Modernization Theory

The way people, societies, and countries develop and interact with each other have a strong influence on deviance. Although societies may differ in appearance and way of life, they all have crime, religion, family structure, politics, and economy. The vast differences in societies are constantly studied and theorized. Grand theories, for example, are meta-theories that examine an aspect of society on a global or national scale. One particular theory of interest is the modernization theory. The modernization theory suggests that the main causes of crime are the repercussions of the rapid development and modernization of nations (Howard 148).

The theory of modernization is composed of three distinct portions: (1) Identification of types of societies, and explanation of how those designated as modernized or relatively modernized differ from others; (2) specification of how societies become modernized, comparing factors that are more or less conducive to transformation; and (3) generalizations about how the parts of a modernized society fit together, involving comparisons of stages of modernization and types of modernized societies with clarity about prospects for further modernization. (Defining Modernization)

Part one explains that there must be qualities that differentiate modernized and underdeveloped societies. This is essential because a basis of comparison is required. Furthermore, the parameters of how societies modernize must be noted so that these growth factors can be compared across societies. The final portion requires an explanation about how aspects of a modernized society interact or vary. Emile Durkheim's "notion of anomie," or the s ocial instability caused by erosion of standards and values, provides the foundation for theories that focus on "the effects of modernization as the main causes of crime" (Howard 148). The specificity of contemporary theories fulfills the third part of the modernization theory's definition. The generalization is that results of modernization are main contributors to crime.

Many contend that although each nation is different, they experience "similar phases of development" (Howard 149). Naturally, modernization rests upon technological breakthroughs. Technology is the "catalyst that leads to political, economic, and demographic changes within a society (Strasser and Randall 1981)" (Howard 149). Technology is what propels a society into the spiral of modernization. It creates an atmosphere that fosters urbanization and industrialization. Urbanization is caused by the development of new technology which creates more jobs and creates concentrated population areas, also known as cities. These cities and modernization usually result in higher levels of crime. Thus, modernization theory argues that the results of modernity will provide a more substantial explanation of crime and all nations will "experience similar trends in crime rates as they develop" (Howard 149).

The similar trends that countries experience as they develop include a shift from crimes against people to economic and property crimes. That is, according to Glenn D. Walters there is a strong increase in the rate of "property-related and economically oriented categories of offense" (47). Shelley (1981) found that in the USSR, the more developed areas had higher rates of property crime, but the less developed areas experienced higher rates of violent crime. This has the potential implication that crime is simply more prevalent in urban areas, regardless of the countries state of development (Walters 47). Industrialization and urbanization place a stronger emphasis and value on material goods. Thus, there is going to be increase rates of property crimes because of the increased value. Crimes against property could potentially lead to crimes against people, but not necessarily (Walters 49).

Walters provides a number of explanations regarding the relationship between urbanization and crimes in his book, Foundations of Criminal Science: The Development of Knowledge. One explanation states, "Urbanization brings about a state of social alienation and incohesion that lends itself to increased criminal activity on the parts of persons predisposed to such acts" (48). More importantly, he explains, is that urban areas create an environment with greater criminal opportunities and "less chance of detection owing to the impersonal nature of the environment." The concept of opportunity is a strong motivator for crimes. As Walters explained, there is less chance of "getting caught" in an urban area. This contrasts with rural areas where there are stronger social ties among citizens.

Furthermore, according to Howard, as nations develop they experience a growth of social and economic relations. "These complex divisions are suspected of undermining mechanical solidarity and its control over the collective conscience. Thus, rapid social change engenders the breakdown of traditional values, resulting in...a higher crime rate" (Howard 148). This is an explanation of why there is a strong association with urbanization and crime. Walters explains this phenomenon in terms of "social and economic inequities." These injustices foster an environment "dissatisfaction and unrest" among citizens. The unrest and discontent is a potential explanation for the increased rates of crimes (Walters 49). Studies by Heiland and Shelley (1992) have suggested that modernization increases tension between groups contribute to the increase crime rates (Howard 149). This tension can also be seen in the increasing rates of anti-sociality, which Walters attests "accompanies a rise in industrialization and urbanization (compare Adler, 1983; Archer & Gartner, 1984; Wolf, 1971)" (47).

Powell's studies and analysis of the USSR's development and modernization yields results that support the modernization theory. Development led to a number of negative factors on society (618). ). Powell cites the development of the USSR as an important example of how modernization has a strong effect on social changes. He states, "The drive toward modernity seems invariably to produce new social and personal problems" (618). He refers to the USSR as "perhaps the world's most developed underdeveloped country" because of the significant achievements many societal aspects and the heavy costs of modernization. Powell utilizes the disruption of "traditional patterns of family life, religion, personal freedom, and community organization" to explain why there are more crime and juvenile delinquency along with high tensions among citizens (618). This clearly provides support for the modernization theory, which postulates that modernization will lead to increased crime rates. In the USSR, juvenile delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse rates increased quickly as the country progressed.

