FOURIE, Elsje. A future for the theory of multiple modernities - insights from the new modernization theory. Social Science Information, 2012, p. 52-69.pdf

5/28/2018 FOURIE, Elsje. A future for the theory of multiple modernities - insights from the ...

http:///reader/full/fourie-elsje-a-future-for-the-theory-of-multiple-modernities-

http://ssi.sagepub.com/Social Science Information

http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0539018411425850

2012 51: 52Social Science InformationElsje Fourie

modernization theoryA future for the theory of multiple modernities: Insights from the new

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Maison des Sciences de l'Homme

can be found at:Social Science InformationAdditional services and information for

http://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This? - Mar 15, 2012Version of Record>>

by guest on March 25, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on March 25, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52http://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.msh-paris.fr/en/http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.full.pdfhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.full.pdfhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.full.pdfhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.full.pdfhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.full.pdfhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.full.pdfhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.refs.htmlhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.msh-paris.fr/en/http://www.msh-paris.fr/en/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/51/1/52http://ssi.sagepub.com/



Social Science Information51(1) 5269

The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0539018411425850

ssi.sagepub.com

A future for the theory

of multiple modernities:Insights from the newmodernization theory

Elsje FourieSchool of International Studies, University of Trento, Italy

Abstract

In recent years, the concept of multiple modernitieshas emerged to challenge the perceived

Eurocentrism and unilinearity of traditional theories of convergence, and has led to

renewed efforts to appreciate differing trajectories of contemporary political and socialdevelopment. Its exponents key argument that forms of modernity are so varied and

contingent on culture and historical circumstance that the term itself must be spoken

of in the plural is particularly pertinent in an era where a preoccupation with modernityin societies around the world has not lately been adequately reflected in the academic

literature. This article reviews the main principles of this approach, synthesizes its evolution

and analyzes its strengths and shortcomings. The article finds that the notion of multiple

modernities has been useful in widening the scope of study, and that it focuses on

important questions that its rivals have not yet addressed. However, three challenges

continue to pose problems for the theory: it has been reluctant to engage with the

complexities and evolution of the modernization theory it critiques; it has not consistently

delineated and defined its major unit of analysis; and it has not yet identified the core

of modernity itself in a way that allows for ideas, movements or societies to fall outsideits remit. Although theorists have begun to address the unit of analysis problem byincorporating political dynamics into the study of civilizational difference, the selective

incorporation of the empirical methodology and findings of Inglehart & Welzels value-based, path-dependent approach offers another means by which multiple modernitiestheory can overcome the challenges identified.

Keywords

civilizational analysis, culture, modernization, multiple modernities, path dependency

Corresponding author:

Elsje Fourie, School of International Studies, University of Trento, Via Verdi 8/10, TN 38100 Italy

Email: [email protected]

SSI51110.1177/0539018411425850FourieSocial ScienceInformation2

Theory and methods/Thorie et mthodes

by guest on March 25, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/



Fourie 53

Rsum

Ces dernires annes, le concept de modernits multiples a merg pour contester

leurocentrisme ambiant et lunilinarit des thories traditionnelles de convergence, et

a conduit des efforts renouvels pour apprcier diffrentes trajectoires de dveloppement

politique et social contemporain. Les arguments cls pour cette monte en puissance

savoir que les formes de la modernit sont si diverses et dpendantes de la culture et des

circonstances historiques que le terme lui-mme doit tre employ au pluriel sont par-

ticulirement pertinents une poque o lintrt pour la modernit dans les socits de

par le monde ne se reflte pas clairement dans les publications acadmiques rcentes. Cet

article passe en revue les grands principes de cette approche, synthtise son volution et

analyse ses forces et ses faiblesses. Lauteur constate que la notion de modernits mul-

tiples a t utile pour largir le champ dtude, et quelle se concentre sur des questions

importantes que les approches concurrentes nont pas encore abordes. Cependant, cette

thorie fait face trois dfis qui continuent de poser problme: la rticence se mesurer la complexit et lvolution de la thorie de la modernisation quelle critique, labsence

de dlimitation et de dfinition des principales units danalyse et labsence didentification

du principe cl de la modernit elle-mme de telle sorte que les ides, les mouvements

ou les socits puissent ne pas relever de son champ de comptence. Bien que les thoriciens

aient commenc sattaquer au problme des units danalyse en intgrant la dynamique

politique dans ltude des variantes des civilisations, lincorporation slective de la

mthodologie empirique et des rsultats des recherches dInglehart & Welzel bases sur

les valeurs et sur la dpendance au chemin emprunt (path-dependency) offre une autre

voie pour que la thorie des modernits multiples puisse surmonter les dfis identifis.

Mots-cls

analyse des civilisations, culture, dpendance au chemin emprunt (path-dependency),modernisation, modernits multiples

Some, of course, question the value of the very idea of modernity, but the word is all around us,

and it may already be too late to legislate its uses. The rhetoric itself may be taken as a sign that,

in spite of our contemporary intellectual incredulity toward them, historicist or stageist ideas of

history and modernity are never far from our thoughts. We must, therefore, engage and reengage

our ideas about modernity in a spirit of constant vigilance.

Dipesh Chakrabarty (2002: xx)

Although the gap between academic and popular discourse is often wide, in the case of

certain concepts this gap can become a chasm. One such unfortunate term is modernity:

it has been unfashionable in the social sciences and especially in its parent discipline,

sociology for some time now, and has been disowned and deconstructed to the extent

that no formal discussion of it seems complete without a distancing of author from subject.Yet switch on a television, open a newspaper or stroll through any city and one is likely

to encounter the term or its variants; clearly, modernity is in the streets more than ever

(Kaya, 2004: 47), and so continues to shape our understanding of the world around us.




54 Social Science Information51(1)

The past decade has seen the emergence of several academic alternatives attempting

to reconcile the criticisms of modernity with its continued utility, and thereby bridge this

divide. One of the most influential of these, the theory of multiple modernities, has argued

that modernity continues to have an undeniable global impact, but that this impact is so

radically mediated by the historical and cultural backgrounds of each society it encountersthat it makes more sense to speak of the concept in the plural.

