See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270127943

Modernity and Gender: A Critique of Modernization Theory

Article in Himalayan Journal of Sociology and Anthropology · July 2014

DOI: 10.3126/hjsa.v6i0.10732

CITATIONS READS

8 15,797

1 author:

Youba Luintel
Tribhuvan University
10 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Youba Luintel on 20 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. VI (2014) ISSN : 2382-5073

Modernity and Gender: A Critique of Modernization

Theory
? Youba Raj Luintel, Ph.D

Abstract
This paper provides a bold critique of the hegemonic dualism in the light of
insights that Tariq Banuri has offered. It also demonstrates the contours of gender
asymmetry as an outcome of the masculine impersonal map of modernization.
Highlighting the alternative model of development, it seeks to see the implication
it has in the context of gender. The first section introduces the context with some
of the questions to be focused on. It follows by a discourse of modernization and
by an appraisal of Banuri’s main arguments on cultural maps and knowledge
hierarchy. Conceptual contours of modernization and gender are sought before
the final section puts forward empowerment as an alternative thesis.

Keywords: culture map, gender, knowledge hierarchy, modernization, Tariq

Banuri.

1. Introduction
Tariq Banuri’s meticulous critique on modernization is one of the unique
scholarly responses towards the intellectual hegemony of the West
(Banuri, 1990). It is very recently that (the Third World) scholars such as
Banuri have been courageous enough to articulate their voices effectively
that modernization has but discontents. It is not that Banuri is the first
to comment, but it is he who offers a) extensive arguments from culture
standpoint; and b) proposes an alternative model for the development
of Third World countries. Like most other discussions on development
theories, Banuri does not even touch on gender issues (neither in the
discussion of modernization nor in his formulation of alternative paradigm).
This paper attempts to fill in this gap. This paper primarily summarizes the
main points that Banuri has raised. Highlighting the alternative model of
development that he offers, this paper seeks to see the implication it has in
the context of gender. The primary objective of this paper is, however, to
review the basic premises of Banuri’s article on modernization.
This paper has been organized into four sections. The first section introduces
the context with some of the questions to be focussed on. In the second
221
Modernity ........ Luintel

section, discourse of modernization has been problematized followed by

an appraisal of Banuri’s main arguments on cultural maps and knowledge
hierarchy. In the third section, conceptual contours of modernization and
gender issues have been sought. The final section brings this paper to an
end offering an alternative to overcome the problems associated with
modernization perspective.
Tariq Banuri’s paper was published at the time when development theories
were facing a sort of crisis and stagnation, often called the “development
impasse.” It is in this context that Banuri tried to understand the cause
of crisis in development thinking. Soon he came in a conclusion that
to understand the so-called “development impasse” we should look at
the impact of the entire “corpus of modernization” theories, and not on
specific instances of their implication. It was, he said, an outcome of
fundamental differences over the “ways of seeing” the world. Therefore,
instead of being engaged on facial and superficial parts of the problems,
Banuri made an effort to operate the modernization paradigm itself.
Banuri organized his paper in three parts: The first section initiates a
discussion on the main premises of development theories, followed
by second section which is relatively long in size and rich in contents.
Here Banuri elaborates his central thesis, making simultaneous review
of modernization paradigm. Basically, he derives his arguments out of
apparent dissatisfaction with the dualist proposition of development
theories including modernization. The third and final section of his paper
offers a proposition on development vision for the Third World, which he
says an “alternative development” paradigm. Before we move directly to
Banuri’s main thesis, it will be contextual to have a snapshot discussion on
some of the basic premises of modernization theory itself.

2. Basic Premises of Modernization Theory

The theory of modernization has its roots in the ideas of linear progress.
1
The linear theory of social change and progress claims that the natural
course of society is to move from simplicity to complexity, from
homogeneity to heterogeneity, and from “tradition” to “modernity,” etc.
That the Western European and the North American societies are the
“civilized” and “ideal” ones, towards which all the other should opt for, is
the underlying assumption behind it. Like 2Durkheim, it was argued that
the shift from limited economic relationships of “traditional” society to
the “innovative,” complex, economic associations of modernity depended
222
Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. VI (2014) ISSN : 2382-5073

on a prior change in the values, attitudes and norms of people. Table 1

represents the perceived notion on how does development depend on
“traditional” or “primitive” values being displaced by the “modern” ones.

