From “Spontaneous Modernization” to “Conscious Modernization”

In the 1950s and 1960s, a whirlwind of modernization theory swept through American social sciences, but the historical profession did not display commensurate enthusiasm for the issue of modernization. The American scholar Richard Brown complained about this, stating that those who study history tend to treat “modern” as a “chronological expression” while keeping a respectful distance from the concept of “modernization,” with only a few historians venturing into the topic. However, such a statement is not entirely accurate. In European and American historiography, the study of modernization can be traced back at least to the early twentieth century, and by the mid-twentieth century it had become quite common. At that time, many historical narratives about the modern world or specific regions, whether explicitly or implicitly, often organized their material around “modernization” or “the process of modernization.”

20世纪五六十年代,美国社会科学中刮起现代化理论的旋风,但历史学界对现代化问题却没有表现出与之相当的热情。美国学者理查德·布朗就此抱怨说,研究历史的人倾向于把“现代”当作一个“年代学的表述”,而对“现代化”概念抱敬而远之的态度,只有很少几个史家涉猎现代化问题。不过,这样的话也不完全准确。在欧美史学中,现代化研究至少在20世纪初期便有迹可循,到20世纪中期则已颇为常见。这时,许多关于现代世界或区域的历史叙事,或显或隐,常以“现代化”或“现代化进程”来组织其材料。

A view long prevalent in Chinese academic circles holds that modernization research in European and American academia primarily takes non-“Western” countries and regions as its objects of investigation; American scholars in particular, it is said, prefer to use “modernization” to discuss the problems of other countries, while refusing to acknowledge that the United States itself has undergone modernization, because the United States is “born modern” and has no issue of “becoming modern.” This impressionistic view is also untenable upon scrutiny. A search of the “JSTOR” database reveals that from 1946 to 1980, there were 86 history journal articles with the word “modernization” (including both the American spelling “modernization” and the British spelling “modernisation”) in their titles. Of these, 23 concerned Europe, 6 concerned the United States, and 5 dealt specifically with Russia, totaling 34 articles; meanwhile, those exploring the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America also numbered 34 in total. Furthermore, many American historians have focused on the transformation or revolutionary changes in American society, adopting a three-stage framework of “tradition-transformation-modernity” to explain American social change, or using terms like “early” or “traditional period” to imply a subsequent “current period called ‘modern,’” thus their implications align with the concept of modernization. In certain fields of American history, such as the study of the Civil War, historians from the 1960s to the 1990s used “modernization” as an explanatory tool. Viewing the Civil War from the perspective of global social transformation, they regarded it as a turning point from “tradition” to “modernity” and treated slavery as a “regressive institution” that made the South less “modern” than the North. This is essentially using “modernization” as a method—that is, employing “modernization” as an analytical tool or “organizing idea” to handle specific historical subjects. Of course, some historians have directly taken “modernization” as a research subject, addressing the transformation of American society as a whole, changes in specific American regions, and the development of certain technologies and industrial sectors.

国内学界长期流行一个观点,以为欧美学术界的现代化研究,主要以非“西方”国家和地区为考察对象; 特别是美国学者,更喜欢用“现代化”来讨论其他国家的问题,而不承认美国发生过现代化,因为美国是“生而现代”(born modern),不存在“成为现代”的问题。这种印象式的看法,也是经不住推敲的。在“西文过刊数据库(Jstor)”中可以查到,1946—1980年,标题中带有“现代化”一词(包括美式拼法“modernization”和英式拼法“modernisation”)的史学期刊论文共有86篇,其中涉及欧洲的有23篇,关于美国的有6篇,专论俄罗斯的有5篇,共计34篇; 而探讨中东、非洲、亚洲和拉美的总共也只有34篇。美国还有不少史家关注美国社会的转型或革命性变化,采用“传统-转型-现代”这种三阶段框架来解释美国的社会变迁,或用“早期”“传统时期”来暗示此后有一个“称作‘现代'的当前时期”,因而其意蕴与“现代化”理念暗合。在美国史研究的某些领域,比如内战史研究,20世纪60-90年代有史家把“现代化”用作解释工具,从全球性社会转型着眼,把美国内战视为从“传统”走向“现代”的一个转折性事件,并将奴隶制视作一种使得南部不及北部“现代”的“倒退性制度”。这实际上是以“现代化”为方法,也就是把“现代化”作为分析工具或“组织性理念”(organizing idea),来处理具体的历史题材。当然,也有史家直接把“现代化”作为研究题材,涉及整个美国社会的转型,美国具体区域的变迁,以及某些技术和产业部门的发展等。