The first section of this article reviews the literature on multiple modernities, synthe-

sizing its central assumptions andproblmatiques. Despite attracting valuable debate and

bringing an important perspective to the study of modernity, the theory has not yet made

the inroads into scholarly or public debates that its proponents have hoped for. The next

section of the article, in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of this school of thought,

explores why this is the case. It finds that three important stumbling-blocks continue to

prevent multiple modernities from realizing its potential, although one strand of the theory

has gone some way towards mitigating some of these flaws. The article ends by suggestingcollaboration with a new variant of the modernization theory traditionally so derided by

the multiple modernities literature, which could offer valuable insights into overcoming

the three weaknesses highlighted previously.

Multiple modernities: Assumptions and central concerns

Starting points

The theory of multiple modernities, being of recent origin and placing an emphasis ondiversity, is neither fully developed in form nor homogeneous in content. The term was

coined in the late 1990s by sociologist Schmuel Eisenstadt, who in many ways has been

the architect of the theory. Two additional important early scholars, Johann Arnason and

Bjorn Wittrock, have been joined by a range of theorists with a variety of interpretations,

many from societies in which modernity is said to diverge from the traditional norm.

And, indeed, if there is one starting point on which advocates of multiple modernities

converge, despite their differences, it is a rejection of the traditional theories of moderniza-

tion. These are criticized for two fundamental teleological assumptions, namely that moder-

nity is a single, unified homogenizing process, and that the West is the yardstick by which

success is measured (Eisenstadt, 2005; Kaviraj, 2005). The convergence theories of Talcott

Parsons and others, influential during the 1950s and 1960s, come under particular attack

for assuming that structural differentiation and the growth of institutions such as liberal

democracy, capitalism and the bureaucratic state are inevitable in modernizing societies

throughout the world and will naturally be accompanied by individualism, a secular world-

view and other cultural dimensions. For Parsons (1966), societies have little choice but to

follow a unilinear path from the primitive to the modern, and it is this view of modernity

as a uniform, unambiguously structured pattern in progress towards harmonious integra-

tion (Kaya, 2004: 36) to which multiple modernity theorists take particular exception.

Most multiple modernity theorists are also highly sceptical of the classical moderni-

zation theories of Weber, Hegel, Marx and Habermas, reading them as parochial and

focused on the impact of single, uni-causal cultural or institutional factors (Tu, 2005: 198).

A few accounts (Eisenstadt et al., 2002) have a more nuanced reading and see in the earliest

http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/



Fourie 55

literature an awareness of both the liberating and destructive elements of modernity; but

most object to what they see as a determinism and exceptionalism that fail to provide an

accurate picture of global processes. Similarly, although there is some recognition that

these traditional accounts have become contested since the 1970s and 1980s, multiple

modernity theorists argue that a new set of totalizing theories have emerged since theend of the Cold War. Many write of the need for a third way between Fukuyamas (1992)

end of history thesis (the logical endpoint of homogenization) and Huntingtons (1996)

clash of civilizations thesis (which views modernity as uniquely Western) (Eisenstadt

et al., 2002: 2).

In place of these theories, then, the theory of multiple modernities argues that all

modernization should be seen in the light of its historical context. Because the impact

of modernity around the world is and always has been highly contingent on the cultural

backgrounds of individual societies, its ideological and institutional manifestations are

bound to vary greatly. According to Eisenstadt (2005: 2), modernity is a process ofcontinual constitution and reconstitution of a multiplicity of cultural programmes, whereas

Kaviraj (2005: 138) likens modernization to the process of learning a new language but

retaining ones original accent and patterns of thought.

A further central tenet and starting point for the theory is the fact that modernity has

been multiple from its beginnings, and that, until very recently, large parts of Europe

could scarcely be called modern themselves. Throughout the past two centuries, Western

economies, political systems and societies have been organized in very different ways,

with the role of the state in Europe and the United States being only one example of diver-

gence (Wittrock, 2005: 33). Europe, as a whole, has never been economically modern andhas only very recently become politically modern, if these concepts are taken to be synony-

mous with the liberal market economy and nation-state/constitutional republic respectively.

Throughout its expansion, modernity has been heavily contested in Europe the Vienna

Congress and Holy Alliance were nothing if not comprehensive attempts to make Europe

safe for tradition (Wittrock, 2005: 47). At other times, competing visions of modernity in

Europe came destructively to blows, during the Second World War for example. As moder-

nity transformed (and was transformed by) Europe, its various incarnations were exported

to the spheres of influence of each modern power, with the result that India came into

contact with a completely different set of values and institutions than did South America(Mazlish, 2002: 71). The results were far too complex and multidimensional, hold the

advocates of multiple modernities, to be described simply as Westernization.

Multiple modernities, in locating the spatial beginnings of modernity, thus accords the

European experience an important, albeit not homogeneous or hegemonic, position. As

regards modernitys temporal evolution, there seems to be general agreement that the late

18th century witnessed the deep-seated epistemic transformations and interconnected cultural

transformations necessary for observers to speak of a new age (Wittrock, 2005: 41). The

roots may lie deeper, specifically in the urban, feudal, intellectual and papal revolutions of

the 12th and 13th centuries, or the Enlightenment, but it was only really with the American

War of Secession, the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, advocates argue,

that modernity began to emerge as a cultural and political programme. Although the key

features of this programme will be discussed shortly, it is important to note here that these

radical new changes are not held to be mere intensifications of trends that had come before,





but an abandonment of universal Enlightenment values and discourses in favour of forms

of representation and endowment of rights based on territoriality or membership in a lin-

guistically and historically constituted and constructed community (Wittrock, 2005: 45).

The problematics of multiple modernities

The past two centuries have thus been fundamentally different in some way, but how? In

attempting to answer this question, the theory of multiple modernities contains within it

several additional closely related questions or themes. The first concerns the antinomies

of differentiation and integration. At modernitys heart a tension has always existed between

the legitimacy of individual interests, on the one hand, and totalizing ideologies, on the

other (Eisenstadt, 2005: 8). Because modernity fosters these competing visions of the

public good, it contains within it the seeds of its own continual destruction and reconstruc-

tion. Multiple modernity theorists thus argue that the multiplicity of political and societalforms today are merely a continuation of this process and occur within, rather than outside,

modernity itself.