Table 1: Parsonian “Tradition-Modernity” Distinctions

Cultural criteria “Traditional” society “Modern” society
Value of tradition Tradition is predominant; People are not slaves
people are oriented to to tradition; they will
the past challenge anything seen
unnecessary
Kinship Decisive reference point Weakening kinship ties;
for all social practices hard-work and achievement
motivations
World view Emotional, superstitious, People are forward-looking
and fatalistic approaches and innovative; strong
entrepreneurial spirit and
rational approach
Source: Adapted from Parsons, 1951 (cf. Webster, 1984:49-50).
The early sociological distinction between “traditional” and “modern”
societies soon became a means to elaborate the “stage model” of
development espoused by W. W. Rostow (1960)3. It was thought the
“traditionality” that the Third World societies hold is the impediment
to development. Therefore, modernization “project” became the only
desirable model that could remove all those impediments, and help the
growth increase.
Eisenstadt (1966, cf. Webster, 1984), one of the contributors to
modernization theory, argued: “(h)istorically, modernization is the process
of change towards those types of social, economic and political systems
that have developed in Western Europe and North America… .” Banuri,
however, maintains serious doubts about the wisdom of many aspects that
modernization theories presume. He finds a sort of “tension between the
universe of those who study the Third World and the universe of those
who inhabit this world” (Banuri, 1990:73). Hence, instead of following
the arguments and claims forwarded by modernization theorists, he
starts reviewing the very basic mode of enquiry: from definition to basic
elements of culture, and tries to locate differences that the West and the
Third World societies possess. Doing so, as Banuri maintains, it will take
into account more centrally the problems and failures of the process of
223
Modernity ........ Luintel

modernization.
“The elegant and pedigreed assumption of modernization world-view,”
as the Western knowledge system puts it, is that the “impersonal
relations are inherently superior to personal relations” which Banuri
calls the “impersonality postulate” (Banuri, 1990:74). The impersonality
postulate according to Banuri concentrates its intellectual energies only
on those aspects of social behaviour, which can be encompassed within
“an objectivist matrix.” The bias which modernization theory holds
is the fundamental bias that contributed to provide growing doubts,
disappointment and disillusionment with the record of almost half a century
of modernization project at work4. Critics such as Banuri argue that the
harmful consequences were inherent in the process of modernization itself,
which can only be properly understood if we understand the underlying
intellectual, moral and political bases of modernization.

3. Banuri’s Main Tenets

According to Banuri, theories of modernization emanate from the West,
which are a very important tool to understanding the sense of personal
and impersonal maps. In other cultures, however, there is tension between
“traditionality” and “modernity.” The tension he argues “provides dynamic
of cultural evolution and social change.” In this section we would try to
elaborate Banuri’s postulate on culture maps.
3.1 Postulate on culture maps
Banuri defines culture as a super-structural system that fills the information
gap between what our bodies tell us (the “hardware”) and what we have
to know (the “software”) in order to function (Banuri 1990:77). The
“impersonal” map is a culture in which every person sees himself or
herself as having only personal relationships with three key dimensions of
a culture - people, nature and knowledge. Sense of identity of this kind is
created through identification rather than through separation. Unlike this,
the “impersonal” map is a culture in which everyone perceives to have
impersonal relationships with the “other” people, the “other” environment,
and the “other” knowledge systems. In modern culture, an individual will
perceive him/herself being detached from social, physical or intellectual
environments (Banuri, 1990:78-79). Banuri then elaborates the postulate
of culture maps in terms of ontology, epistemology and cosmology.
The ontology of impersonal map gives value to individualism in the first
place. In impersonal map individualism provides a sense of personal,

