Written by Linda Sorensen

Global Studies 410 – Gender and Identity

Submitted to Professor Holslin

June 16, 2001

 

 

Modernization and the Third World

 

 

 

Modernization theory makes the claim that Western capitalist values and practices are the basis for “modernizing” third world countries and helping them become self-sustaining.  However, Latin America feels that following the modernization theory would only widen the gap between first and third world countries, causing the third world countries to depend even greater upon the first world countries for survival.  If this were true, then modernization for women in these countries would also be negatively affected.  In this paper, I will evaluate the views of both the modernization theory of the first world countries and the opposing view of the third world countries, and I will establish that even though modernization can benefit third world countries, it is not the best solution.

 

Modernization is the term used for the transition from the traditional society of the past to modern society as it is found today in the West.  Modernization or development theory presents the idea that by introducing modern methods in “technology, agricultural production for trade, and industrialization dependent on a mobile labor force,” the underdeveloped countries will experience a strengthening in their economies (Bonvillain, 191). There were many proponents of Modernization Theory, such as, Walter Rostow, W.A. Lewis, Talcott Parsons, and Daniel Lerner.  They all felt that the rest of the world needed to look to the Western model of modernity and pattern their society like the West in order to progress. 

 

Latin America didn’t see things in the same way as the proponents of modernization did.  “Latin American intellectuals began to debate the problem of underdevelopment” (Web – Modernization, Development and Underdevelopment).  They focused on the dependency theory, which presented the idea that the Core nations exploited the raw materials of the periphery nations.  The core nations would make large profits on the manufactured goods produced from the raw materials, while the periphery nations would make very low profits on materials exported.  Some of the proponents of this theory were Raúl Prebisch, Theotonio dos Santos, Paul Baran, Andre Gunder Frank, Fernando Cardoso, Walter Rodney, and Samir Amin.  They all felt the same as Raúl Prebisch when he explained that America and other nations at the core (center) were drawing “natural resources, labor, and raw materials away from the periphery in a parasitic relationship.  The more the center modernized and developed, the more the periphery would stagnate” (Web – Modernization, Development and Underdevelopment).  The periphery nations were basically there only to serve the needs of core capitalist societies.  These capitalist societies were attempting to modernize the third world countries by making them abandon their traditional ideals and latch on to the new industrial, capitalist view.  However, these intellectuals saw that their economic growth would be stunted even more if they did not find a solution to the problem.  “One solution promoted at this time was that the periphery must ‘de-link’ from the center in order to develop its own economy” (Web – Modernization, Development and Underdevelopment).  They would have to deal and trade from within trying to expand their internal market.  This idea was influenced by the philosophies of neo-Marxism.  It “drew on traditional Marxist idea, but incorporated a theory of imperialism” (Web – Modernization, Development and Underdevelopment).  It was eventually called the “New Left,” and “promoted a voluntarist revolutionary strategy based on the individual human will to overcome the “objective conditions” of one’s own exploitation” (Web – Modernization, Development and Underdevelopment).

 

As we research further into the modernization theory, we see that its development could “worsen women’s lives” probably more than anything (Bonvillain, 192).  In developing countries, women have been major contributors “to their households as primary subsistence farmers, producing crops for their families” (Bonvillain, 192).  In industrial societies, women are not able to own land, so their land rights are taken away by their husbands, and they “lose their important economic and social roles as subsistence food producers” (Bonvillain, 193).  Their “household craft production” also decreases and they “lose a significant source of income”(Bonvillain, 193).  As there is no way of making an income from their household anymore, women are driven to the cities to seek employment in larger businesses.  The problem with this is that they can only be hired for low-skilled and low wage jobs because all the higher paid and higher skilled jobs are saved for the men, who hold a higher place in “factory society.”  If a woman does get the same job usually performed by a man, she gets a much lower salary.  Also, a woman’s workload is increased greatly in the industrial world, because she has to work long hours at the factories then go home and still maintain her household.  Yet the work she does at home is not considered to be true production work, so it is ignored.  Latin American women often have to find jobs doing domestic services such as sewing, doing washing and ironing, and caring for young children.  “As a result, women’s work receives less financial reward and consequently less social value” (Bonvillain, 196).  Though many “Socialist” societies say that they combat “discrimination against women, they all suffer to varying degrees from failure to recognize the critical link between public production and social or household reproduction” (Bonvillain, 212).  They also don’t address the traditional patriarchal attitudes, which are still very popular in many societies even today.

 

We have seen that modernization has actually hindered the development of third world countries.  It is true, that third world countries do not have the modern conveniences and attitudes that accompany developed first world countries, but in order for them to become developed, they have to leave too much of who they are traditionally behind them in the process.  They have societies that have worked for them for centuries, and if developed first world countries try to modernize them, they will only bring greater problems to the global community.  Third world countries will lose their natural resources through unfair trade with first world countries, and problems facing women in these countries will only be intensified.  Cooperative production that is fair is the only way that will ease the struggles of third world nations.  Through cooperative production between men and women, and through fair compensation for both men and women, their lives will also exist in a better balance as they are recognized as equal contributors to their respective societies.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Bonvillain, Nancy.  Women and Men: Cultural Constructs of Gender.  Prentice-Hall, Inc.  Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.  2001.

 

National University. “Terms to Know: Modernization, Development and Underdevelopment.  http://www.online.nu.edu/re/NATU/GS410/(R53-69)-225309/modernization.html