A further question leads on from this, and asks whether modernity is a substantive set

of processes and phenomena, or merely temporal. Can we speak of modern societies (and

thus necessarily of non-modern societies) or is it enough to say that we live in an epoch

where modernity has become a common global condition? Multiple modernity theorists,

on the whole, tend towards the latter conclusion: to Wittrock (2005: 38), our age is marked

by the fact that modernity now forms a reference point around which even its self-professed

opponents must construct their opposition and identities. These theorists thus view theascendancy of challenges to liberalism not as do some as the beginning of a postmodern

condition, but as the continual reinterpretation and contestation of a concept whose demise

many have been too quick to herald.

Some of the literature takes this open-ended notion of modernity to considerable

lengths, viewing it as a loosely-structured constellation, open to modification and redefi-

nitions (Arnason, 2002: 132). Some proponents argue that attaching a definition to moder-

nity will render it a closed monolith and that it is thus neither necessary nor possible

to work outside modernity (Kaya, 2004: 45). The extent to which certain societies are

modern or not modern is considered less important than doing away with such binaryoppositions altogether.

However, several other exponents of the theory have remarked on the potential erosion

and loss of meaning that such an amorphous approach can entail (Gle, 2005: 91) and

have attempted to define the core and thereby also the limits of modernity. This core

is never institutional or organizational, but is situated at the far more abstract level of

ontological and cultural orientations. This, ideally, allows multiple modernities to explain

the evolution of political and economic forms around a number of fixed principles.

The most important of these principles is a conception of human agency that was radi-

cally new at the time that it developed two centuries ago a conception of humans asautonomous and able to exercise control over their environment through rational mastery

and conscious activity (Eisenstadt, 2005). Societies hitherto embedded in a world-view

ordained by God were freed to re-evaluate the foundations on which they operated and

to construct new institutions accordingly.




Fourie 57

These critical notions of autonomy and rational mastery over self, society and nature

had numerous consequences. New forms of popular participation were born, and the

relationships between the centre and periphery were inexorably redefined. The identities

of the individual moved beyond the fixed, the local and the narrow, and began to take

on universal significance (Lerner & Inkeles, quoted in Eisenstadt, 2005: 4). The visionof political and public space was transformed, and with it the very relationship between

the polity, society and civil society.

This new conception of the political sphere has proved to be greatly destabilizing.

To Wittrock (2005: 137), modernity offered and continues to offer a specific set of what

he terms promissory notes, namely the standards that macrosocietal institutions are held

up to, at least in principle. Every society articulates promissory notes, which are publicly

expressed, realizable, and, in acting as points of departure for proposals and counterpro-

posals, form generalized reference points for that society. What makes the promissory

notes of modernity unique seems to be the new forms of political organization theyadvocate, as well as the controversy and revolutionary upheaval around which they centre

(Wittrock, 2005: 42).

This potential for revolutionary upheaval is crucial. Many authors emphasize the utopian

and even eschatological or Jacobin visions which seem to play such an important role in

modern political and cultural programmes (e.g. Eisenstadt, 2002). Because modernity is,

in one sense, so totalizing and irreversible, themes of protest and the complete reinvention

of society feature strongly. Conflict and struggle is inherent in modernity, be it conflict

between multiple cultural orientations (Arnason, 2002: 133) or between competing visions

of the collective good within a polity. This renders modernity, and modernizing societies,highly reflexive, self-questioning and self-conscious. In a sense, modernity places agents

outside of their time and place, bringing about an unprecedented historical consciousness.

Contributions and challenges

The theory of multiple modernities shares much of the above definition with other con-

temporary scholarship on modernity. Modernitys emphasis on autonomy and agency

(Chakrabarty, 2002: 46; Wagner, 2008) as well as its revolutionary potential and reflexivity

(see, particularly, Kolakowski, 1990, for the famous characterization of modernity as beingon endless trial) are not entirely unique to the theory. Multiple modernities is also not

the only theory to characterize the age itself, and everything inside it, as inherently modern.

A number of scholars have argued for the inclusion of ostensibly unmodern movements

in an analysis of modernity, arguing that modernitys telos of emancipation leads to the

creative adaptation and reimagining of modernity by unlikely social groupings (Domingues,

2009: 128). Gaonkars theory of alternative modernities has been most notable in this

respect, arguing that creative adaptation allows people to make themselves modern and

thereby actively construct their own notion of modernity (Gaonkar, 2001: 17).

However, the contribution of the multiple modernities theory lies in the thesis thatcultural and historical backgrounds lead different civilizations to have sufficiently differ-

ent interpretations of these core features so as to result in various distinctive modernities.

Multiple modernities is therefore notable and controversial among theories of modernity

for its reliance on comparative civilizational analysis. For Eisenstadt (2005: 4), for example,





cultural entities such as China, Japan or Western Europe are characterized by certain core

identities stemming from earlier periods of cultural crystallization. This orientation towards

civilizations (in the plural) is born partially from the need to combat the view of civilization

(capitalized and in the singular), which was once so prominent in discussions on progress,

and partially from the view of modernity as a conscious political and cultural project thatbound people together in collective understandings and responses to the modern.

Multiple modernities, especially in its earlier incarnations, also places a strong emphasis

on the cultural elements of modernity. Coinciding with the so-called cultural turn witnessed

in the social sciences in the 1990s, its proponents have argued strongly against a perceived

neglect of cross-cultural and comparative-historical analysis. Something fundamental

clearly separates us from our pre-modern ancestors, it remarks, and yet the spread of insti-

tutions has been so uneven that the change must lie elsewhere. Cultural orientations are

embodied in institutions, but are not reducible to them (Arnason, 2005: 65).

