Modernization theory framed imperial intervention as benevolent external uplift

Evidence

This new form of imperialism required a new language; that language was called “modernization theory.” Area studies were dominated by this approach from the 1950s to the 1970s. Modernization theory drew on the work of Max Weber, distinguishing between “traditional” and “modern” societies. Traditional societies were agricultural and rural, slow to change, and politically authoritarian. Modern societies, on the other hand, were seen as industrial, quick to change, and politically democratic and egalitarian. The scholars who developed this approach offered various explanations for why traditional societies did not progress; some pointed to cultural factors, others to economic ones. At the end of the day, it was agreed that change would not come from within these societies but had to be brought from outside. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 247

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Defines modernization theory as the post-war academic language justifying US empire building.
  • XREF: Relates to communication scholarship on how ‘traditional vs modern’ binaries structure development discourse, and to the reader’s media studies library (Communication as Culture). — connects to: Modernization theory justified empire by framing other societies as needing outside intervention; US post-war hegemony repurposed Orientalism and modernization theory to justify empire. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 28; The Orientals-cannot-self-govern claim runs from Oriental despotism through modernization theory (+2 more)

Broader Connections