education” (unpublished paper prepared for the first seminar of the Conference on Modern Japan, January 1962), 1–2.Google Scholar
4 ibid., 2.
5 “Feudalism in Japan,” 49–50.
6 See, e.g., Smith, Thomas C., The Agrarian Foundations of Modern Japan (Stanford 1959).Google Scholar
7 Almond, Gabriel A. and Coleman, James S., eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton 1960), 20–25.Google Scholar