Whatever the weaknesses of a cross-civilizational and cross-cultural approach (andthese will be discussed shortly), it opens the way for two further contributions. Firstly,

being site-based, it allows for the examination of several highly topical cases. China, and

East Asia more generally, comes under particularly intense scrutiny, sometimes as instances

of Confucian modernity (Tu, 2005; Wakeman, 2002). In a region where elites have been

struggling for more than a century to formulate their responses and construct their own

identity in reference to modernity, the tensions between supposedly value-neutral modern

imports such as technology and the cultural heart that elites have sought to preserve have

been profound (Wakeman, 2002). Islamic, Communist, American and Indian (or Hindu)

modernities are similarly analyzed.In addition, an emphasis on culture has allowed for the examination of the complex

interplay between the modern and the traditional in the creation of collective cultural

identities globally. Elites and intellectuals have been able to participate actively in some

of the practices of modernity whilst actively rejecting others. As Eisenstadt (2005: 14) puts

it, it has been possible for these groups to incorporate some of the Western universalistic

elements of modernity in the construction of their own new collective identities, without

necessarily giving up specific components of their traditional identitities. For many around

the world, modernity has been double-edged, containing within itself both the hope of

freedom and material benefit, but also the loss of identity. This ambivalence of universal-izing visions (Sachsenmaier, 2002: 45), this threat of destruction and promise of emancipa-

tion, can only be theorized by a conception of modernity and culture that sees the two as

intertwined rather than in continual opposition.

Criticisms of traditional theories of modernity have been numerous in recent decades.

However, they have tended either to take the form of postmodern accounts of disillusion-

ment that originate from the West or, as one author points out (Sachsenmaier, 2002: 60),

have been articulated within specific national contexts (such as that of Turkey), which have

portrayed themselves as the sole hold-outs in a modernized, homogenized world and nation.

Multiple modernities must thus be given considerable credit for taking the first step towards

constructing a comprehensive cultural-historical critique of modernity theory while simul-

taneously acknowledging the continued importance of the concept itself. The accusation

that cultural differentiation is secondary in importance to more explicit patterns of institu-

tional co-variation (e.g. in Schmidt, 2006: 88) seems rather arbitrary; although institutions




Fourie 59

are more malleable and measurable than culture, and phenomena such as urbanization or

democratization more tangible than values such as autonomy or rationality, this does not

make them inherently more significant. Schmidt suspects that modern-day Japan is more

similar to contemporary Canada or Germany than it is to traditional Japan (2006: 81), but

this surely depends on how convergence is operationalized. As studies of institutionalvariation fill the need for an understanding of the diffusion of those modes of societal

organization born in 18th-century Europe, multiple modernities fills a similarly important

gap in our understanding of how societies and traditions that predated these changes under-

stand their roles and futures in the midst of this diffusion.

However, a number of criticisms can, in turn, be levelled against the theory of multiple

modernities itself, three of which are of particular significance. First, it tends to misrepresent

or at the very least engage insufficiently with its predecessors and contemporaries .

Particularly those authors who condemn all prior modernization theory as Panglossian

forget, for example, Webers Iron Cage of bureaucratic control and economic compulsion(Weber, 1976 [1920]: 181), or the wistfulness with which he describes the disenchantment

of the world (Weber, 2004 [1948]: 155). Nor do all advocates of modernization theory see

the process as unilinear; even the convergence theory of Parsons and others does not claim

that all difference between (or within) cultures will disappear and that countries will become

exact replicas of the United States (Schmidt, 2008: 4).

Similarly, there is little meaningful engagement or refutation of postmodernism, yet any

theorist who claims that scholars have only very recently begun to pose serious questions

about Eurocentric theories of modernity (Kaya, 2004: 36) must first explain why the

questions of postmodernism (or, for that matter, Islamic fundamentalism) are not consideredto have at least started the ball rolling.

By dismissing all prior discussions of modernity as Western in nature, multiple moderni-

ties does a disservice to the rich and varied tradition that has existed for decades in the

developing world, in fields such as subaltern studies (e.g. Chakrabarty, 2002).1Multiple

modernities remains unique in its project to move beyond these criticisms into a more coher-

ent, global theoretical whole, yet it would do well to take them into greater consideration.

Second, the theory exhibits serious ontological confusion at times, especially in its incon-

sistency regarding its units of analysis. At times, each civilization is seen to have its own

variant of modernity, while elsewhere religion or the territorial state is seen as providing themajor dividing lines between modernities. In Eisenstadts most influential explanation of

how such crystallization came about, he builds on Jaspers notion of the Axial Age, a seminal

period spanning 800200 BC that witnessed the emergence of the major world religions and,

with them, competing visions of how to reconcile the transcendental and the temporal

(Eisenstadt, 2003: 197). For Eisenstadt, the civilizations that resulted have responded to the

changes wrought by the modern world in distinctive and cohesive ways.

If European modernity was as diverse from its birth as the theorists of multiple moderni-

ties claim, however, can it be possible to speak of a single Confucian modernity? It also

remains unclear why modernity itself is open to constant revision and fragmentation, yet

the societies it comes into contact with are not. Civilizational crystallization is one thing

to explain, but civilization persistence that stretches for millennia is more difficult to illus-

trate, and Eisenstadts silence on the mechanisms by which this may occur is a weakness

of the theory (Knbl, 2010: 91). Societies and civilizations are not, by their nature, closed,



http:///reader/full/fourie-elsje-a-future-for-the-theory-of-multiple-modernities-i


static entities. After all, if modernity is above all a force of dynamism and agency, then it

would be contradictory to imagine that it can so easily be shaped and reified by culture

(Wagner, 2008: 3). Empirical research could elucidate some of these questions, yet multiple

modernities has tended to remain firmly in the realm of theory.

Several authors have made significant (but still primarily theoretical) contributionstowards overcoming this problem, signifying a more general recognition of its seriousness

within the theory at large. An early first step came from Arnasons (1997) examination of

the Japanese encounter with modernity. Eschewing explanations dependent on religion and

ritual in favour of an emphasis on the role of imperial projects in creating distinct moderni-

ties, Arnason focuses on the crucial role that Japanese projects of state-building (ironically

borrowed from the Chinese model of national unification) have played historically in creat-

ing and imagining the Japanese civilization so often taken as immutable (Arnason, 1997).

In so doing, he reintroduces questions of political power and elite-led mobilization into the

areas of civilizational analysis and multiple modernities. Building on these insights, Knbl(2010: 91) has argued for a renewed focus on power, politics and other mechanisms by

which civilizations reproduce themselves and evolve over time.

