Jump to content

Talk:Modernization theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nythar (talk | contribs) at 22:55, 30 June 2022 (Mistake). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Which cultures did Wallerstein dismiss as backward?

Big Poopy McGoo

Perhaps most of his work was done at a time when the culture did not recognized how Eurocentric such a view was.--Silverback 04:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not so much in answer to your question: If you wish to write on Wallerstein's theory in general, the article bearing his name would be the place to do so. If you wish to write on how Modernization theorists criticize him/respond to his criticisms, then this is the correct article. If you believe his theory is Eurocentric that is insufficient, you need to provide evidence that (notable) people said this, otherwise the claim is the result of primary research and, as such, unencylopedic. That I do not believe it is possible to write about the development models without a cursory grasp of the pertinent academic literature is besides the point. El_C

You put the POV term backwardness into Wallerstein's mouth. You should document that.--Silverback 14:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In contrast to theories of modernization [...] the thrust of world-systems analysis is that continued inequalities and backwardness are furthered at the same time that wealth and progress occur in the core. (Univ. of Regina, Dept. of Sociology & Social Studies - Sociology 319 - Contemporary Social Theory).

Not POV (& not in his mouth), with respect to his theory (which -is- POV, as is Modernization) academically acceptable and up to par with scholarly standards. El_C

Interesting. If it is up to academic standards then the theory should be testable, perhaps he rigorously defined a backwardness scale. Today a different term would probably have been chosen.--Silverback 16:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps? Probably? Sir/Madam, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the Development models if you seek an answer to these questions, which I assure you, are largely answerable (at least the intellectual positions are). A number of works I cited in this article's reference section should prove useful on that front. El_C

Wikified

I have wikified this page, rearranging a few paragraphs in the process to improve article flow. No existing info was removed.
Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Improvement

This article needs to be substantially improved/rewritten. A ton of kids learn about this in school and come here for guidance. I might try a hand at it myself, but it's a tricky topic. Help is invited. Houshuang (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help! im one of those kids studing world sociology. Im not saying im a professor in sociology or anything, but perhaps the article needs putting into simpler terms for the general public public to understand. I just feel that a more open approach with simpler vocabulary would open out the subject for all those who read it.--Jonnyb2007 (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly needs more references, and a less bullish tone. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

'Among the scientists who contributed much to this theory are Walt Rostow' - Not entirely sure on the appropriateness of the term 'scientist' here. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.57.130 (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Agreed. I've changed it to academic. Iamsorandom (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The section that's titled "Development and modernization theory" seems misleading because the actual content itself does not talk about the similarities and differences between the two, as the title suggests. I think more content about the similarities and differences should be addressed, or the title should be changed if not. The sources provided are neutral and are from reputable academic sources. However, the viewpoints of the modernization theorists are overrepresented and the criticisms of modernization theory are not given enough voice. Teresayu1 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Spelling of "Modernization"

Wikipedia and most spellcheckers correct Modernisation ( note the S instead of a Z) into Modernization. The article is even titled with the z instead of an s, however, Modernization is spelled with an S throughout the article. Any reason as to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.128.49 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Modernisation is the British English spelling. Though consistency would be good! Iamsorandom (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms

I think the criticism section needs to be beefed up to0 - modernisation theory has been criticised a lot in academia, as, basically, false, as well as eurocentric - and neither of these pages reflect that.Iamsorandom (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This section currently needs some citations to back it up if it is to be included, like where are the sources that has Modernization theory as being eurocentric or a part of westernization? In addition, there seems to be some sentences that need some tidying up due to repetition (westernization, eurocentricism, etc.) and random draft sentences that are not coherent for this section. Final note, an improper citation seems to be used (MLA in-text citation) instead of a footnote linking to the source. Stevenau (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger

The modernisation wikipage covers the same topic as this. I think that should be merged into this page (that might help improve this article, too). Iamsorandom (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've now merged these pages. This page now needs tidying.

State Theory

This section needs ref.s Currently it doesn't make sense. Iamsorandom (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)