Contemporary theories of modernity and modernization

The article discusses the evolution of modernization theories since the middle of the 20th century. Talcott Parsons’ contribution to elaboration of the theory of modernization and critique of the functionalist version of this theory are characterized. The alternative approaches to modernization proc...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: Russian Academy of Sciences, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology 2008-06-01
Series:Социологический журнал
Online Access:http://jour.fnisc.ru/upload/journals/1/articles/995/submission/proof/995-61-1853-1-10-20150320.pdf
id doaj-1499261ddf704f46a3e0a25bb23ea34b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1499261ddf704f46a3e0a25bb23ea34b2020-11-25T02:10:14ZrusRussian Academy of Sciences, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied SociologyСоциологический журнал1562-24952008-06-011423144995Contemporary theories of modernity and modernizationThe article discusses the evolution of modernization theories since the middle of the 20th century. Talcott Parsons’ contribution to elaboration of the theory of modernization and critique of the functionalist version of this theory are characterized. The alternative approaches to modernization processes in the works of representatives of neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian historical sociology such as Barrington Moore and Reinhardt Bendix are considered. In addition, Anthony Giddens’ theory of institutional dimensions of modernity is discussed in the article. It is argued that this theory encounters some limitations when dealing with Soviet-type societies. Thus Giddens drew on the model of totalitarian dictatorship and ignored the “revisionist” approaches to Soviet history while his analysis of capitalist market economy as one of the dimensions of modernity actually excluded communist societies. Particular attention is devoted to different versions of the theory of multiple modernities. A distinction is made between Shmuel Eisenstadt’s approach to this problem and the “non-European conceptualization” of modernity offered by Nicos Mouzelis. It is noted that combining the differentiation theory with ideas borrowed from neo-Weberian historical sociology may prove to be a promising way of theorizing non-western modernities. The importance of Johann Arnason’s ideas for the study of transformations of the Soviet model of modernity is also emphasized in the article.дерна. Проводится различие между подходом к данной проблематике, предложенным Ш. Эйзенштадтом, и «неевропейской концептуализацией модерна» в работах Н. Музелиса. Подчеркивается значение идей Й. Арнасона для исследований трансформации советской версии модерна.http://jour.fnisc.ru/upload/journals/1/articles/995/submission/proof/995-61-1853-1-10-20150320.pdf
collection DOAJ
language Russian
format Article
sources DOAJ
title Contemporary theories of modernity and modernization
spellingShingle Contemporary theories of modernity and modernization
Социологический журнал
title_short Contemporary theories of modernity and modernization
title_full Contemporary theories of modernity and modernization
title_fullStr Contemporary theories of modernity and modernization
title_full_unstemmed Contemporary theories of modernity and modernization
title_sort contemporary theories of modernity and modernization
publisher Russian Academy of Sciences, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology
series Социологический журнал
issn 1562-2495
publishDate 2008-06-01
description The article discusses the evolution of modernization theories since the middle of the 20th century. Talcott Parsons’ contribution to elaboration of the theory of modernization and critique of the functionalist version of this theory are characterized. The alternative approaches to modernization processes in the works of representatives of neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian historical sociology such as Barrington Moore and Reinhardt Bendix are considered. In addition, Anthony Giddens’ theory of institutional dimensions of modernity is discussed in the article. It is argued that this theory encounters some limitations when dealing with Soviet-type societies. Thus Giddens drew on the model of totalitarian dictatorship and ignored the “revisionist” approaches to Soviet history while his analysis of capitalist market economy as one of the dimensions of modernity actually excluded communist societies. Particular attention is devoted to different versions of the theory of multiple modernities. A distinction is made between Shmuel Eisenstadt’s approach to this problem and the “non-European conceptualization” of modernity offered by Nicos Mouzelis. It is noted that combining the differentiation theory with ideas borrowed from neo-Weberian historical sociology may prove to be a promising way of theorizing non-western modernities. The importance of Johann Arnason’s ideas for the study of transformations of the Soviet model of modernity is also emphasized in the article.дерна. Проводится различие между подходом к данной проблематике, предложенным Ш. Эйзенштадтом, и «неевропейской концептуализацией модерна» в работах Н. Музелиса. Подчеркивается значение идей Й. Арнасона для исследований трансформации советской версии модерна.
url http://jour.fnisc.ru/upload/journals/1/articles/995/submission/proof/995-61-1853-1-10-20150320.pdf
_version_ 1724919953334730752