This notion that modernity is constructed, particularly by political elites or certain other

indigenous modernizing actors, is increasingly present in the multiple modernities literature.

Duara (2002), for example, argues that contemporary civilizations, in their essentialist, rei-

fied forms, resulted from the modernity project of the early 20th century rather than from

authentic historical trajectories. By creating civilizations which embodied supposed sets of

values defined in binary opposition to the West, they were able to lend authority to political

leadership and were appropriated by the nation-state system (Duara, 2002). This perspectivehas the neat effect of portraying civilizations as a suitable unit of analysis due precisely to

modernity and the distinctive political and ideological configurations that stem from it.

Another promising approach to the dilemma is that of Wagner (2010). Unlike the above-

mentioned authors, who largely favour the retention of the concept of civilizations (albeit

much theoretically strengthened) as the primary units of analysis, Wagner argues that civi-

lizations are only one particular form of societal self-understanding. By taking societal

self-understandings as a more inclusive foundation for the existence of various incarnations

of the modern, multiple modernities would better be able to account for the myriad contested

and dynamic ways in which people in heterogeneous political units, such as Brazil or SouthAfrica, interpret their modern trajectories (Wagner, 2010).

The final, and most significant dilemma concerns the question of the core or definition

of modernity. As mentioned previously, rational mastery and autonomy are two themes

that often emerge in the literature as central to modernity. However, even where multiple

modernity theorists agree that the expression of these principles constitutes modernity (and

not all do agree), both rational mastery and autonomy are often interpreted so loosely as

to be in danger of losing coherence. In an effort at inclusiveness, operationalization is usu-

ally eschewed and all major contemporary developments deemed modern. Yet delineation

of a concept is surely possible only if certain objects of analysis are deemed to fall outside

its limits. Here, too, empirical inquiry that constructs typologies and similar comparative

frameworks could be useful in making sense of this diversity. Jeppersons (2002) division

of European multiple political modernities into social-corporate, state-corporate, state-

nation and liberal variants, and Wagners (1994) examination of mutations of Western




Fourie 61

modernity are examples of important site-specific work that has been done in this regard,

but these are both concerned with a single continent and are not typical of the multiple

modernities literature as a whole.

One particular case that of Islamic fundamentalism demonstrates this definitional

danger particularly well. Multiple modernities theory holds that autonomy and rationalmastery are central to modernity, but that different societies can interpret both of those

concepts in radically different ways. For this reason, it argues that these contemporary

religious fundamentalist movements are themselves modern and are essential in bringing

about a uniquely Islamic modernity. Theorists acknowledge that Islamism rejects the

dominant features of modernity (Gle, 2005: 93), and that anti-modern symbolism and

a yearning for a mythical past set it at odds with certain aspects of the concept. However,

at the same time, they argue that, because this past is imagined and selectively interpreted,

and because a radical break with recenthistory is advocated, Islamism is, paradoxically,

only seemingly anti-modern. In fact, they hold, its view of the state as sovereign and ter-ritorial, and its desire to purify a corrupt society make it a very modern movement (Kaldor,

2003: 2). Religion, too, is reappropriated and subject to constant revision and reflexivity.

In this way, Islamism introduces Muslim agency into the modern arena and enables

Muslims to participate collectively and critically in the modern age. Participation in

Islamist movements, some allege, even allows women to redraw the boundaries of tradi-

tional gender roles and obtain visibility in public life, bringing about what Gle (2005)

calls the forbidden modern.

Much of this is certainly true: Islamic fundamentalism is possible only in a modern age,

as these groups obsession with modernity makes clear. It is also true that much of thissupposed denial of modernity is selective, and that Islamisms interactions with modernity

are more sophisticated and open to mutual co-option than meets the eye. However, totalistic

essentialist movements existed before modernity, and, I would argue, are likely to outlive

it. It would seem that a modern ideology must not only be self-reflexive, but must have at

its heart the human autonomy and rationality mentioned previously. As such, it is doubtful

that a religious movement which has as its primary aim the ultimate surrender of this agency

to a higher, transcendental authority can be inherently modern, unless the concept is to lose

some of its meaning, no matter how multiple its manifestations. In addition, an ideology

that seeks to return to the past (even in an imagined, unrecognizable form) is as muchreactionary as it is revolutionary. Islamic fundamentalism may thus be best understood as

a critique of modernity. Rather than speaking of modernities defined by Islamic (or Hindu

or Christian) fundamentalism, it is perhaps preferable to speak instead of modern societies

where religious fundamentalism and the values of freedom and rational mastery are con-

tinually engaged in a complex, multi-directional interplay. This may indeed result in a new

form of modernity one defined not by the religion of those who live within it, however,

but by the new values that form in the interaction between these competing principles.

The question of whether this autonomy can be collective as well as individual is a more

difficult one, and one that Arnason (2005) and others have explored in discussions of com-

munist modernity. Given the impact of Marxist thought on modern state-building and the

mobilization of entire societies to create a vision of the future where the traditional bonds

constraining freedom are severed forever, the evidence that communism is not a rejection

but instead a distinctive model of modernity is more conclusive here. In any case, the concepts





of autonomy and rational mastery can be interpreted differently from society to society,

but they cannot be stretched indefinitely.

Together, the unit-of-analysis and definitional dilemmas point to the intellectual tightrope

that the theory will have to walk if it is to achieve lasting explanatory and predictive power.

