The Contemporary World (GE 3) : A.Y. 2020-2021, First Semester
The Contemporary World (GE 3) : A.Y. 2020-2021, First Semester
The Contemporary World (GE 3) : A.Y. 2020-2021, First Semester
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2020-2021, First Semester
Prepared by:
HAZEL P. JAOS, LPT
MODULE 4 The Theories of Global Stratification
LEARNING OUTCOME
MOTIVATION PHASE
Choose one type of technology that has evolved drastically throughout the years.
Provide photos of its evolution. An example is shown below:
For much of human history, all of the societies on earth were poor. Poverty was the
norm for everyone but obviously, that is not the case anymore. Just as you find stratification
among socioeconomic classes within a society like the Philippines, you would also see
across the world a pattern of global stratification with inequalities in wealth and power
between societies. So what made some parts of the world develop faster, economically
speaking, than others? We may draw answers by looking at the different theories of global
stratification.
Modernization Theory
One of the two main explanations for global stratification is the modernization theory.
This theory frames global stratification as a function of technological and cultural differences
between nations. It specifically pinpoints two historical events that contributed to Western
Europe developing at a faster rate than much of the rest of the world. The first event is
known as the Columbian Exchange. This refers to the spread of goods, technology,
education, and diseases between the Americas and Europe after Christopher Columbus's
so-called “discovery of the Americas.” This exchange worked out well for the European
countries. They gained agricultural staples, like potatoes and tomatoes, which contributed to
population growth and provided new opportunities for trade while also strengthening the
power of the merchant class. The Columbian Exchange worked out much less well,
however, for Native Americans whose populations were ravaged by the diseases brought
from Europe. It is estimated that in the 150 years following Columbus’s first trip, over 80% of
the Native American population died due to diseases such as smallpox and measles.
Modernization theory rests on the idea that affluence could be attained by anyone.
But why did the Industrial Revolution not take hold everywhere? Modernization theory
argues that the tension between tradition and technological change is the biggest barrier to
growth. A society that is more. steeped in family systems and traditions may be less willing
to adopt new technologies and the new social systems that often accompany them.
Why did Europe modernize? The answer goes back to sociologist Max Weber’s
ideas about the Protestant work ethic. The Protestant Reformation primed Europe to take
on a progress-oriented way of life in which financial success was a sign of personal virtue.
Individualism replaced communalism. This is the perfect breeding ground for modernization.
Next, nations begin what Rostoyv called the drive to technological maturity, in
which technological growth of the earlier periods begins to bear fruit in the form of
population growth, reductions in absolute poverty levels, and more diverse job
opportunities. Nations in this phase typically begin to push for social change along with
economic change, like implementing basic schooling for everyone and developing more
democratic political systems. The last stage is known as high mass consumption. It is
when your country is big enough that production becomes more about wants than needs.
Many of these countries put social support systems in place to ensure that all of their
citizens have access to basic necessities.
Critics of modernization theory argue that, in many ways, it is just a new name for the
idea that capitalism is the only way for a country to develop. These critics point out that
even as technology has improved throughout the world, a lot of countries have been left
behind. They also argue that modernization theory sweeps a lot of historical factors under
the rug when it explains European and North American progress. Countries like the United
States and the United Kingdom industrialized from a position of global strength during a
period when there were no laws against slavery or concerns about natural resource
depletion. Some critics also point out that Rostow’s markers are inherently Eurocentric,
putting an emphasis on economic progress, even though that is not necessarily the only
standard to aspire by every nation. After all, economic progress often includes downsides,
like the environmental damage done by industrialization and the exploitation of cheap or
free labor. Finally, critics of modernization theory also see it as blaming the victim. In this
view, the theory essentially blames poor countries for not being willing to accept change,
putting the fault on their cultural values and traditions rather than acknowledging that
outside forces might be holding back those countries. This is where the second theory of
global stratification comes in.
Just as modernization theory had its critics, so does dependency theory. Critics
argue that the world economy is not a zero-sum game—one country getting richer does not
mean other countries are getting poorer. Innovation and technological growth can spill over
to other countries, improving all nations’ well-being and not just the rich. Also, colonialism
certainly left scars, but it is not enough, on its own, to explain today’s economic disparities.
Some of the poorest countries in Africa, like Ethiopia, were never colonized and had very
little contact with richer nations. Likewise, some former colonies, like Singapore and Sri
Lanka, now have flourishing economies. In direct contrast to what dependency theory
predicts, most evidence suggests that, nowadays, foreign investment by richer nations
helps and do not hurt poorer countries. Dependency theory is also very narrowly focused. It
points the finger at the capitalist market system as the sole cause of stratification, ignoring
the role of things like how culture and political regimes play in impoverishing countries.
There is also no solution to global poverty that comes out of dependency theory—most
dependency theorists just urge poor nations to cease all contact with the rich nations or
argue for a kind of global socialism. However, these ideas do not acknowledge the reality of
the modern world economy, which make them not very useful for combating the real
pressing problem of global poverty.
Activity 2 Analysis
1. In the case of the Philippines, how much do you think are we involved in the modern
world-system? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of being a part
of such?
Activity 3 Abstraction
This refers to societies that are structured People begin to use their individual talents to
around small, local communities with produce things beyond the necessities. This
production typically being done in family innovation creates new markets for trade. In
settings. Because these societies have limited turn, greater individualism takes hold and
resources and technology, most of their time is social status is more closely linked with
spent on laboring to produce food, which material wealth.
creates a strict social hierarchy. Examples of
these are feudal Europe or early Chinese
dynasties.
In order for you to visualize Immanuel Wallerstein’s idea of the modern world-
system, this activity will involve a construction of a “new” map of the world. The
foundation of constructing this map is the three hierarchies of areas in the modern world-
system discussed.
3. Group the maps according to the category of the country in which they belong.
4. Put the core countries at the center. Surround the core countries with the states under
the semi-periphery. Place the peripheral countries as the outer ring of the map.
5. Compare the map you created with the original world map.
ASSESSMENT PHASE
See Schoology.
REFERENCE:
Aldama, P. (2018). The contemporary world. Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store.
Photos: Freepik