Modernization Theory is Hokum.

[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?

[Fuchs]

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.

(...)

Anyone seen anything different?

An excuse for colonialism was to bring civilisation to savages...

[TheCurmudgeon]

An excuse for colonialism was to bring civilisation to savages...

I guess it's true what they say -- the more things change the more they stay the same.

[condottiere]

It is possible, but it depends on circumstances, the resistance of natives to imported ideas, and how they perceive the source.

The Vietnamese are quite receptive to new ideas that will improve their lives, they'd resist them if it came from a colonial or occupying force where the intent is to tighten control over their lives, as compared to the present policy of exploiting capitalism to advance the GDP, improve the lives of the proletariat and enrich the elite.

Afghanistan requires a critical mass of urbanization to counter balance the warlords and tribal elders who are protective of the influence they command in their bailiwicks, and the Taliban who tap into a deeply embedded independent minded paranoiac patriarchal culture to justify and sustain their insurgency and eventual power grab. Outside of those who are directly bribed by the Americans (Karzai) and those with the most to lose (educated women), you won't have that required bedrock of support.

In fifty years Afghanistan might be comfortable with accepting the benefits of civilization.

[TheCurmudgeon]

It is possible, but it depends on circumstances, the resistance of natives to imported ideas, and how they perceive the source.

I am not sure I totally agree with this. Being an outsider, particularly one that has already been demonized by the religious leadership (Infidels) means that you have a harder time selling your ideas where they differ from the ideas of the population. But if the ideas match those of the local population I think your job is much easier.

An example is roads. Building a road is a "Muslim" thing to do. It benifits the Ummah (population in general). I had a local national tell my XO "you can build your road, but we don't want your religion or your culture."

The Vietnamese are quite receptive to new ideas that will improve their lives, they'd resist them if it came from a colonial or occupying force where the intent is to tighten control over their lives, as compared to the present policy of exploiting capitalism to advance the GDP, improve the lives of the proletariat and enrich the elite.

I am not sure about this. Vietnam doesn't like new ideas even if they come from within the country.

Vietnam restricts social media posts

"Personal electronic sites are only allowed to put news owned by that person, and are not allowed to 'quote', 'gather' or summarise information from press organisations or government websites,” local media quoted Hoang Vinh Bao, director of the Broadcasting and Electronic Information Department at the Ministry of Information and Communications, as saying.

That is not unique to Vietnam, it is the nature of any like situated society (to a point).

Afghanistan requires a critical mass of urbanization to counter balance the warlords and tribal elders who are protective of the influence they command in their bailiwicks, and the Taliban who tap into a deeply embedded independent minded paranoiac patriarchal culture to justify and sustain their insurgency and eventual power grab.

This "urbanization" myth is exactly what I am talking about. Urbanization has existed for centuries. Most city-states were urban. Yet they were not modern democracies. Urbanization is associated with increased income and GDP, but not necessarily required by it. The changes that bring about a more open society are social.

In fifty years Afghanistan might be comfortable with accepting the benefits of civilization.

I am not sure what you mean by the "benefits of civilization", and no offense to the Afghans, but unless they find a way to harness and sell solar power or we make heroin legal, Afghanistan will look pretty much exactly the way it does not in fifty years. Without a steady source of income and a substantial rise in per capita GDP, nothing there is going to change.