On the one hand, multiple modernities is attempting to deconstruct established notions ofthe modern in order to explain the plurality of socio-political forms around the world. On

the other, it realizes that it is not enough to simply posit infinite, meaningless variation, and

therefore often reverts to exactly the casual cultural generalizations it is hoping to avoid. In

so doing, it lays itself open, at the one extreme, to charges of essentialism, cultural determi-

nation and ahistoricism (as articulated, for example, in Des Forges, 2002: 672; Wagner,

2008: 3), while, at the other, it can be accused of stretching the boundaries of modernity so

far that they begin to collapse. Multiple modernities theory must be careful to avoid charges

that it only distances itself from what it takes to be the most objectionable views of mod-

ernization theory without offering an alternative definition (Schmidt, 2006: 78).The work of theorists such as Wagner, Knbl and especially Arnason has gone some

way towards reconciling this tension. By focusing on the construction of various discrete

configurations of modernity by purposive political and social actors, their refinement of

the theory puts clear yet flexible boundaries around the units that multiple modernities

aims to analyze if not always around the definition of modernity itself. If multiple

modernities theory is to use comparative civilizational and societal analysis as part of its

toolbox (and that is indeed where its unique contribution lies), it would do well to focus

on the process and mechanisms by which such entities come into existence. This is one

promising branch that can grow out of the theory.However, other potential offshoots exist. Multiple modernities does not necessarily

have to jettison its roots in cross-cultural theorizing. This rich area of possibility, first

opened up by Eisenstadt, can continue to guide scholars of modernity, allowing for a

clearer understanding of the ways in which the collective values and cultural practices of

people affected by modernity around the world both diverge and intertwine. For them to

do so in a sophisticated manner, however, they will need to find ways to overcome the

three difficulties mentioned above. The next section introduces a body of literature that

holds the potential to help multiple modernities in this regard by focusing on the path-

dependency of societal valuesin the face of modernity.

Multiple modernities and modernization theory:

Reconcilable after all?

As has been demonstrated, the theory of multiple modernities faces three obstacles at

present: it misrepresents and misunderstands modernization theory; it has difficulty in

defining its primary unit of analysis without succumbing to cultural essentialism; and its

definition of modernity is often so inclusive as to lose coherence.

As the theory of multiple modernities has been developing, its opponent, moderniza-tion theory, has itself witnessed a resurgence, as well as a movement in several intriguing

new directions. The most well-developed, prominent and for our purposes promising

of these is the path-dependency variant developed by Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel.

Taking a positivist political-science approach and drawing on two decades of lengthy




Fourie 63

surveys conducted in an ever-expanding sample of countries, the theory measures cultural

values on issues such as sexual equality, democracy, trust and religious belief. Plottingthese on a graph with two axes one running from survival values to self-expression

values and the other from traditional values to secular-rational values, Inglehart &

Welzel (2005, 2009b) find that countries with a similar cultural, linguistic and/or historical

background tend to cluster together (Figure 1).

In addition, industrialized countries tend to place high on secular-rational values, and

wealthy countries usually also adhere to values of self-expression. The correlation is by

no means neat or perfect, however, leading the authors to conclude that a given countrys

values are as much shaped by historical path dependency as by the factors such as tech-

nological innovation and economic growth that are usually associated with modernization(Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). Industrialization and the mechanization of labour tend to push

societies towards rationalism and away from otherworldly interpretations; over time, the

accumulated economic growth and accompanying material security that such developments

have historically produced pushes societies to value individual self-expression over the

Figure 1. The InglehartWelzel cultural map of the world (Inglehart, 2009b)





survival values they now take for granted. At the same time, however, the values each

country or, presumably, its component cultures held before these changes occurred con-

tinues to shape the impact of modernization on the values of its inhabitants. Socioeconomic

development does tend to propel various societies in a roughly predictable direction, but

different societies follow different trajectories even when subject to the same forces ofmodernization (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005: 19, 21).

Although it is safe to say that this modified, updated version of modernization theory

has both more critics and more admirers than the theory of multiple modernities, it is

not without its flaws, a detailed examination of which lies outside the scope of this article.

However, a selective engagement with the work of Inglehart & Welzel can go some way

towards reconciling some of the gaps and tensions inherent in the study of multiple

modernities.

To date, the two theories have moved largely on parallel tracks, separated by a signifi-

cant methodological divide. In keeping with its critical orientation and interpretiveapproach, multiple modernities has largely eschewed positivist, quantitative methodolo-

gies. Comparative civilizational analysis is not essentially incompatible with these tech-

niques, however. As one advocate of civilizational analysis rightly chides, the contours

of civilizations have to be detected empirically, they must not be set by a prioridecisions

(Knbl, 2010: 87); one such method of detection could be the use of survey techniques.

Those scholars of multiple modernities willing to employ mixed methods may use the

data generated by the World Values Survey as a starting point, before using qualitative

and interpretive analysis to explore anomalies, convergences and shifts in cultural orienta-

tion within regions or individual societies.If a bridge can be built between any contemporary theory analyzing modernity, on the

one hand, and any contemporary theory analyzing modernization, on the other, the multiple

modernity and path-dependency variants would appear to be the most promising candidates

respectively. The former is recently attempting to blend the consideration of political fac-

tors into a strand of analysis that has long been primarily cultural in nature, in order to

allow for the comprehensive comparison of large modern collectivities around the world;

the latter attempts a similar thing by bringing culture back into a theory that was previously

seen as primarily economic and political in nature. Inglehart & Welzel have sought to

ameliorate many of the flaws that multiple modernity theorists decry in traditional mod-ernization theory. Their analysis allows for the possibility that a society may revert to values

of survival in the face of severe economic hardship, for instance, thereby rejecting the tele-

ological notion that modernization is inevitable and uni-directional (Inglehart & Welzel,

2009a). In addition, the interplay between historical and modernizing forces prevents the

theory from lapsing into the simplistic economic determinism posited by the convergence

theorists. If the theory remains resolutely optimistic and preoccupied with universalistic

ideas of human progress, this is an area where multiple modernities could offer a valuable

corrective. An engagement with an updated theory of modernization, therefore, could help

the multiple modernities literature to overcome that reluctance to engage with moderniza-

tion theory in its varied, nuanced forms, as mentioned earlier in this article.

