Essential Concepts in Sociology. Anthony Giddens

familiar theme of inequality. He argues that, although many sociologists see globalization as partly or mainly a cultural phenomenon, we must acknowledge the key role played by capitalist economics and material interests. Martell takes issue with cosmopolitan theories of an emerging transnational political sphere, which he sees as overly optimistic. To the extent that it is real, globalization is uneven, reproducing existing inequalities and unequal power chances. Global free movement, for instance, means ‘those least in need – rich elites – being the most free, while those most in need of mobility – the poor and those beyond the rich core – are most restricted’ (Martell 2017: 251). Although cultural change is important, for Martell, capitalist economics remains the crucial driving force that is shaping the modern world.

       References and Further Reading

      Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (Cambridge: Polity).

      Hirst, P., Thompson, G., and Bromley, S. (2009) Globalization in Question (3rd edn, Cambridge: Polity).

      Kilminster, R. (1998) The Sociological Revolution: From the Enlightenment to the Global Age (London: Routledge).

      Martell, L. (2017) The Sociology of Globalization (2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity).

      Renard, M.-C. (1999) ‘The Interstices of Globalization: The Example of Fair Coffee’, Sociologia Ruralis, 39(4): 484–500.

      Robertson, R. (1995) ‘Glocalization: Time–Space and Homogeneity–Heterogeneity’, in M. Featherstone, S. Lash and R. Robertson (eds), Global Modernities (London: Sage), pp. 25–44.

      Roudometof, V. (2020) ‘The New Conceptual Vocabulary of the Social Sciences: The “Globalization Debates” in Context’, Globalizations, DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1842107.

      Wallerstein, I. (1974, 1980, 1989) The Modern World-System, 3 vols (New York: Academic Press).

      Waters, M. (2001) Globalization (2nd edn, London: Routledge).

Modernity

       Working Definition

      The period from the mid-eighteenth-century European Enlightenment to at least the mid-1980s, characterized by secularization, rationalization, democratization, individualization and the rise of science.

       Origins of the Concept

      The word ‘modern’ can be used to refer to anything that is contemporary, though the contrast between the ancient and the modern had become more commonplace in Europe by the late sixteenth century (Williams 1987). The idea of modernization – making something more contemporary – was seen as a retrograde step until the nineteenth century, when modernization took on a more positive hue. Over the first three-quarters of the twentieth century, the modernization of transport, houses, social attitudes, fashions and much more was widely seen as necessary and progressive. However, in social theory, ‘modernity’ has a much broader meaning, referring to an entire historical period from the mid-eighteenth century to the 1980s. Enlightenment philosophers attacked tradition, religious authority and received beliefs, proposing instead that human progress could come only through the application of rational thinking, scientific methods and the pursuit of freedom and equality. Sociology itself is a product of modernity which aims to gather reliable knowledge of the social world through scientific methods in order to intervene and improve society for the betterment of all.

       Meaning and Interpretation

      The period of modernity is said to follow from European feudalism and is an umbrella for all of the distinctive aspects of post-feudal societies. These include industrialization, capitalism, urbanization and urbanism as a way of life, secularization, the establishment and extension of democracy, the application of science to production methods, and a broad movement towards equality in all spheres of life. Modernity also instituted an increase in rational thinking and action characterized by an unemotional ‘matter of fact’ attitude, which contrasted sharply with the previous emotional and religious orientations to the world. Max Weber described this process as the gradual ‘disenchantment of the world’, spreading across the globe by an expanding, legal-rational form of capitalism.

As a social formation, modernity has been spectacularly successful in exploding the limits to the production of material goods, generating vast wealth for the relatively rich countries and bringing about more equality in many areas of life. During the twentieth century, many sociologists theorized that modernity represented a societal model that all nations would aspire to or be forced into eventually. This generic thesis came to be known as modernization theory, popularized by Walt Rostow (1961). Rostow argued that modernization was a process moving through several stages as societies ‘caught up’ with the early modernizers and their economies began to grow. From a traditional, agrarian or agricultural base, societies could modernize by shedding their longstanding traditional values and institutions and investing for future prosperity in infrastructural projects and new industries. From here, a continuous investment in advancing technology leads to higher levels of production and a drive towards mass consumption, which in turn creates a sustainable pattern of economic growth. Although countries such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore have followed a pattern somewhat akin to this, Rostow’s model is seen today as too optimistic, as many countries, particularly in Africa, have not modernized in this way.

      For some theorists, notably Zygmunt Bauman (1987), the key to understanding modernity lies in grasping its distinctive culture and mentality, which can be compared to gardening. The modern mentality is one that privileges order over randomness. Hence, if society is likened to a wild garden, then wilderness and wild nature had to be tamed and domesticated, and the growing power of nation states to do the gardening provided the means to achieve this. The gardening metaphor is not restricted to nation states, though, as the desire for order and orderliness became a normal aspect of people’s everyday modern lives.

       Critical Points

      Some sociologists argue that modernization theory fails to account for the persistence of gross inequalities in the global system and the apparent ‘failure’ of many developing economies to take off as predicted. In particular, recent postcolonial scholarship has argued forcefully that theories of modernity have failed to acknowledge the significance of colonialism (Bhambra 2007). Colonial expansion promoted economic development in the West but had severe consequences for the colonized countries, effectively stunting their development. Hence, the idea of endogenous economic development may be seen as, in essence, ideological rather than explanatory.

      A second criticism of the concept of modernity is that it is overgeneralized. Critics see it as really just a post hoc description of some modern societies – but by no means all – which fails to offer any explanation of the causes of modernization. Because the concept incorporates several key social processes, it is too vague and is largely descriptive rather than analytical. It is not clear which of the constituent elements is the main driving force in the modernization process. Is capitalist economics the main causal factor or is it industrialization? What role is played by democratization? Where does urbanization fit in – is it a cause or a consequence?

      Neo-Marxist critics also take issue with the idea that there is an inexorable logic to modernization that will propel the less developed societies into a period of strong economic growth and prosperity. Rather, at the global level, the relatively poor countries are kept in a permanent state of dependency by the relatively rich world; their resources are plundered by powerful transnational corporations that use their populations as a cheap source of labour. Hence, not only is the concept too vague, the modernization thesis as such is deeply