According to another common impression, the historiography of modernization in Europe and America (especially the United States) experienced a boom in the early and middle Cold War period and then gradually cooled. However, the actual situation is not like this either. The data retrieved from the “JSTOR” database certainly cannot reflect the full picture of European and American modernization historiography, but it can provide a glimpse of the contours of related research in recent decades. Before 1945, this database contained only one history journal article with “modernization” (including both American and British spellings) in its title; during the same period, there were no history book reviews involving book titles containing this word. From 1946 to 1980, the database contained 86 history journal articles with “modernization” in their titles; during the same period, there were 220 history book reviews involving book titles containing this word. From 1981 to 2000, the database contained 82 history journal articles with “modernization” in their titles; during the same period, there were 260 history book reviews involving book titles containing this word. Since 2001, the same database has contained 118 history journal articles with “modernization” in their titles; during the same period, there were 187 history book reviews involving book titles containing this word. In some of these titles, “modernization” refers to a research subject, but in more cases it indicates a theoretical tool. From the above data, it can be seen that the interest of European and American historians in “modernization” was not limited to the Cold War period; to casually claim that modernization research in foreign historiography is already “a thing of the past” also seems somewhat arbitrary.

另据一般印象,欧美(尤其是美国)的现代化史学在冷战中前期曾形成热潮,此后渐趋冷寂。然而实际情况也不是这样。从“西文过刊数据库”中检索所得的数据,固然不能反映欧美现代化史学的全貌,但可从一个侧面窥见最近几十年相关研究的轮廓。1945年以前,这个数据库所收史学期刊论文,标题包含“现代化”(包括美式和英式两种拼法)一词的仅有1篇; 同期史学书评涉及书目的书名包含这个词的一篇也没有。1946—1980年,该数据库所收史学期刊论文,标题包含“现代化”的有86篇; 同期史学书评涉及书目的书名包含这个词的有220篇。1981—2000年,该数据库所收史学期刊论文,标题包含“现代化”一词的有82篇; 同期史学书评涉及书目的书名包含这个词的有260篇。2001年以来,同一数据库所收史学期刊论文,标题包含“现代化”一词的有118篇; 同期史学书评涉及书目的书名包含这个词的有187篇。这些出现在标题中的“现代化”一词,有的涉及研究题材,而更多的则是指理论工具。从以上数据可以看出,欧美史学界对于“现代化”的兴趣,并非仅限于冷战时期; 轻言国外史学中的现代化研究早已是“节后黄花”,似乎也有武断之嫌。

Since the early 1980s, modernization research in Chinese historiography has gradually emerged and maintained a sustained trend of development. According to a search of the “China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Chinese Academic Journal Database,” the number of history articles with “modernization” in their titles was 40 from 1980 to 1990, 391 from 1991 to 2000, reaching 935 from 2001 to 2010, 488 from 2011 to 2020, and 255 in the four years since 2021. At first glance, the figures for the 24 years since the beginning of the 21st century remain impressive. Chinese historians have also approached the issue of “modernization” in various ways. Some scholars advocate treating “modernization” as a universal world-historical process that can directly serve as a source of historical research subjects; some scholars regard “modernization” as a convex mirror through which to reflect on modern China, allowing them to observe the historical phenomenon of “modernization”; still others propose using “modernization” as a framework for compiling textbooks, in order to renew historical concepts. In the field of modern Chinese history, discussions on “modernization” have been particularly heated. Inspired by the American scholar Arif Dirlik, some scholars have begun to discuss a paradigm shift, advocating the reconstruction of modern Chinese history using a “modernization paradigm.” However, this “modernization paradigm” in the study of modern Chinese history seems to remain largely at the level of concepts and propositions, with substantial empirical research works still rare.

