Modernization Theory is Hokum.

[TheCurmudgeon]

OK, my next project is an attack on Modernization theory. Who is with me!?

My argument is in two parts. 1st, Modernization theory (in its various incarnations from Vietnam to present) is wrong. Second, it is not the Army's job to engage in social engineering.

Thoughts?

[Dayuhan]

Not sure I'd say complete hokum, but it remains a very theoretical discipline, and open to nearly infinite dispute. Anyone trying to draw discrete conclusions from the theory, far more so anyone trying to base policy, strategy, or tactics on it is treading on very thin ice.

I fully agree that it is not the Army's job to engage in social engineering, and I'd take it a step farther and say that any attempt by the US government to engage in social engineering, through any agency, should be viewed with great suspicion.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I fully agree that it is not the Army's job to engage in social engineering, and I'd take it a step farther and say that any attempt by the US government to engage in social engineering, through any agency, should be viewed with great suspicion.

But governments do it all the time. They do it through inoculation programs that skew the population density. They do it through the tax code that favors married couples or by deciding who can marry who. They do it through any number of rules that regulate your life "for the better". They don't call it social engineering, but the result is the same.

So is the social engineering the Army is directed to do just "the continuation of policy by other means"?

Isn't it our policy to spread democracy?

If it is, isn't it our job to mold the population of our target country/population; to till the soil so that it can accept the seeds of representative government?

While I don't like it, I am not sure I can make a cogent argument against it.

[jmm99]

the concept of the US being the shining light on top of the hill - without trying to build lampposts all over the world. But, that is contrary to the rhetoric of a number of Presidents that "Americans can do anything". Grrr..

Regards

Mike

[Madhu]

But governments do it all the time. They do it through inoculation programs that skew the population density. They do it through the tax code that favors married couples or by deciding who can marry who. They do it through any number of rules that regulate your life "for the better". They don't call it social engineering, but the result is the same.

So is the social engineering the Army is directed to do just "the continuation of policy by other means"?

Isn't it our policy to spread democracy?

If it is, isn't it our job to mold the population of our target country/population; to till the soil so that it can accept the seeds of representative government?

While I don't like it, I am not sure I can make a cogent argument against it.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=15993

I think you had some nice comments too?

Molding populations on the behalf of the other is a fool's errand, and, no, the military is not always instructed to do this. For instance, the President wanted options that would allow him to draw down in Afghanistan and focus on CT but the Army didn't want to do that.

Even within the "spread democracy" examples the military got off track on theories like RMA which didn't leave enough troops for post conflict stabilization.

How this turned into a conversation about the military building schools as its primary operation or tactical or whatever focus is beyond me.

See, I shouldn't comment because it's too time consuming

PS: Supporting the formation of a government is not synonymous with molding populations. Not everything is population-centric in this sense.

Policy changes from administration to administration and according to national mood, so any operational focus on molding populations is doomed to failure. The military has an obligation to make the true costs of this fool's errand known to its civilian oversears which did not always happen in the examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.

How did such collossal intellectual confusion make its way into our collective national security complex psyche?

[TheCurmudgeon]

How did such collossal intellectual confusion make its way into our collective national security complex psyche?

That is a question that I would like to explore, but that is for another day.

For those of you who want a short history of the modern version of moderinization theory I offer this:

Modernization theory -- the belief that industrialization and economic development lead directly to positive social and political change -- has been a subject of intense scholarly and policy interest for more than half a century. It came back into vogue in Washington during the 1990s, thanks to the global spread of free markets and the third wave of democratization, and continues to inform much of U.S. policy toward the developing world. After decades of derision, moreover, a loose or weak version of it is experiencing a revival in the academy as well -- something that would assuredly delight or appall the bloodied combatants in the field's original theoretical battles. ...

Has links to references.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/featur...ization-theory

BTW Madhu, it was your linking Modernization to CORDS that made me think this migh be worth exploring.

[Dayuhan]

But governments do it all the time. They do it through inoculation programs that skew the population density. They do it through the tax code that favors married couples or by deciding who can marry who. They do it through any number of rules that regulate your life "for the better". They don't call it social engineering, but the result is the same.

