China is proof positive that the "Modernization Theory" is finally dead, for good.

The theory in its most basic outline postulated societies passing through certain stages in history, culminating with the "modern" age. The main transition was formulated differently by different theorists.
For Karl Marx, the crucial transformation was from the stage of Feudalism to Capitalism. For Ferdinand Toennies it was the replacement of Gemeinschaft type of society by Gesellschaft. And for the "Father of Sociology" Emile Durkheim, it was the progress from a Mechanical to Organic type of social solidarity and division of labor.

Two main variants of this theory (Marxist versus Structural-Functionalist) postulated different "constitutive elements" of modernity.

Marxists thought capitalist industrialization was what made "modern" societies so unique.

For Structural Functionalists it was a long list of other factors including literacy, urbanization, democracy, rationality, Protestant Ethics and bureaucratization (Max Weber), etc.

Marxists were certain that modern industrialization would trigger an age of revolution and the "dictatorship of the proletariat," which translated as "freedom for the masses" in their book.
http://www.culturefeast.com/china-th...zation-theory/

The book provides the first history of the progression of ideas that laid the groundwork for development of poor, postcolonial countries by the World Bank Group's IDA and copycat institutions; as such, it is indispensable for understanding how the world arrived at the juncture it is at today.

Long after modernization theory was discredited it continued to shape how institutions in wealthy countries viewed societies in poor countries and administered to them. Not all the resulting development/aid programs have been 'bad,' by any means. But the intellectual constructs that supported them were just that, so when met with the cold light of events in this past decade they were as castles of sand meeting the ocean's tides.

The above is another way of saying that a study of Gilman's work is the best talisman against the fear that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. One finds assurances within the pages of the book that the world is just doing what it's always done: going its own way, raucously independent of how social scientists and economists think it should behave -- a point shored by Gilman's study of black globalization
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2008/12/...alization.html

So, my question to the probably two whole people that are interested in the topic, is how much did the general intellectual climate of our larger foreign policy intelligentsia find representation in current COIN doctrine? If these theories are discredited, why do we continue to interact with nations based on such theories? Is what I am postulating even true, and is it contributing to our current problems in A-stan?