Advertisement

Modernity, Late Development and Civil Society

  • Nicos Mouzelis
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

From a sociological point of view, modernity can be regarded as the social situation that became dominant in Western Europe after the English Industrial and the French Revolutions. It entailed an unprecedented social mobilization of human and non-human resources as the pronounced localism of the traditional post-medieval community was broken up and superseded by the creation of national arenas on the economic, political and cultural levels.

Keywords

Civil Society Trade Union Late Development Balance Growth State Apparatus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    It should also be stressed that Western European ‘modernization’ did not only entail the destruction of localism but also — at the other extreme — that of the transnational, European cultural and diplomatic space with which the Ancien régime upper class identified. For an early sociological analysis of the modernization process see R. Bendix, Nation-Building and Citizenship, Action Books, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Civil society organizations and interests are typically viewed as occupying the space between state and kinship institutions. See, for example, R. Tester, Civil Society, Routledge, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    This was the case in Argentina, for instance, during the post-Peron era. See H. Spalding, Organized Labor in Latin America, Harper, New York, 1977 andGoogle Scholar
  4. R. J. Alexander, Labor Relations in Argentina, Brazil and Chile, McGraw Hill, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    I have in mind here mainly Latin American societies (particularly those of the southern-cone region), as well as most Balkan societies. All of these became independent at the beginning of the nineteenth century, in the course of that century adopted democratic-parliamentary forms of rule, and experienced large-scale industrialization after the 1929 Depression. For convenience, I shall use the term parliamentary semiperiphery, or semi-periphery, tout court, when referring to these societies. For an examination of the long-term political developments in the parliamentary semi-periphery see N. Mouzelis, Politics in the Semi-Periphery: Early Parliamentarism and Late Industrialization in the Balkans and Latin America, Macmillan, London, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    A. Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Praeger, London, 1962.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    D. Senghaas, The European Experience: A Historical Critique of Development Theory, Berg, Leamington Spa, 1985 andGoogle Scholar
  8. 10.
    B. Moore, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Beacon Press, Boston, 1966.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    For the term of restricted capitalism see J. Taylor, From Modernization to Mode of Production: A Critique of the Sociologies of Development and Underdevelopment, Macmillan, ondon, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    M. Weber, The City, Macmillan, London, 1958andGoogle Scholar
  11. O. Hintze, ‘The preconditions of representative government in the context of world history’, in F Gilbert, ed., The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    P. Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State, New Left Books, ondon, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    M. Weber, Economy and Society, eds G. Roth and C. Wittich, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978, pp. 231–2.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    C. Veliz, The Centralist Tradition in Latin America, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980 and M. Sagatti, Spanish Bureaucratic Patrimonialism in America, Politics of Modernization Series No.1, University of California, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 20.
    N. Mouzelis, Modern Greece: Facets of Underdevelopment, Macmillan, London, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    G. Mavrogordatos, Stillborn Republic: Social Coalitions and Party Strategies in Greece 1922–1936, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1983, Ch. 3.Google Scholar
  17. 26.
    For the debate on the linkages between import-substitution industrialization and populism see J. Malloy, Authoritarianism and Populism in Latin America, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. 27.
    For the initial theory on the rise of bureaucratic authoritarianism see G. O’Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1973; for the long debate on O’Donnell’s theory, seeGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Collier, The New Authoritarianism in Latin America, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. 29.
    For a development of this point see Mouzelis, Politics in the SemiPeriphery, pp. 97–184 and in Mouzelis, ‘Regime instability and the state in the parliamentary semi-periphery’, in C. Thomas and P. Saravanamutha, eds, State and Instability in the Third World, Macmillan, London, 1989. For the democratization trends in Latin America and Southern Europe seeGoogle Scholar
  21. G. O’Donnell, P. Schmitter and L. Whitehead, eds, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1985.Google Scholar
  22. 30.
    Populism in its extreme form seriously undermines civil society, and so has a strong affinity with W. Kornhauser’s concept of mass society. See his The Politics of Mass Society, Free Press, Glencoe (Ill.), 1959.Google Scholar
  23. 32.
    E. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1983.Google Scholar
  24. 34.
    P. Kitromilidis, The French Revolution and South-Eastern Europe, Diaton, Athens, 1990 (in Greek).Google Scholar
  25. 35.
    B. Anderson, Imagined Communities, New Left Books, London, 1983.Google Scholar
  26. 36.
    On the issue of the sequence of crises in development, see L. Binder et al., Crises and Sequences in Political Development, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1971.Google Scholar
  27. 37.
    For the concept of populism and the various debates on contrasting definitions and theories see M. Canovan, Populism, Junction Books, London, 1981Google Scholar
  28. E. Laclau, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory, New Left Books, ondon, 1977, 1978; Mouzelis, ‘On the concept of populism’; and Mouzelis, Politics in the Semi-Periphery. Google Scholar
  29. 39.
    P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 42.
    The late-late’ label is used in development theory to make a distinction between the (compared to England) relatively late Western European industrializers (e.g. Germany), and those societies that experienced large-scale industrialization only after 1929. See on this point A. Hirschman, A Bias for Hope, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1970, Ch. 3.Google Scholar
  31. 43.
    D. Morawetz, Twenty-five Years of European Development 1950–75, World Bank, Washington, 1977.Google Scholar
  32. 44.
    R. Wade, ‘State intervention in outward looking development: 1950–1975’, in G. White and R. Wade, eds, Developmental States in East Asia, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, 1985. See alsoGoogle Scholar
  33. R. Wade, Governing the Market, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990 andGoogle Scholar
  34. F.C. Deyo, ed., The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1987.Google Scholar
  35. 45.
    S. Haggard, Pathways from the Periphery, Cornell University Press, thaca, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998
Selection and editorial matter © Lars Rudebeck, Olle Törnquist and Virgilio Rojas 1996, 1998 Text © Macmillan Press Ltd 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicos Mouzelis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations