will examine the possibility that belief in a single religious truth declines with “modernization.” Although modernization is a vague term, there is some agreement on its elements: material affluence, urbanization, the prevalence of large bureaucratic organizations, and mass exposure to significant
took for granted in the past. In other words, ethical traditions, either old or new, have changed in the process of modernization and in the context of globalization.
What does it mean for ethical traditions to change along with modernization? To answer this question, we must examine what we mean by
-Bornu to Cairo, systematic state sponsorship for Islamic learning abroad obtained neither in precolonial times nor in the postcolony after 1966.
Arabic-speaking scholarship winners, hereafter ‘Arabophones’, 1 were the objects of overlapping projects that sought in different ways to ‘modernize’ them and
provides us therefore a window onto the social order within which political power manifested itself and a better appreciation of the difficulties of reform and modernization. 1
Starting with Peter I the dominant justification of Imperial power shifted somewhat from the earlier church inspired myth of
Long before 1979, Chinese historical research had been dominated by the theory of “the Five Modes of Production”, according to which the whole Chinese history as well as the other parts of the world had been developed from the first MOD to the last one by one. The modernization theories prevailed during the 1950s and the 1960s, bringing about another uni-linear model of historical changes. For example, W. W. Rostow designed a five-stage process as a universal frame work of economic development, based on which each society could find its position in this uni-line. The task of the less developed societies is just to introduce modernity from the modernized societies so that they can make some developments. Thus modernization is a uni-direction movement as well as a uni-linear process. After 1979, modernization as a new paradigm has been accepted by an increasing number of Chinese historians. The increasing depth and breadth of the academic researches have encouraged such an acceptance, but, admittedly, as a new conceptual system that corresponded to the historic breakthrough and the new direction towards modernization in China. This acceptance also showed the “crisis of paradigm”, that is, the contradiction between the new themes and the old ones that had dominated Chinese humanities and social sciences. The modernization paradigm based on monistic multi-linear theory considers modernization as a unique breakthrough in history, a great transformation around the whole world, and a historical process that does not have a given ultimate aim and value but different models and routes. The monistic multi-linear theory on historical development is open and all-embracing in historical studies. A variety of historical paradigms is favorable to prosperity of Chinese history.
The driving force of the dynamic development of world legal history in the past few centuries, with the dominance of the West, was clearly the demands of modernisation – transforming existing reality into what is seen as modern. The need for modernisation, determining the development of modern law, however, clashed with the need to preserve cultural identity rooted in national traditions. With selected examples of different legal institutions, countries and periods, the authors of the essays in the two volumes
Modernisation, National Identity and Legal Instrumentalism: Studies in Comparative Legal History, vol. I: Private Law and
Modernisation, National Identity and Legal Instrumentalism: Studies in Comparative Legal History, vol. II: Public Law seek to explain the nature of this problem.
issues subsequently in sections 3.3 and 3.4, but first, in section 3.2, we will take a closer look at the council’s understanding of development , with particular reference to agricultural development .
Tradition and Modernization
The council’s view on professional aid as being
‘modernisation.’ In his opinion, ‘mobile pastoralism’ was ‘backward’ and needed to be abolished; sedentarisation and non-pastoral livelihoods were the only options for pastoralists to modernise. My discussion with Zhao is illustrative of the ongoing debate in China about conditions under which ‘modernisation