According to Claude Ake, one of the "social costs" was conflicts between various groups. "Conflicts between various groups and inherent in any social structure, and the more differentiated and variegated the structure, the higher the extent and intensity of such conflicts; thus the very process of modernization necessarily creates a high level of conflicts" (Ake 583). It is undoubtedly true that any change in society will create a ripple of unrest and discontent. The effects of modernization can be portrayed by stones dropped into a pond. As each stone hits and penetrate through the water surface, it sends a ripple that can be seen throughout the whole pond. This represents the repercussions and effects of modernization on society. There is bound to be tension.

Interestingly, Clinard and Abbott (1973) found evidence to support the claim that the negative effects of urbanization can be reduced by incorporating a more gradual transition. This can be accomplished by "decentralizing new industry, implementing a more organized plan of migration" and teaching its citizens about the potential problems of city-life (Walters 48). The implications of this evidence show that the modernization theory and its counterparts are not necessarily used to explain societal development, but can also provide methods to mollify the negative effects.

Although the modernization theory and Durkheim's concepts have substantial evidence as support, there are a number of criticisms of the modernization theory. For example, Frank W. Young of Cornell University contents that Durkheim was not concerned with poverty or "other accepted indicators of development" which certainly detracted from his argument. Furthermore, he lacked an analysis of "authoritarian government, class, conflict, and the outright exploitation," which are common features of development (73). In addition, Young explains that Durkheim's explanation for division of labor fails to account for several factors and limits itself in "specialization" (73-74). Durkheim's failure to account for important factors detracts from the theory's reliability and application to all societies. There will be a exceptions, such as Japan's modernization.

Another important effect of modernization, according to Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, is the deterioration of traditional values and "their replacement with 'modern' values." However, the opposing school of thought emphasized the "persistence of traditional values despite economic and political changes" (20). Critics of the modernization theory argued that it was essentially "blaming the victim" because modernization theory suggests that third world countries should "adopt 'modern' values and institutions" to become developed. Many were also critical of the theory because it failed to consider external factors including, colonialism, imperialism, and "newer forms of economic and political domination" (Inglehart 20). "Paradoxically, modernization can actually strengthen traditional values. Elites in underdeveloped nations who attempt to mobilize a population for social change often use traditional cultural appeals, as in Japan's Meiji Restoration" (Inglehart 21). There is clearly strong evidence to support the claim that the modernization theory has flaws. Traditional values should be destroyed according to the modernization theory, but in some cases, they are actually preserved.

As with any theory, there is much debate surrounding the topic. The modernization theory certainly has much validity and it can be applied to a number of cases. However, it is essential to note that there are exceptions that contradict the theory. Nevertheless, the modernization theory is a strong model that can help further the understanding of societal dynamics. It must not be viewed as the perfect solution or explanation for why everything is. Nothing is that simple. The theory provides a foundation for other theories to develop and branch off. The effects of modernity may explain some causes of crime, but more importantly, it gives insight on what types of changes can yield higher or lower crime rates. The modernization theory helps create a relationship between industrialization and deviance, which bolsters the understanding of societies' intricate inner workings.

Works Cited:

Ake, Claude. "Modernization and Political Instability: A Theoretical Exploration." World Politics 26.4 (1974): 576-91. JSTOR. Web. 2 Oct. 2009. .

Howard, Gregory J., Graeme Newman, and William A. Pridemore. "Theory, Method, and Data in Comparative Criminology." Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice. Vol. 4. 2000. 139-211.

Jones, Anthony T. "Durkheim, Deviance and Development: Opportunities Lost and Regained." Social Forces 59.4 (1981): 1009-024. JSTOR. Web. 2 Oct. 2009. .

"Modernization Theory - Defining Modernization Theory." Science Encyclopedia. Web. 02 Oct. 2009. .

Powell, David E. "The Social Costs of Modernization: Ecological Problems in the USSR." World Politics 23.4 (1971): 618-34. JSTOR. Web. 2 Oct. 2009. .

Walters, Glenn D. Foundations of Criminal Science: The Development of Knowledge. New York: Praeger, 1992.

Young, Frank W. "Durkheim and Development Theory." Sociological Theory 12.1 (1994): 73-82. JSTOR. Web. 2 Oct. 2009. .