Such an engagement is also likely to alleviate the second shortcoming identified by this

study, namely the unit-of-analysis problem. Path-dependency theory collates survey data

by country, giving each individual country surveyed a unique place on the InglehartWelzel




Fourie 65

cultural map of the world. At the same time, countries cluster into a number of cultural

zones (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005: 6). Some of these are religious in origin (Confucian,

Islamic, Orthodox), some geographical in nature (Africa, South Asia and Latin America),

some a combination of these two factors (Catholic Europe, Protestant Europe) and some

based on common encounters with colonialism (English-speaking). This inconsistencyreflects the inductive nature of the research and allows for interesting conclusions regarding

the relative importance of religious processes (such as those analyzed by Eisenstadt) in

some parts of the world, and the significance of political processes (as emphasized by

Arnason) in others. This is indeed a move away from the a priori drawing of civilizational

boundaries decried above. The two-level analysis that results is consistent with Mausss

highly influential definition of civilization as a family of societies held together by his-

torical, linguistic, archaeological and anthropological facts (Mauss, 2006 [1929]: 62). It

allows multiple modernities to use established political entities as the building blocks which

create larger, more nebulous civilizations (although Inglehart & Welzel do not use the latterterm). The borders of these civilizations can be roughly delineated at any time, but are in

constant flux, undergoing subtle changes over time. Such an approach is thus in keeping

with the status of the Westphalian nation-state as a central institution of modernity, and

with the recognition that a focus on this institution is important but insufficient.

Naturally, this leads to several anomalies, exceptions and blurred boundaries Polands

values place it in the South Asia zone, and Ethiopias show it to have more in common

with the Islamic world than with other majority-Christian countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Rather than weakening the theory, however, such puzzles can serve to open up intriguing

new areas of inquiry for multiple modernities, which is more suited to the close sociologi-cal analysis required for a deep understanding of how countries came to be placed where

they did, how they are likely to evolve and how this process is likely to reshape the

boundaries of the civilization to which they belong.

Finally, aspects of the path-dependency approach may be able to bring multiple moder-

nities closer to a more satisfactory solution to the dilemma of what to include in the defini-

tion of modernity. First appearances notwithstanding, the definitions used by the two

approaches are remarkably similar; Inglehart & Welzels modern values of secular ration-

alism and self-expression align well with the rational mastery and autonomy of multiple

modernities. The difference lies in the former theorys willingness to designate certaincultures or societies as more modern or less modern than others, on the basis of the

values held by their populations (e.g. Inglehart & Welzel, 2005: 275).

Of course, many will view such an argument with trepidation: can the designation of

something or some group as non- or pre-modern ever be anything but a gesture of the

powerful? asks Chakrabarty (2002: xix), for instance. However, this was a far greater

danger before the Janus-faced nature of modernity was truly recognized, and when moder-

nity was still viewed as a holy grail which could cure all societys ills. Inglehart & Welzels

approach can be rightly criticized for its unbridled optimism the authors equate moderni-

zation with human development in a way that multiple modernities does not need to accept.

Multiple modernities, by continuing to explore the disorienting, disenchanting and desta-

bilizing aspects of modernity on societies, can act as a valuable corrective to this belief

that modern values unfailingly indicate higher levels of human welfare in a society.

Ultimately, however, multiple modernities must confront the fact that, for modernity to

retain any utility as a concept, we must be able to speak, as well,of the unmodern.

http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/




Do we live, as multiple modernities suggests, in an age of modernity, where proposals

and counterproposals all use certain key, modern principles as reference points? Are we

all modern, but in ways sufficiently unique to warrant the plural of the term? The answer,

this article would suggest, is that all societies are modern, but that some are more modern

than others. As both the path-dependency and the multiple modernities literature show,all societies are caught up in the same interplay between the complex and contradictory

forces that mark the modern age. No countrys values place it squarely in the bottom-left

corner of Inglehart & Welzels map, illustrating the dynamic debates occurring within

even the most traditional societies. Modernity is multiple because terms such as ration-

ality and autonomy are interpreted differently around the world. Despite this fact,

rationality and autonomy are not valued equally by all people in all societies, as modernity

has not yet completely remade the world in its image.

The above observations notwithstanding, it is less important to determine whether moder-

nity is singular or multiple than it is to understand what comprises the defining features ofmodernity, and to what extent variation on these features exists around the world. The

scarcity of studies of African modernity or even African modernities in the multiple

modernities literature indicates that it is perhaps vaguely aware of the uncomfortable pos-

sibility that different levels of modernity may exist even within this modern age.

Concluding thoughts

Multiple modernities is a promising theory in an area of political sociology that is still

underdeveloped and has had to contend with wide-ranging and rapid global transformationsin recent years. Notable for its comparative civilizational and cultural approach, its emphasis

on the varied forms that modernity has taken around the world has filled a gap left by those

who repudiate modernity as a contemporary research agenda and those who particularly

in the past viewed convergence as the only possible outcome to the forces of moderniza-

tion. Its often-sensitive exploration of the temporal, spatial and substantive aspects of

modernity has brought important insights from sociology into a field dominated, for several

decades, by anthropology and political science. The approach itself, however, is still in

need of further development if it is to go beyond the level of critique and make use of

empirical findings to strengthen its theoretical analysis. Usually a nuanced theory, mul-tiple modernities nonetheless fails to engage the many variants of modernization theory

with sufficient sophistication and sensitivity. The theory suffers from two further problems.

Precisely because multiple modernities seeks both to collectivize (by analyzing distinct

social and political entities) and to deconstruct (by doing away with the notion of one single

modernity), it faces attacks on two almost opposing fronts. On the one hand, it stands

accused of using cultures, religions and civilizations as units of analysis in a arbitrary and

essentialist fashion; on the other, it is charged with subsuming so much under the label of

modernity that the concept begins to lack meaning.

The growing tendency to eschew Eisenstadts original focus on religion and ritual asthe glue which binds civilizations in favour of an emphasis on the politics and power behind

civilization-building has served as a possible corrective to the unit-of-analysis problem.

Another remedy and the one proposed in this article is the selective use of empirical,

even quantitative, data as found in Inglehart & Welzels revised theory of modernization.

In this way, multiple modernities might take advantage of recent, parallel (but hitherto




Fourie 67

unacknowledged) advances in modernization theory, whilst simultaneously improving

on some of the weaknesses of the later. A value-oriented approach allows for the boundaries

of civilizations to emerge empirically, and for anomalies to highlight the complex and

flexible nature of civilizational change. It measures modernity in a way that is concrete yet

cultural (rather than primarily institutional or economic), along two indices rationalismand autonomy that closely correspond to multiple modernities existing understanding

of modernity.

