Modernization Theory Of Development

In the previous chapter, we have seen the philosophical underpinning of development what is the purpose of life to motivate for the active engagement or to desire for achievement of designed objectives. The desire and motive are considered as core processes of development since any change is either desired for better life or motivated willingness to act something. These philosophical foundations have their own driving forces of development to change the assumptions and dimensions of argument.
As a result, modernization and post-modernization as development paradigms have emerged from these notions as two basic categories. Since 1950 many development academics and agencies have argued for their respective categorical traditions; while the

Likewise, philosophy of development has traditionally attached with this modernism paradigm. ‘Modernism’ implies the opposite of traditionalism. So to modernize is to be transformed from traditional life style to the advanced standard of living. This assumption undermined the societal development into dual form categorization: traditional and modern. Traditional society has been considered as undeveloped/underdeveloped one whereas modern one is as advanced society that the former seeks and has to achieve in the process. This assumption has been underpinning for materialized development theories of modernism approach.
With the philosophical discourse, the modernism phenomena began with the Renaissance worldview and based on a belief in human capability, the scientific method, reason of knowledge, and individual liberty in the 17th and 18th centuries. Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and other thinkers are considered as forerunners of modernism. Most of them were metaphysically realists and epistemologically objectivists whether they were empiricists or rationalists. The following notion can give good picture about the Enlightenment modernism

That is to say the main factors for emergence of development thinking were involved in the consequences of industrial revolution due to societal transformation and ‘social misery and disorder’ and due to dispossession, low wage, and unemployment and poverty issues. Cowen and Shenton argued “It was the turmoil and fear of revolution in the first half of the nineteenth century that gave birth to the idea of development and it is these unexplored origins that are the source of much of present-day confusion about development’s meaning.”(Cown & R.W.Shenton, 1996, p. 12).The question here is: what are the basic factors for the emergence of development thinking? Karl Marx and Engels in their popular book of ‘Communist Manifesto’ attempted to explain the answer by stating “The burden of development was to compensate for the negative propensities of capitalism through the reconstruction of social order. To develop, then, was to ameliorate the social misery which arose out of the immanent process of capitalist growth."(Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 116). Thus the 19th century was characterized by how the constraints and the improvement could be reconciled and was immanently reason for the development