Talk:Modernization

Text and/or other creative content from Modernization was copied or moved into Modernization theory with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

could unincorperated places building side walks be considered modernization?

akron South main street now has sidewalks in the coventry town ship was this development a modernizing development? or not big of enough project. 99.164.34.159 (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC) → I think this is an irrelevant comment and should be deleted.Iamsorandom (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partial account

The article in present form seems quite partial and incomplete. It implies from its description of origin that the only way to use the term is in an evolutionary scheme, whereas it is a vital term in other kinds of moderndescriptions of modernity and modernism. The text as it stands seems to imply that to use the term is to approve of the processes it describes. Dialectical (for example) accounts of modernity describe modernization as contradictory processes, describing its beneficial and destructive aspects. The article seems to imply that to use the term is to only see the benefits, while to oppose its use is to only see its destructions. There are other POV issues here too, such as "technically modernity refers to the present"; while I agree we are still 'in' modernity, many others think we are not. DionysosProteus 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POV debate seems resolved, as there are no open questions. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Modernisation Theory

There is a problem in the relationship between the wikis on Modernization and Modernization Theory. The introduction to the Modernization article specifies that the article is about a theory. If the article were about modernization theory, then it should be combined with the wiki on Modernization Theory. I suspect that the first section was added after the bulk of the article evolved. It appears that the bulk of the article is about the modernization process (practice) rather than being about a theory of that process such as modernization theory (there are others). It is about the history of modernization. The Criticism section is criticism of Modernization Theory and could appropriately be moved to that wiki. The Current Content of the Theory section should be incorporated into the Modernization Theory wiki. Something has happened to the world in the Modern Age period of hisotry, the time after 1500. This wiki should try to generalize about what has happened, as well as various frameworks for describing the process of getting to where we are now in history. A new theory section could say something general about the process of modernization and include subsections on various theories of development or modernization: • Neoclassical Theory • Modernization theory and Globalization Theory • Dependency Theory • Late Industrialization Theory • World-System Theory • Environmental alternatives to growth The new section should be in the spirit of asserting that each of these kinds of models contributes something to the understanding of how the world got to the current situation. --Intlcorn (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that these two wiki pages should be merged, as this one is clearly about modernisation theory as well. I'd suggest that we don't need a 'modernisation' page in the wikipedia - it should be in wiktionary - and the rest of the stuff on here should be merged into modernisation theory and this page redirected there.Iamsorandom (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– I have now merged these pages. If anyone wants to look through the new merger for duplication that would be greatIamsorandom (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]