Multiple modernities does not have to accept the causal inferences or the optimism of

Inglehart & Welzels approach in order to take the point that the same modern values are

found in individual societies to greater or lesser degrees. Shared values are one measure

by which to differentiate between the various path-dependent manifestations of modernity

that exist today whether that modernity stems from culturally transmitted practices,

conscious political projects or technologically driven economic growth. Multiple moderni-

ties began its life as a critique of post-war modernization theory and rightly so. It is onlyby realizing that its traditional opponent has since developed and increased in sophistica-

tion, however, that multiple modernities will be able to do the same.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Peter Wagner, Vincent Della Sala and several anonymous peer

reviewers for their valuable comments on this work.

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the University of Trento.

Note

1 Ashis Nandys critical traditionalism, discussed at length in Chakrabarty (2002), is only one

example of the theorizing that multiple modernities claims has been lacking until recently.

References

Arnason JP (1997) Social Theory and Japanese Experience: The dual civilization. London: Kegan

Paul.

Arnason JP (2002) The multiplication of modernity. In: Ben-Rafaeil E & Sterberg Y (eds)Identity,

Culture and Globalization. Leiden: Brill, 131156.

Arnason JP (2005) Communism and modernity. In: Eisenstadt SN (ed.) Multiple Modernities.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 6190.

Chakrabarty D (2002)Habitations of Modernity. New Delhi: Permanent Black.

Des Forges A (2002) Review: Alternative Modernities by Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar.Journal of

Asian Studies61(2): 670672.

Domingues JM (2009) Global modernization, coloniality and a critical sociology for contemporary

Latin America. Theory, Culture & Society26: 112133.

Duara P (2002) Civilizations and nations in a globalizing world. In: Sachsenmaier D, Riedel J,

& Eisenstadt SN (eds) Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese and other

interpretations. Leiden: Brill, 7999.

Eisenstadt SN (2002) Some observations on multiple modernities. In Sachsenmaier D, Riedel J,

& Eisenstadt SN (eds) Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese and other

interpretations. Leiden: Brill, 2741.





Eisenstadt SN (2003) Comparative Civilizations and Multiple Modernities. Leiden: Brill.

Eisenstadt SN (2005) Multiple modernities. In: Eisenstadt SN (ed.) Multiple Modernities. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 130.

Eisenstadt SN, et al. (2002) The context of the multiple modernities paradigm. In: Sachsenmaier

D, Riedel J, & Eisenstadt SN (eds)Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chineseand other interpretations. Leiden: Brill, 126.

Fukuyama F (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press.

Gaonkar DP (2001) On alternative modernities. In: Gaonkar DP (ed.) Alternative Modernities.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 123.

Gle N (2005) Snapshots of Islamic modernity. In: Eisenstadt SN (ed.)Multiple Modernities. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 91117.

Huntington SP (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Inglehart R, Welzel C (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The human

development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Inglehart R, Welzel C (2009a) How development leads to democracy. Foreign Affairs(March/

April). Available at: www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64821/ronald-inglehart-and-christian-

welzel/how-development-leads-to-democracy (accessed 2/1/2011).

Inglehart R, Welzel C (2009b) The InglehartWelzel cultural map of the world. World Values

Survey. Available at: www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54

(accessed 3/1/2011).

Jepperson RL (2002) Political modernities: Disentangling two underlying dimensions of institutional

differentiation. Sociological Theory20(1): 6185.

Kaldor M (2003) Terrorism as Regressive Globalization. London: Open Democracy. Available at:

www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/article_1501.jsp (last accessed 23/12/2008).Kaviraj S (2005) Modernity and politics in India. In: Eisenstadt SN (ed.) Multiple Modernities.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 137161.

Kaya I (2004) Modernity, openness, interpretation: A perspective on multiple modernities. Social

Science Information43(1): 3557.

Knbl W (2010) Path dependency and civilizational analysis: Methodological challenges and

theoretical tasks.European Journal of Social Theory13: 8397.

Kolakowski L (1990)Modernity on Endless Trial. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mauss M (2006 [1929]) Techniques, Technology and Civilisation, ed. by Schlanger N. Oxford:

Berghahn Books.

Mazlish B (2002) Globalization: The most recent form of modernity? In: Sachsenmaier D,Riedel H, & Eisenstadt SN (eds) Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese

and other interpretations. Leiden: Brill, 6876.

Parsons T (1966) Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Sachsenmaier D (2002) Multiple modernities: The concept and its potential. In: Sachsenmaier D,

Riedel H, & Eisenstadt SN (eds)Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese and

other interpretations. Leiden: Brill, 4267.

Schmidt VH (2006) Multiple modernities or varieties of modernity? Current Sociology54(1): 7797.

Schmidt VH (2008) Whats wrong with the concept of multiple modernities? Working paper series

of the Research Network 1989, Research paper 6/2008. Available at: www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/papers/Pusanr_WP6.pdf (last accessed 20/12/2008).

Tu W (2005) Implications of the rise of Confucian East Asia. In: Eisenstadt SN (ed.) Multiple

Modernities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 195218.

Wagner P (1994)A Sociology of Modernity: Liberty and discipline. London: Routledge.




Fourie 69

Wagner P (2008) Modernity as Experience and Interpretation: A new sociology of modernity.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Wagner P (2010) Multiple trajectories of modernity: Why social theory needs historical sociology.

Thesis Eleven100 (February): 5360.

Wakeman F, Jr (2002) Chinese modernity. In Sachsenmaier D, Riedel H, & Eisenstadt SN (eds)Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese and other interpretations. Leiden:

Brill, 153166.

Weber M (1976 [1920]) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons.

London: G Allen & Unwin.

Weber M. (2004 [1948])From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, ed. by Gerth HH & Wright Mills C.

London: Routledge.

Wittrock B (2005) Modernity: One, none or many? European origins and modernity as a global

condition. In: Eisenstadt SN (ed.)Multiple Modernities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 3160.

Author biographyElsje Fourie is a PhD candidate in the School of International Studies at the University of Trento

(Italy). Her current research focuses on the influence of the East Asian model of development on

the modernization strategies of Ethiopian and Kenyan elites. She holds an MA and MPhil from the

University of Bradford (England).


Documents

FOURIE, Elsje. A future for the theory of multiple modernities - insights from the new modernization theory. Social Science Information, 2012, p. 52-69.pdf