224
Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. VI (2014) ISSN : 2382-5073

independent relationship to other people, nature and knowledge. Every

man is an embodiment of humanity; as such he is free and equal to every
other man. Alternatively, the ontology of personal map is characterized
by value placed at first in the “conformity of every element to its own
role in society, the society as a whole” (see Table 2). It is a map based on
relationalism: that every unit exists in a meaningful relationship to other.
The relational (personal) culture, unlike the “modern,” tells us what it
means to be a spouse, a neighbour, a patron, a client, etc. However, it
remains silent on what it means to have preferences, attributes, or rights
independent of their cultural contexts.
Table 2 Knowledge hierarchy based on culture maps
Perspective Impersonal Map Personal Map
Ontology (theory of self) Individual identity Relational identity
Cosmology (theory of Instrumentalism Relationalism
the universe)
Epistemology (theory of Positivism Reflectivism
the knowledge)
Source: Banuri, 1990, pp.78-81.
Likewise, the cosmology of the impersonal map is represented by
“instrumental” context while that of personal map is represented by
“relational” context. Instrumentalism, for example, sees anything (from
material commodities to even family members) as a source of gratification,
and as replaceable. Alternatively, the relationalism finds everything unique
and irreplaceable. A home, to take an example cited by Banuri himself, is
not just the place where one is living at the moment, but also an integral
part of being, becoming and knowing the sense and meaning of the total
context.
Finally, the epistemology of the impersonal map is represented by
positivism. The concept of positivism – as formulated by early sociologists
such as August Comte – argues that valid knowledge derives only from
the “separation of the observer from the object of knowledge.” The
epistemology of personal map, however, believes that valid knowledge
derives from identification with the object of knowledge” (Banuri, 1990:80-
81). It means that meaningful knowledge emanates through personal - not
impersonal - relation between the observer and the observed.
Once we approach reality in this way – the way personal and impersonal
maps see it from different standpoints – social values, decisions,
individual and social behaviour, demands and aspirations, etc. become

225
Modernity ........ Luintel

more meaningful and contradictions clearer in the context of specification

of cultural maps. It is not that these two maps are necessarily oppositional;
rather every culture contains tensions due to their mutual conflict.
3.2 The knowledge hierarchy
At the later half of the second section of his paper Banuri concentrates
more on knowledge hierarchy created by modernization. He says:
The project of modernity has taken the “confessed task of ‘rationalizing’
the whole world, of placing the world in a conceptual grid, and therefore
of separating the two halves of human consciousness and strengthening
one at the expense of the other” (Banuri, 1990:82-83).
Problem arises when the modernization perspective takes itself the task of
distinguishing between the two maps by asserting a hierarchical relationship
between them. The “way of seeing” in modern culture is motivated by a
powerful asymmetry, which Banuri calls the “impersonality postulate”:
assumption that the impersonal relations are inherently superior to personal
relations. This is the most pervasive, Euro-centric and the most dominant
postulate upon which modernization paradigm has been based. This is
the root the entire Western discourses - from Christianity to human rights
discourse, and from democracy to development discourse, etc. - stem
and spread from. Modernization is the discourse that creates an explicit
dichotomy between the two forms of self-definition. It concentrates
only on the imperatives of the impersonal aspect in its articulated form,
relegating the personal (the relational) connections to a “supervenient
private sphere.”
The impersonal considerations has become the standard form of behaviour,
so the “objectivity,” “positivism” and “instrumentalism” have become
the only acceptable form of knowledge system. Neo-classical theory, for
example, focuses on conflicts between different objectives within the
impersonal sphere alone. Political science legitimizes the existence of
the modern “nation-states” with impersonal and bureaucratic authority
for the regulation of the behaviour of its citizens. These social science
disciplines have helped to legitimize the asymmetry of impersonality
and made it an important and valued aspect of Western culture5. This
is a sort of hegemonic knowledge discourse, so to speak, that embraces
“the other” visions as “traditional.” It penetrates so-called “tradition” and
tries to transform it to “modern.” And, hence, modernity becomes the
yardstick to evaluate reality. Since the lens through which tradition is seen
is not apolitical, according to Banuri, it serves the interests of the West to
226
Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. VI (2014) ISSN : 2382-5073

dominate and subordinate the “other.”

