Buy this book

The Modernization Imperative
Bruce Charlton and Peter Andras

Nathalie Rothschild

Charlton and Andras argue that the 'modernisation' process is both inevitable and desirable. Basing their analysis on systems theory, they put forward a functionalist approach to cultural evolution. In this thesis, economics, politics, law, education, the mass media etc are described as 'interdependent modular social systems', each constituted by the communication of information. Society moves by a 'trial and error' process towards greater complexity and efficiency, the core values of modernisation.

'The history of life on earth' entails a progression from pure environment to simple to complex systems. This linear, evolutionist take on history and the formation of superior societies, where life quality is better and individuals are happier, involves a rational scientific epistemology, with the risk of ethnocentrism closely at hand.

Though the authors point out that there is no single, 'true' function of a social system - instead each has multiple functions which differ according to viewpoint, time and location - determinism is implicit in the way social systems are to be defined and delineated. As the authors themselves put it, 'systems theory entails making decisions to define some clusters of communications as being systems…..' (p.69).

The term 'operational closure' indicates a point at which systems form and can be treated as autonomous from their surroundings. The extent to which the operational closure is in fact a 'problematic closure', in a Derridian sense, can of course be further discussed. This term refers to the proposition that any given category or object of analysis must have always already been constituted or differentiated prior to the project of its analysis or investigation. In other words, delineating a subject matter (here, a system) or presupposing its existence, actually creates it. (See Derrida's Aporias, 1993.)

The authors claim that systems modelling can be tested, and they outline some criteria for defining the boundaries of systems, including ratios of internal and external communications, where the higher the density of intra-system communication in relation to inter-system communication, the more complex the system is. However, they also bring up the necessary acknowledgment that the theorist, being limited by practical and subjective constraints, has an effect on his or her observation and sampling procedures. (This influence of the theorist on his/her study or subject-matter, is these days taken for granted rather than being a radical proposition.)

The authors argue that systems cannot be compared and evaluated on the basis of rational analysis alone. Although they agree with Weber's contention that modern social systems tend to become more rational in their organisation, rational analysis is best for intra-system decisions, whereas the proper method for distinguishing systems and deciding between them is comparative.

Relations between systems are emergent and arise through selection. In other words, the organisation of a modern system takes shape through a 'trial and error' process. Hence, the authors also argue against any overarching control of social systems, whether through an analytical and strategic device such as rationality, a ruling class or a political power centre, such as Marxism, which the authors describe as an anti-modernisation ideology since it entails long-term domination of social systems by the political system. These modes of analysis or rule are said to stifle democracy and pluralism.

The definitions of the boundaries of any given system are highly problematic, although not rendered problematic enough by Charlton and Andras. Systems theory does not allow for sufficient consideration of the openness of social and cultural institutions and practices. It also involves the idea of equilibrium as an outcome of the evolutionary advancement through stages of modernisation. Along the way, as the authors argue, certain pressures from the natural environment as well as from other social systems affect the selection process of any given system, so interdependencies, as well as competition, will increase over time. However, various short-term problems or costs that may arise are taken as acceptable detrimental effects in view of possible long-term gains. One effect of selection is a belief in progress: modernising society operates on the basis of optimism about the unknown future.

The interlinking and interdependency of social systems can for example be explained by the fact that the function of a given system differs depending on the viewpoint of the social system from within which it is evaluated. For instance, education, from within the educational system itself, implies continually raising the average level of 'generic cognitive skills in the population' (p.26) and from the viewpoint of economics, it is desirable and necessary for the expansion of skilled manpower. From a political viewpoint, everyone may benefit from an expansion of formal education as it leads individuals to higher status jobs, health and happiness and also to increased complexity of information-processing in the general workforce. It may also extend liberal values such as racial tolerance, and a common educational system also facilitates a process of social unification and hence is a basis for national culture.

Systems in themselves do not take a holistic approach to human agency. Instead agency is defined in 'modular system-specific terms', as operating differently according to the system within which the individual is defined and acts. Hence, within politics, the population is comprised of 'voters' and within the health system of (potential) 'patients' and so on. These partial, fractional takes on human agency involve a denial of an overarching, all-inclusive social system.

In other words, the authors argue against what they see as a common misunderstanding of contemporary society in Western democracies, namely the view that the power structures within it have a pyramidal shape dominated by either government or capitalist economics. The authors prefer the term 'mosaic' to describe the structure of pluralistic modernising societies.

This idea may in some ways be likened to Foucault's notion of power as functioning 'in the form of a chain', rather than as an oppressive unidirectional force or intrusion. In his view, individuals are always in the position of both exercising and being subjected to power. Power relations permeate all levels of social existence and operate at every site of social life and so Foucault directs attention towards the 'microphysics of power'.

What is the role and place of the individual amongst these multiple modular social systems? A separation between individuals and systems seems to fit accurately into Charlton's and Andras' vision of society. The authors do not attempt to conflate some of the most deep rooted dichotomies of Western cultures, but instead deploy them to demonstrate the validity of their theory. They rename the individual and society dualism as 'individual versus several modular systems'. They distinguish between the 'objective reality of social systems' and the 'emotional subjectivity of the individual', and assert that whilst society operates 'on the basis of abstract processes', individuals 'experience the world as biological animals'. They also contrast the 'modular, specialised "social self"' with the 'integrated "subjective self"'.

These descriptions of the relations between individual and society are outlined in chapter four, 'Opposition to Modernization', where the authors write that the most powerful critique against modernisation is spiritual. Modernisation leads to an increasing loss of meaning as individuals become more and more alienated in merely serving the needs of the system. The authors go on to say that 'this form of primary alienation is expressed in all manner of dichotomies - the private versus public, heart versus mind, art versus science, naïve versus sentimental, Dionysus versus Apollo and so on.' (56)

What then of the future of the individual within such prospects of alienation and subordination to the needs and demands of systems? Charlton and Andras believe that there are forces within modernisation that counteract this subordination and compel the system to acknowledge human wants and needs. The system's need for a skilled workforce for instance, empowers the educated to demand certain working conditions.

In modernising society, interactions between producers and consumers in the marketplace allow people to 'mix and match' in order to fulfil their needs and reach their desired psychological states. The New Age movement for instance is described as endorsing such a pick n' mix mentality and strategy of fulfilment. It is well adapted to the modernising society as it allows for eclecticism and also for tolerance and acceptance of others' spiritualities and truths alongside one's own aspirations of self fulfilment.

If the individual, from the viewpoint of various social systems, is conceived of as partial and partially fulfilled, for instance education develops cognitive aptitudes, the health system improves physical wellbeing and so on, then the individual must take on this pick 'n' mix mentality as well. In this sense modernisation requires people to reformulate themselves as adaptive, and to 'change their nature just enough to remove their feelings of alienation and restore the sense of belonging in the world' (62, italics in original). This can even, if necessary, involve genetic modification of humans to 'remove the mismatch between our Stone Age minds and the Silicon Age culture' (61).

Accordingly, the individual must approach university as a route to advance his/her chances in the labour market, work as an economic activity, home as an outlet for affection, a place of worship for spiritual fulfilment and so on. This compartmentalisation of society gives directives of what to do when and where and hence Charlton's and Andras' thesis is itself a prescriptive method of analysis which provides instructions not on whether to 'modernise', but how.