Answer

(Also Modernization) is a concept in the sphere of social sciences that refers to process in which

society goes through industrialization, urbanization and other social changes that completely
transforms the lives of individuals.
The concept of modernization comes from a view of societies as having a
standard evolutionary pattern, as described in the social evolutionism theories. According to this each
society would evolve inexorably from barbarism to ever greater levels of development and civilization.
The more modern states would be wealthier and more powerful, and their citizens freer and having a
higher standard of living. This was the standard view in the social sciences for many decades with its
foremost advocate being Talcott Parsons. This theory stressed the importance of societies being open
to change and saw reactionary forces as restricting development. Maintaining tradition for tradition's
sake was thought to be harmful to progress and development.
This approach has been heavily criticized, mainly because it conflated modernization
with Westernization. In this model, the modernization of a society required the destruction of the
indigenous culture and its replacement by a more Westernized one. Technically modernity simply
refers to the present, and any society still in existence is therefore modern. Proponents of
modernization typically view only Western society as being truly modern arguing that others are
primitive or unevolved by comparison. This view sees unmodernized societies as inferior even if they
have the same standard of living as western societies. Opponents of this view argue that modernity is
independent of culture and can be adapted to any society. Japan is cited as an example by both sides.
Some see it as proof that a thoroughly modern way of life can exist in a non-western society. Others
argue that Japan has become distinctly more western as a result of its modernization. In addition, this
view is accused of being Eurocentric, as modernization began in Europe and has long been regarded
as reaching its most advanced stage in Europe (by Europeans), and in Europe overseas (USA, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand etc).
According to the Social theorist Peter Wagner (Social theorist), modernization can be seen as
processes, and as offensives. The former view is commonly projected by politicians and the media,
and suggests that it is developments, such as new data technology or dated laws, which make
modernization necessary or preferable. This view makes critique of modernization difficult, since it
implies that it is these developments which control the limits of human interaction, and not vice versa.
The latter view of modernization as offensives argues that both the developments and the altered
opportunities made available by these developments, are shaped and controlled by human agents.
The view of modernization as offensives therefore sees it as a product of human planning and action,
an active process capable of being both changed and criticized. Modernization is most likely one of the
most influential happenings in society.
A WORD ON DEVELOPMENT
When we use the word development we imply a process or movement, presumably forward, upward
or generally toward something better than what was. But this immediately raises all sorts of
questions. Take the case of the man in the village who has spent the day fishing. Today, in many
parts of the Pacific he is liable to bring his catch into his home to feed his own household. In years
past, he may have felt obliged to share his catch with his whole lineage group and possibly a good
part of the village as well. By today's standards the fisherman could be called provident and
enterprising for providing inexpensive protein for his family; by yesterday's norms he would be judged
stingy for failing to share his catch with the wide circle of kinfolk towards whom he was obligated. By
which norms should he be judged?
The matter becomes still more complicated when we consider other possibilities. Suppose the way the
man disposes of his fish is intimately bound up with other values and attitudes that are the effect of
modernization. Suppose the very same values which lead him to limit the distribution of his fish also
dictate that he will avoid beating his wife, send his daughter to school and take disciplinary action
against a brother-in-law who is working under him in a government bureau. Does this pattern of
values to which the man now subscribes represent genuine development or regression? What if the
very changes that undermine his broad kin group are also responsible for greater individual freedom
and a vision that looks beyond the boundaries of the village for the first time? The ethical dilemmas of
modernization do not yield easy answers.
In taking up the difficult theme of the ethics of development, there are three important premises we
must keep firmly in mind. First, since development is a process or movement, we must remember it is
relevant to ask: where have we come from? where are we now? and where are we headed? The
danger is that ignoring the first and last, we may focus exclusively at where we are now. Only when
we consider all three can we make adequate ethical judgements on development.
The second thing to remember is that change rarely happens piecemeal and in isolation. Modernization
involves not so much discrete elements as clusters of interrelated attitudes and values that are of a
piece. One buys what the world calls development or modernization in wholesale lots rather than by
the single item. This is not to say that a people on the path to development are doomed to become
carbon copies of the industrialized nations of the world. They have real choices. But each choice made
entails various other elements implicit in and related to the first, although they may not be perceived
as such at the outset. An option for the money economy, for instance, implies much more than a
decision to replace barter with a single medium of exchange, as we well know. The same can be said
of bank accounts and refrigerators, which offer people the means of preserving resources that
formerly would have had to be distributed immediately.
If this should seem unduly fatalistic, then it is well to keep in mind our third premise. Years ago it was
fashionable for cultural anthropologists to regard societies or cultures as complex bits of machinery,
like the old-fashioned spring watch, in which every part was interrelated. An alteration in one of the
parts would invariably change, and often damage, the functioning of the entire machine. Lately we
have come to realize that societies are as organic as the people who form them. Like the human body,
a society can adapt to stresses and changes in their environment and even to the viruses and bacteria
that assail its inner workings. Societies, then, are capable of healing themselves. And they can do so
even as they retain their own distinctiveness.
With this in mind, then, I would like to describe three of the broad areas of change that modernization
is bringing to island societies, at least those in Micronesia, the part of the Pacific in which I have
worked for the past twenty years. My hope, of course, is that at least some of this will have
application to societies in Papua New Guinea as well. The three broad areas of change we will consider
here are related to some of the sub-themes taken up in other volumes in this series. We will first
examine kin group or tribal loyalties as opposed to the demands of the state. Then we shall take up
the tension between the nuclear family and the extended family. Finally, we will look at the relations
between the sexes as they have been altered in recent years.