4. Modernity and Gender

4.1 The contours of linkages
Modernization, as a paradigm, guides, shapes, directs and redirects
the Western outlook towards the Third World societies. First, we can
understand modernization on the basis of the very time it emerged. The
temporal conjuncture of modernization reflects its project-like nature, a
project of the West that had to facilitate and perpetuate its hierarchical
dealing with the former colonies. The way the West sees the Third World
tacitly reflects its colonial and presumptive superiority (see Table 2). It is
the same lens the West employs to look at the women in general and Third
World women in particular (Table 3).
Second, the theory of modernization precisely shares the ethnocentric
assumptions of liberal philosophy whose inherent deficiency has been
to highlight the dualist existence of reality: modern and tradition, public
and private, rational and conservative, etc. The whole series of gendered
dichotomies in which masculine traits are valued and feminine ones
devalued (Table 3) is what modernization is characterized by (Hooper,
1999)6. To put it in another way, modernization has never been gender-
neutral. It is therefore precisely political. Just as power and knowledge
hierarchy matters in international relation, so does it in gender relation.
Table 3 summarizes how the asymmetric gender relations are produced
through different discourses.
Table 3 Hierarchy of gender relations in different discourses
Hegemonic Subordinated
Discourse Source
position position
The impersonality
The personal map Banuri, 1990
map
Modernization Masculine Feminine
Gilligan, 1982
impersonal relational world-
(cf. Banuri, 1990)
world-view view
International Men and Women and
Hooper, 1999
relation masculinity femininity
It is clear that every discourse portrays a different sort of gender relationship.
They are, however, common in the sense that all of them subjugate over
the women, over the Third World women to be precise. All of them are
different but also common in the sense of a sort of masculine discourse,

227
Modernity ........ Luintel

having different actors/interpreters but sharing the same perspective. As

an explanatory construct, modernization - like colonization (see Mohanty,
1988) - almost invariably implies a relation of structural domination and a
discursive or political suppression of the heterogeneity of the Third World,
and the women there in. So the conclusion is although modernization
discourse does not express anything in relation to gender specifically7, its
relevance – and unfortunately that is negative – to gender is pronounced
in scope and political in nature. In the following section, we seek to situate
specific gender issues in the context of modernization discourse.

4.2 Gender implications of the impersonality postulate

One can locate Banuri’s thesis of “impersonality postulate”8 on practical
life situations variously. In this section we try to see how does this postulate
help us to understand the way gender asymmetry exists cross-culturally?
We will do so with reference to the works of Chowdhry (1995), Galtung
(1990), Hooper (1999), and Mohanty (1988).
Fault ontology. The modernization theory is as extension of liberal
discourse. Based on the same premises of freedom and individualism, the
masculinist ontology has shaped the market model of community, based
(not on cooperation but) on competition and achievement orientation.
So modernization depicts women as “tradition-bound conservatives and
therefore obstacles to modernization” (see fn. 9). While accepting dualism,
modernization theories assert that economic development in the public
sphere would naturally trickle-down to women in the private sphere (see
Chowdhry, 1995). In practice, however, none of these speculations proved
to be correct.
Irrational cosmology. The instrumental (the “masculine”) cosmology,
that modernization shares, sees everything (from land and chattel to
family and wife/husband) as replaceable. The relational (the “feminine”)
cosmology identifies all things and truths as unique and irreplaceable9
(Galtung, 1990). Modernity has developed a stereotype vision on the
basis of which almost all societies and social science disciplines today
negate the cosmology10 of the others (including that of women)11. This is
a device that creates, reinforces, mystifies, manipulates and controls the
image of the “other” always from the “positional superiority” of the West
(Chowdhry, 1995).
Distorted representation. The forms that gender relations take in any
historical situation are specific to that situation and have to be constructed
228
Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. VI (2014) ISSN : 2382-5073

