Countries vary, but civilization is one, and for its own progress a people must fully take part in this one civilization- Mustafa Ataturk

The idea of modernity is a difficult concept to grasp. “everyone thinks they know it when they see it , but getting a handle of the concept has not been easy”. Indeed, there is no definite criteria on what makes up a modern society.  There are many schools of thought on what constitutes as being modern.  Policies adopted by traditional  societies are usually influenced by the western societies, but that does not necessarily  mean that if a society adopts a western style it would automatically become modern.  Modernization is a revolutionary,  global, and systematic process that is also a phased, evolutionary, homogenizing, progressive, and an irreversible process. According to Huntington, Modernization is a complex process that requires different aspects of human thought and behavior to be tweaked. In order for a society to be come modern, political stability is essential. Samuel Huntington argues that political instability is the reason why countries in the developing world are not modern yet. It is not that the developing countries lack political participation, but because they lack political mobilization. No one has a problem participating in elections, but it is difficult for developing countries to mobilize political ideas and even control political activity.  Without mobilization, change is hard and therefor will stall the process of modernization.

A modern society in the “west” was not constructed over night, and most probably would not develop overnight in developing countries either. It would be wrong, then,  for countries to look at the western political system  as the ideal for modernization, though it is what most developing countries aim for.  America, for example, enjoyed equality and authority from  the beginning of its creation. Since they had already established authority, their main focus was not the creation of authority within society, but for the limitation of authority. In developing countries it is the creation of political authority with political mobilization that is the problem. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers: “you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”

Marx and Engles saw modernization as inevitable. They argue that at some point,  societies worldwide will eventually become modern. Capitalism, for them, is the key for the shaping of the modern society. Capitalism however, is not the final product of this modernization, but a tool used to bring societies to modernization. Because capitalism creates inequality, the gap will eventually widen to the point were the proletarians, the exploited working class, would become so fed up that they would revolt against the Bourgeoisie, the merchant class. The more globalization takes place, the more the bourgeoisie will exploit the proletarians,  the more likely it is for a struggle between the classes since the proletarians will realize that he/she is competing against other proletarians for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. After this struggle a new class of society will emerge which will focused on the sharing of wealth and the equality of the peoples.

Weber comes with a different conclusion on how society becomes modernized. He argues that there is a close correlation between the business and the Christian protestants. Because the protestants advocate that profit is a sign of God’s favor, it encourages the people to work: “If you work hard, God will reward you.” This attitude broke the traditional feudal system and thus created the capitalist system were work and profit were essential to human life.

It is remarkable how each theory holds some truths when comparing them with the present. Looking at the recent events, Marx’s prediction is fulfilled whether it is the Arab’s spring or the occupy movements of the world. It is a  start, or rather a sign, of a class struggle. Despite these current struggle, I do not think these events will develop into Marx’s modern society because of what Huntington points out to:  the lack of political mobilization between the proletarian society.

Furthermore, in my opinion the creation of what Weber called to be the modern capitalist system picked and chose favorites worldwide by evolving some communities while ignoring other ethnic groups. This is evident in Keith Watenpaughs book when he describes Fathallah Qatsan’s meeting on “becoming Civilized”. The author describes how the people that attended the meeting saw themselves as the modern people of the middles east. What was striking was that the majority of the people that were present in the meeting held Christian beliefs. The Christians of the region shared many similar life styles with other Muslims. However, this new class of Christians were the only culture to view themselves as modern. Whether it was the education they received from the west or their constant interactions with Europeans. It is clear that Europeans favored the Christians of the region more so than the Muslims. Which begs the question if Islam is compatible with modernity, or whether the Muslims were simply ignored and thus had a slow start in modernizing their respected societies. Change is key in a modernizing a people, but if societies refuse to change their life style, it becomes difficult for modernization to take place.

-OMG