Modernization and traditional society

Modernization theorists often saw traditions as obstacles to economic growth. Furthermore, while
modernization might deliver violent, radical change for traditional societies it was thought worth the price.
Critics insist that traditional societies were often destroyed without ever gaining promised advantages if,
among other things, the economic gap between advanced societies and such societies actually
increased. The net effect of modernization for some societies was therefore the replacement of traditional
poverty by a more modern form of misery, according to these critics.[1] Others point to improvements in
living standards, physical infrastructure, education and economic opportunity to refute such criticisms.

Postmodernism
Main article:  Postmodernism

Whereas postmodernity is a condition or a state of being associated with changes to institutions and
conditions (Giddens, 1990) and with social and political results and innovations, globally but especially in
the West since the 1960s, postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy, the
"cultural and intellectual phenomenon", especially since the 1920s' new movements in the arts. These
terms are used by philosophers, social scientists and social critics to refer to aspects of contemporary
culture, economics and society that are the result of features of late 20th century and early 21st century
life, including the fragmentation of authority and the commoditization of knowledge (see "Modernity").[citation
needed]

The relationship between postmodernity and critical theory, sociology and philosophy is fiercely contested
and the terms "postmodernity" and "postmodernism" are often hard to distinguish, the former being often
the result of the latter. The period has had diverse political ramifications: its "anti-ideological ideas"
appear to have been positively associated with the feminist movement, racial equality movements, gay
rights movements, most forms of late 20th century anarchism and even the peace movement as well as
various hybrids of these in the current anti-globalization movement. Though none of these institutions
entirely embraces all aspects of the postmodern movement in its most concentrated definition they all
reflect, or borrow from, some of its core ideas.

Human body

One rational tendency is towards increasing the efficiency and output of the human body. Several means
can be employed in reaching this end, including trends towards regular exercise, dieting,
increased hygiene, drugs, and an emphasis on optimal nutrition. These allow for stronger, leaner, more
optimized bodies for quickly performing tasks.[6] Another derivative of this is towards maintaining a certain
level of physical attraction. Processes such as the combing of hair, use of a fragrance, having an
appropriate haircut, and wearing certain clothesreceive calculated use, that of giving off a certain
impression to other individuals.

Another trend is in the bureaucratization of processes that formerly might have been done through the
home. This includes the use ofhospitals for childbirth and the use of doctors to identify symptoms of an
illness and to prescribe treatment.

[edit]Education

Rationalized education tends to focus less on subjects based around the use of critical discourse (for
instance, philosophy) and more on matters of a calculated importance (such as business administration).
This is reflected also in the move towards standardized and multiple choice testing, which measures
students on the basis of numbered answers and against a uniform standard.
[edit]