inductively. It can neither be read off from other social relations nor from
the gender relations of other societies (Young et al., 1981: vii). One of the
basic motives of modernization was to homogenize, and to essentialize the
Third World (Chowdhry, 1995). Even (Western) feminism did the same to
the Third World women. Geeta Chowdhry argues that Western feminism
reproduced the image of the Third World women by a distorted image of
homogenous identity. It did so basically in three ways: a) one is through
the zenana representation12 of Third World women: “typical housewife,
always veiled, cloistered within the confines of a masculine sphere.”
b) Secondly, through the representation of them as sex objects: “erotic,
unclothed, native women.” c) Thirdly, through portrayal of them as victim
of tradition, and that of patriarchy13.
Each of these three representations displays elements of the modernist
discourse: modern and traditional, liberated and non-liberated women
(Chowdhry, ibid). In reality, women are, like men, constituted as women
through the complex interaction between class, culture, religion, and other
ideological institutions and frameworks (Mohanty, 1988:72). They cannot
be understood as an already constituted category.
Legitimacy to violence. According to Galtung (1990), when one postulate
of culture (say, the impersonality postulate) predominates the other (say,
the personal postulate) and tries to legitimize that hierarchy, it is a sort of
violence14. The way the practice of honour killing is religiously justified in
Pakistan, and that of clitoridictomy in parts of Africa sufficiently indicate
that the (masculine) impersonality postulate affects the men-women
relationship based on domination and subordination. When a culture
legitimizes the structural hierarchy in society (such as, “male:female:
:culture:nature”) it is another form of violence. Galtung mentions six sites
that legitimize cultural violence. They are religion, ideology, language,
art, science, and cosmology. We see that, the identity and freedom needs
of women are ignored in all these sites, because based on impersonality
postulate they fall under “public” (masculine) sphere which “women do
not belong to.”
The concept of cultural violence is important to gender in two senses.
First, when the personal map of a culture is replaced by the impersonal
map (that modernization wants to do) it is highly likely that the cultural
violence gets changed into a sort of violent culture. Second, most of the
incidences of violence, if not all, are manifested in society as violence
against women (VAW).
229
Modernity ........ Luintel

Production of hyper-masculinity. Modernity also reproduces and

glamorizes masculinity. To take one example, the sector of war has been
exclusively a male sphere. Masculinity of soldering and historic exclusion
of women form combat has played a large part in defining “what war
means to a man” rather than to a woman. As a result, international relations
symbolically form a wholly masculine (rather say, hyper-masculine)
sphere of war and diplomacy. Hooper (1999) presents some important
areas of international relations (IRs), such as war, military, sports, media,
foreign policy, colonialism, etc., in which masculine hegemony has been
predominant. Hooper challenges the modernist assumption that claims
that IRs and the politics of identities have no important relationships.
These sites of IRs are reproduced out of masculine ontological contexts,
and in turn the latter help maintain the masculine hegemony.

5. Conclusion: Empowerment as an Alternative Approach

Development theory uncritically accepted the notion that progress in the
Third World is identical to a progressive emulation of the social, political
and economic institutions in the Western countries. This assertion has been
proved to be untenable in the context of growing problems and crises,
such as environmental crisis, cultural violence, continental disparities,
alienation and anxiety, loss of meaning in people’s lives, etc. The crux of the
problem lies on the underlying ontological and cosmological assumptions
which modernization inherits15. By that cause modernization tries to
“modernize” (thereby homogenize, and epistemicide) all other social
and knowledge systems that do not conform the so-called “modernity”
(thereby “rationality,” “impersonality,” and “masculinity,” etc.). Even
the Western feminists employed the same lens to look at the Third World
women.
This is in this context that this paper has provided a critique of the hegemonic
dualism in the light of insights that Banuri has offered. This paper has
also demonstrated the contours of gender asymmetry as an outcome of
the masculine impersonal map of modernization. Some of the specific
grids of gender asymmetry, viz. violence, IRs, distorted representation of
the Third World women, imposition of the chauvinist ontology, etc. have
been illustrated. We conclude this paper offering an alternative approach
to gender and progress (let us not talk about “development” any more)
in the Third World, called the empowerment approach, being evolved
effectively in recent years.

230
Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. VI (2014) ISSN : 2382-5073

