DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WESTERNIZATION AND MODERNIZATION
WESTERNISATION
The term ‘Westernisation’ is very important to study social change in India. The three hundred years of British rule in India brought drastic changes in the lifestyle of the people of India. It brought economic and political changes and cultural and social changes. Unlike the other traders, the British brought with them technology, institutions, values and ideas of the Western counterpart. This became one of the major sources of mobility for various groups and communities.
According to M.N. Srinivas, “Westernisation” refers to “the changes brought about in the Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule and the term subsumes changes occurring at different levels – technology, institutions, ideology and values.”
During the 19th century, the British slowly laid the foundation stone of a modern state by settling themselves in India. They started building factories, companies, spreading English education, missionary ideologies, western laws etc., with the help of the Indian rulers. Slowly, they destroyed the Indian tradition and art and culture by dominating the people. The British brought the printing press, railway, and built roads and canals, thus leading to diverse changes in the Indian subcontinent. Books and journals were published which began to spread western education among the Indians. English medium schools and colleges were established. All these brought drastic changes in the lifestyle of the people. They adopted western lifestyles and eating habits, dressing styles etc.
According to Srinivas, westernisation defines not only structural changes but also ideological changes. The mindset of the people also changed. For example—The Sati system and child marriage were abolished with British rule. Efforts and various reforms were taken to spread women's education, widow remarriage, untouchability etc. Even though the form and pace of westernisation took place at different time periods in different regions, it did affect one form or the other.
MODERNISATION
Modernisation is not a philosophy or a movement. Rather, it is a process of change that takes place due to the adoption of some modern values, ideas and knowledge. Earlier it was used only to depict economic development and progress. However, the term has broadened, thus explaining the changes in society from agriculture to industrial society. These changes brought progress not only in the economy or political field but also in social and cultural spheres.
Earlier, people were very conservative regarding religious and societal and cultural values. They were very custom bound, thus declining to accept modern technology and inventions. However, with time people are now changing their values and ideas to situate themselves in modern society. People are leaving their conservative and superstitious values and trying to adapt to the present time, conditions, styles, etc. Thus, they are inculcating new forms of food habits, dressing styles, education, speaking styles, ideas, values etc. Here, the contribution made by scientific technologies, new forms of communication, the internet etc., have to be mentioned.
M.N. Srinivas criticises the term ‘Modernisation’ and prefers to use ‘Westernisation’ instead of ‘modernisation’. However, Yogendra Singh defends the concept of modernisation. For Singh, the term ‘modernisation’ has a broader meaning as compared to westernisation and sanskritization. Just as science and scientific rules can be applied to each and every corner of society, modernisation can also be used everywhere. It belongs to every human being in the universe, although the pattern of modernisation may be different everywhere. Thus, it can be considered that the modernisation process as a set of changes is applicable to society. These changes may be simple or complex; each process will determine the country’s history, region, etc.
Nevertheless, one can say that modernisation in India started as a result of British rule in India. The contact of the British with the Indian culture brought various changes in the values and ideas in the belief system of the people of the country. After independence, India transformed itself and began to look into development and progress, thus moving through the route of modernisation. However, this does not mean that they abandoned traditional values and ideas. People began to take the route of modernisation while keeping the traditional ones intact.
According to Smelser, “Modernization refers to “a complex set of changes that take place almost in every part of society as it attempts to be industrialized. Modernization involves ongoing change in a society’s economy, politics, education, traditions, and religion.”
According to Alatas, “Modernisation is a process by which modern scientific knowledge is introduced in the society with the ultimate purpose of achieving a better and a more satisfactory life in the broadest sense of the term as accepted by the society concerned.”