I was sloppy; meant to say "any attempt by the US government to engage in social engineering outside the United States..." Social engineering attempts within the borders may not always be well advised, but they aren't entirely ridiculous.

So is the social engineering the Army is directed to do just "the continuation of policy by other means"?

Isn't it our policy to spread democracy?

If it is, isn't it our job to mold the population of our target country/population; to till the soil so that it can accept the seeds of representative government?

This touches on another question. I've often pointed out on these threads that this is a policy that invites failure. People from the military side, not unreasonably, point out that they don't set the policy, they just have to try to implement it as best they can, whether or not it's pointless and self-defeating. Under those circumstances, it makes sense to talk about how best to execute a bad policy. At the same time, though, it's easy to get so deep in that conversation that we forget to mention that, at root, this is simply bad policy. If we lose sight of that, the chances of repeating these policies, perhaps under the guise of "the policy isn't the problem, we just need to do it right", increase.

Part of the problem, to me, is that American policymakers have a real aversion to entering a small war with limited, pragmatic objectives. They want the objectives to sound noble and grand, like "spreading democracy". Limited, pragmatic objectives don't have the same ring to them.

While I don't like it, I am not sure I can make a cogent argument against it.

I try, with limited success.

Re this:

the belief that industrialization and economic development lead directly to positive social and political change

Is to me not entirely unreasonable, though of course the extent, nature and pace of change are not going to be predictable, and "positive" is in the eye of the beholder. Our error, to me, lies in the assumption that "industrialization and economic development" are deliverable goods that can simply be "installed", like a spare tire or a light bulb, in an environment where they did not previously exist. This belief is not consistent with experience or common sense, and needs to be... re-examined, at least.

[TheCurmudgeon]

This touches on another question. I've often pointed out on these threads that this is a policy that invites failure. People from the military side, not unreasonably, point out that they don't set the policy, they just have to try to implement it as best they can, whether or not it's pointless and self-defeating.

Part of the "point" of this endeavor is to teach military people enough about this theory so they can recognize when it is pointless. Essentially, use the theory to prove that it is not applicable in this situations.

I think I can do it, but I need to have a firm basis in the history of the theory and its evolution to where it is now. Boring background, but necessary.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Based on my research I have found that Modernization theory dates back to the late eighteenth century. The idea was that industrialization leads to changes in society. These changes are then attributed later with leading to modern democracy.

The problem in my mind is that the industrial revolution seems to start in the mid 1700s while the changes that allowed for democracy can be traced back at least 100 years earlier people like Hugo Grotius and events like the Glorious Revolution. Yet by the time Modernization was reinvigorated in the 1950's it was tied to economics and a pair of symposiums, one of which produced "Some social requisites of democracy", one of the most downloaded articles around. But even from there the theory morphs. The CORDS version of it seems to be tied to Capitalism and Commercialism - the Iraq/Afghanistan version tied to institutional forms. The common thread is that as things get better people want cosmopolitanism and political change. The idea that somehow industrialization and/or capitalism has lead to democracy. But it seems the other way around.

Anyone seen anything different?

[TTucker54]

If you have not read it yet, had you considered Reading Samuel Huntington's Political Order in Changing Societies? It was written in 1968, updated in 1995 and essentially destroys Modernization Theory. The updated version has a good forward by Francis Fukuyama.

[TheCurmudgeon]

If you have not read it yet, had you considered Reading Samuel Huntington's Political Order in Changing Societies? It was written in 1968, updated in 1995 and essentially destroys Modernization Theory. The updated version has a good forward by Francis Fukuyama.

Modernization theory is like a Hydra – you cut off one head and it grows two more. It is based on a fundamental assumption that the West got something right because we “modernized” first. If we could just figure out what we got right we could shove it down the throats of the rest of the world and fix everything. That last sentence was only half in jest – it is a combination of pride in thinking we did it “right” first, hubris that we think everyone else wants what we have, and double-dog-dare hubris in believing we can recreate it at will. It is that base idea that keeps reviving the theory in a new form. The latest was functional-structural; if you create the institutions and allow them to function the rest will follow.

I am trying to show that the entire idea of is off base, but I need to do a lot more research.