Hooper in the context of IRs posits that gender cannot just be grafted onto
existing explanatory approaches, which are profoundly “masculinist.” An
adequate analysis of gender, she says, “requires more radical changes,
including an ontological and epistemological revolution” (Hooper,
1999:475). For this, we need to:
• Demolish the existing impersonal culture map that has reproduced and
glamorized the masculinity and so-called rationality as something the
only real and true.
• Remove the power structure that controls diverse knowledge systems.
The current power hierarchy exists with the systematically created
dualist ontology that has been responsible for the growing epistemicide.
• Empower the people themselves through their own organization,
activism, and resistance.
Once we challenge the established system of discourse, there arises a need
for a new definition of progress (now onward, say “no” to development).
Ashis Nandy, one of the eminent scholars in modernity debate, defines
progress as “an expansion in the awareness of oppression” (Nandy, 1987).
Banuri finds in this definition a unique combination of originality in the
sense that it accepts a) awareness as a precondition of any change; and
b) it logically provides outlets for resistance. The unique contribution of
this definition is of two folds. First, it is emphasized that people’s agency,
not the experts’ idea, should be decisive in the change process. Second,
the eventual actors of progress are the people themselves, not their
“representatives.” People are capable enough to articulate their choices
and voices.
To be an approach empowerment-oriented, Escobar mentions three basic
features of progress at the grassroots level16. They are:
• the interest in local knowledge and culture as the basis for redefining
representation;
• a critical stance with respect to established scientific knowledge; and
• the defense and promotion of localized pluralistic grassroots movements
(Escobar, 1992:418).
These movements are essentially local movements, motivated not only by
economic terms but also by local history, local specificity, local culture,
communal aspirations, etc. Methodologically, they are not designed on
top-down approach. They grew out of experiences in popular education
and grassroots activism (often known as participatory action research)
(Escobar, ibid). The empowerment as an alternative approach emphasizes
231
Modernity ........ Luintel

a critique of oppression, affirmation of the humanity of the oppressed, and

evaluation of the experience of the oppressed as a source and criteria for
truth (Sanders, 1995:1)17.
When we compare some of these premises of empowerment with Parsonian
model of tradition vs. modernity dualism (see Table 2.1), it does challenge
the validity and applicability of cultural criteria (in terms of value of
tradition, kinship, and the world-view). The empowerment approach also
denounces the faulty ontology, irrational cosmology, and the hegemonic
epistemology of the so-called impersonal culture map. It tries to reassert
relational identity, holism and reflectivism. It does not accept sweeping
generalization of any discourse and does challenge the imposed hierarchy
of knowledge.
In this alternative vision (of progress), the discontinuous, the imposed
and the “quick fix” formula invoke a series of crisis to be replaced by a
continuous change. And, as the definition implies, this change takes place
as the result of resistance, protest and challenges from below (Banuri,
1990). In the context of women, gender and progress, as Moser puts it, the
empowerment approach is drawn “less from the research of First World
women and more from feminist writings and grassroots organization18
of Third World women” (Moser, 1991:106). Groups like Gabriela in the
Philippines, the Self-employed Women’s Association (SEWA) in India,
and the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh are examples of the success of
empowerment through grassroots organization Chowdhry (1995).
The empowerment approach draws many insights from the socialist
feminist and postmodernist feminist perspectives, which are often
oppositional. This approach is much more interested on political and
economic issues on the one hand, and it depends more on feminist writings
and grassroots organization on the other hand. Rooted in the concrete and
contextual realities, experiences and wisdom of Third World women, this
approach calls for a new kind of thinking and action (Chowdhry, 1995).
Unlike modernization discourse and the Western feminism, the
empowerment approach does not generalize women as the victims. It is
also not accepted that women and men are essentially antagonistic against
each other. Rather what is highlighted is that class, ethnicity, caste and
race intersect with gender to form alliances between men and women to
empower the later by enhancing their collective capacity towards self-
reliance.

232
Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. VI (2014) ISSN : 2382-5073