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WESTERNIZATION AND MODERNIZATION
Srinivas points out that ‘modernisation’ is the popular term to explain the process of changes brought about in a non-Western country by contact, direct or indirect, with a Western country. In his celebrated book “The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East” (1958), the US social scientist Daniel Lerner, for example, preferred ‘Modernisation’ to Westernisation. He argues that modernisation includes a “disquieting positivist spirit” touching “public institutions as well as private aspirations”, a revolution in communications, wider economic and political participation and social mobility. Furthermore, modernisation enables people to view “the social future as manipulable rather than ordained and their personal prospects in terms of achievement rather than heritage” (Srinivas 1966/85: 50).
Srinivas also goes on to discuss why the term ‘Westernisation’ is unacceptable to scholars like Lerner, who finds that it is “too local a label” or “the model which is imitated may not be a Western country but Russia, Turkey, Japan, or India” (Srinivas 1966/85: 50). Another important reason for Lerner’s preference of “modernisation to Westernisation is that the educated people in the Middle East while wanting “the modern package” reject the label ‘made in U.S.A.’ (or for that matter ‘made in USSR’) (Srinivas 1966/85: 50-51).
Srinivas, however, argues that it is difficult for a sociologist to be certain that a particular change is part of the process of modernisation. He cites the US sociologist Robert Bellah who contends that “modernisation involves the ‘rationalisation of ends,’ which means that the goal chosen by a society should be ‘rational’ and the subject of public discussion” (1966/85: 52). However, social goals are in the final analysis the expression of value preferences, and therefore, nonrational. The public discussion of goals is no guarantee of their rationality (ibid). Moreover, Srinivas does not find the value of humanitarianism ingrained into the concept of modernisation.
According to Srinivas, unlike ‘Modernisation’, however, the term ‘Westernisation’ is ethically neutral. As he writes, “(I)ts use does not carry the implication that it is good or bad, whereas modernisation is normally used in the sense that it is good” (1966/88: 52). But he still points out other difficulties in Westernisation. For example, not all the elements known to be part of Western culture originated in the West. Many such elements were derived from China, India or West Asia. Besides, the concept of ‘West’ is also not entirely homogenous. However, having acknowledged these problems, Srinivas preferred the term ‘Westernisation’ which he described as “an inclusive, complex, and many-layered concept” (ibid: 52-53), taking cognizance of the intricate ways in which operates (ibid: 54-56).
M.N. Srinivas criticises the term ‘Modernisation’ and prefers to use ‘Westernisation’ instead of ‘modernisation’. However, Yogendra Singh defends the concept of modernisation. For Singh, the term ‘modernisation’ has a broader meaning as compared to westernisation and sanskritisation. Just as science and scientific rules can be applied to each and every corner of society, modernisation can also be used everywhere. It belongs to every human being in the universe, although the pattern of modernisation may be different everywhere. Thus, it can be considered that the modernisation process as a set of changes is applicable to society. These changes may be simple or complex; each process will determine the country's history, region, etc.
However, at the same time, he was conscious of the varied ways in which Westernisation operates, often with opposite results (ibid: 55). As he states, the “form and pace of Westernisation...varied from one region to another, and from one section of the population to another. For instance, if one group of people became Westernized in their dress, diet, manners, speech, sports and in the gadgets they used, while another absorbed Western science, knowledge, and literature remaining relatively free from Westernisation in externals” (1962/89: 50-51). Considering all these, Srinivas emphasised qualifying the term ‘Westernisation’ by the prefixes ‘primary’, ‘secondary’ and ‘tertiary’.
India has undergone noticeable changes due to the influence of modernization and westernization. Both were adopted by India, resulting in significant economic, social, cultural and political development changes. Globalization is one of the prominent effects of Westernization that has benefitted India economically and socially. Westernization and modernization have resulted in structural changes. However, the nonchalant attitude of youths, the concept of living in nuclear families, sending parents to old-aged homes, visiting discotheques, and intoxication do not count as a part of Indian culture. Hence, we can conclude that India needs more modernization and less westernization in a balanced way to usher rapidly in the future.
Post a Comment