Endnotes
1
In this paper, terms such as theory, paradigm, and perspective, discourse are used in a very
loose sense and often interchangeably.
2
The modernization paradigm has been based on the early sociological speculations related
to the concept of mechanical and organic solidarity (Durkheim), “tradition and modernity”
(Weber), etc. Talcott Parsons, another sociologist, took a lead in formulating the concept
of modernization more elaborately.
3
Rostow formulated five-stage growth model of societal transformation. These five stages
are the society of traditional stage, the pre-take off stage, the take off, drive to maturity, and
the society of high mass-consumption (Rostow, 1960).
4
These challenges are a kind of reflection of modernization project that is responsible for
environment deterioration, socio-political violence, erosion of political participation and
inappropriate and harmful technology (see Banuri, 1990:75-76).
5
According to Arturo Escobar, Western science has failed to provide the kind of knowledge
necessary for building and maintaining culture and community in the Third World. It
has actually been an instrument of cultural violence on the Third World because of its
reductionist nature (see Escobar, 1992:420).
6
For an elaborate discussion on how are dichotomies gendered and how do they glamorize
masculinity at the expense of femininity in specific areas such as war, military, sports,
colonialism, foreign policies, and popular media, see Hooper (1999:pp. 479-485).
7
Although none of the modernization theorists speaks anything about gender (or, even
about women precisely), Talcott Parsons is one of the few ones who has anything to say
regarding women. According to Jaquette (1982, cf. Chowdhry, 1995, fn. 6), Parsons called
the Third World women as “tradition-conservationists” which logically refers that they are
obstacles to modernization.
8
Banuri defines the “impersonality postulate” as the assumption of modernization discourse
that “impersonal relations are inherently superior to personal relations” (1990:83).
9
Although differences between instrumental and relational cosmologies are obvious,
Banuri provides a very simple and helpful analogy. He suggests thinking on the difference
between a house and a home, between an animal and a pet, between the person in the street
and a friend (Banuri, 1990, fn. 8).
10
The concept of cosmology - the theories of universe - is designed to harbor the substratum
of deeper assumption of culture about reality (Galtung, 1990). The dominant cosmology,
according to Banuri (1990), almost always represented the impersonal (the “instrumental”
and the “masculine”) perception at the expense of the relational one.
11
For Galtung, it is one of the basic tasks that modernization does to propagate the Western
cosmology, which leads towards a situation of epistemicide of other cosmologies.

233
Modernity ........ Luintel
12
Zenana, a term used in Urdu, refers to the inner core of Muslim house which is exclusively
a women’s space (such as harem?).
13
See for example Mohanty 1988, fn. 9.
14
Here, violence is defined as avoidable insults to basic human needs and more generally
to life (Galtung, 1990).
15
In a sense, modernization is just an extension of liberal philosophy that sees the whole
world in terms of self-other dualism.
16
Empowerment has been defined variously. One simple definition is that empowerment
is a “process by which an individual or group conveys to others the authority to work”
(Sanders, 1995:1). It comprises of the norms, principles, and ethos ascribed to individuals
and groups engaged in the task of liberating others by empowering them to act.
17
In the context of black liberation theology, for example, seven separate approaches
to empowerment have been developed. They include, according to Saunders (1995),
testimony, protest, uplift, cooperation, achievement, re-moralization, and “ministry.”
18
Chowdhry (1995) argues that groups like Gabriela in the Philippines, the Self-employed
Women’s Association (SEWA) in India, and the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh are examples
of the success of empowerment through grassroots organization.

References
Banuri, Tariq (1990). Modernization and its discontents: A cultural
perspective on the theories of development. In
Frederique Apfel Marglin and Stephen A. Marglin (eds.)
Dominating knowledge: Development, culture and
resistance, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 73-101.
Chowdhry, Geeta (1995). Engendering development? Women in
fevelopment (WID) in international development
regimes. In M. Marchand and J. Parport (eds.) Feminism/
postmodernism/development, London: Routledge, pp.
26-41.
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1966). Modernization: Protest and Change. Englewood
cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Escobar, Arturo (1992). Reflection on ‘development’: Grassroots
approaches and alternative politics in the Third World.
Futures, vol. 24(5), pp. 411-436.
Galtung, Johan (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 27(3), pp. 291-305.
Gilligan, Carol (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and
women’s development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
Hooper, C. (1999). Masculinities, IR and the gender variable: A cost-
234
Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. VI (2014) ISSN : 2382-5073

benefit analysis for (sympathic) gender scptics.

Review of International Studies. No. 25, pp. 475-491.
Mohanty, C. (1988). Under the western eyes: Feminist scholarship and
colonial discourse. Feminist Review, No. 30, pp. 61-88.
Nandy, Ashis (1987). Towards a third world utopia. In Transitions,
tyrannies, and utopias: Essays in the politics in
awareness, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, Talcott (1951). The social system, London: Rutledge.
Rajavi, Shafrashoub and Carol Miller (1995). From WID to GAD:
Conceptual shifts in the women and development
discourse. Occasional Paper 1, Geneva: United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
Rostow, W.W. (1960). Stages of economic growth: A non-communist
manifesto. Cambridge at the University Press.
Sanders, Cheryl J. (1995). Empowerment ethics for a liberated people:
A path to african american social transformation.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Webster, Andrew (1984). Introduction to the sociology of development.
London: Macmillan.

235
View publication stats