自20世纪80年代初以来,国内史学界的现代化研究也逐渐兴起,并长期保持不断发展的态势。据从“中国知网·中国学术期刊库”检索的结果,标题包含“现代化”一词的史学文章的篇目,1980—1990年有40篇,1991—2000年有391篇,2001—2010年达到935篇,2011—2020年为488篇,2021年以后4年即有255篇。一眼看来,进入21世纪以来24年的数字,仍然令人印象深刻。国内史学界对“现代化”问题的处理,也有多种不同的方式。有的学者主张把“现代化”视作一种普遍性的世界历史过程,可以直接作为历史研究题材的来源; 有的学者把“现代化”当作一面反观近代中国的凸镜,从中可以看到“现代化”这一历史现象; 还有学者倡言把“现代化”作为教科书编写的框架,以更新历史的观念。在中国近现代史领域,关于“现代化”的讨论尤为热烈。有学者在美国学者阿里夫·德里克的启发下,开始讨论研究范式的转换,主张以“现代化范式”重构近代中国的历史。不过,中国近现代史研究的这种“现代化范式”,似乎更多地停留于理念和主张的状态,有分量的实证研究论著尚不多见。

Overall, research on modernization in the social sciences (mainly economics, sociology, and political science) typically adopts three interrelated approaches: first, constructing theories of modernization; second, analyzing the experiences of modernization (also with the aim of theorization); and third, using modernization as a theoretical tool to explore current social or international issues. Modernization research in historiography generally also covers three aspects: first, taking “modernization” as a research subject; second, using “modernization” as an analytical tool; and third, employing “modernization” to build a framework for writing general history. However, modernization research in historiography has a special feature: “modernization” as a subject is usually merely a product of using the concept of “modernization” to reflect on past events, and most works also rely on modernization theory to construct explanatory frameworks and narrative paths. This indicates that for most historians, the main significance of “modernization” lies not in being an object of study, but in providing approaches and methods for handling subjects. In other words, “modernization” in historical research is typically embodied as a “paradigm.” The number of works that can be classified under this research paradigm is enormous, and making a proper assessment after in-depth study seems an impossible task for any individual scholar; but after a rough review of the relevant literature, one can still roughly discern the strengths and weaknesses of modernization historiography. Furthermore, if this paradigm is to maintain its academic vitality, it requires some reflection on methodological issues. To focus on the essentials, there are three key points: how to view the historical types of modernization; how to further promote the “historicization” of modernization research; and how to handle the relationship between modernization theory and modernization historiography.

总体而言,社会科学(主要是经济学、社会学和政治学)关于现代化的研究,通常采取三条相互关联的路径：其一,构筑现代化的理论； 其二,解析现代化的经验(目的也是理论化); 其三,以现代化为理论工具来探讨当前的社会或国际问题。历史学界的现代化研究一般也涵盖三个方面：其一,以“现代化”为研究题材；其二,把“现代化”作为分析工具； 其三，用“现代化”来搭建通史编纂的框架。不过,历史学的现代化研究有一个特殊之处,就是作为题材的“现代化”,通常只是借助“现代化”的概念反观过往史事的产物,而且多数论著也需借助现代化理论来构筑解释框架和论述路径。这表明,“现代化”对于多数史家来说,其主要意义不在于作为研究对象,而是为处理题材提供路径和方法。也就是说,“现代化”在历史研究中通常体现为一种“范式”。可归入这一研究范式的论著数量巨大,要在深入研读之后做出恰当评估,对某一个体的学者似乎是不可能完成的任务; 但在粗略浏览相关文献之余,仍可大致辨别现代化史学的长短得失。进而言之,这一范式如欲继续保持学术活力,还需要就方法论问题略做反思。择其要者而言之,重点有三：如何看待现代化的历史类型；如何进一步推进现代化研究的“历史化”； 以及如何处理现代化理论与现代化史学的关系。

I. Historical Types of Modernization

一、现代化的历史类型

The “modernization paradigm” in historical research first involves a typological analysis of modernization in world history. As early as the 1970s, some in American political science classified modernization into two types: “endogenous” and “exogenous.” The typical case of “endogenous modernization” is found in Western Europe, characterized by internal changes within the traditional framework that ultimately manifest as significant social transformation. “Exogenous modernization,” by contrast, is observable in all societies outside Western Europe, characterized by the superimposition of a modern model onto a traditional one, or the replacement of the traditional model by the modern one. This classification focuses on the nature and outcome of social change, with the key point being the relationship between “modern” and “traditional.” “Endogenous modernization” is the result of a society’s own traditional evolution, while “exogenous modernization” is an innovation external to a society’s tradition. According to this classification, “modern” and “traditional” in Western Europe exist in a fused, symbiotic relationship; “modernity” is internally generated within that society. In other regions, however, the two are difficult to reconcile; “modernity” is superimposed or implanted from outside. This implicitly suggests that Western Europe’s self-generated modernization model may become the source of modernization for other regions, acting as an invasive foreign element vis-à-vis local “tradition.”

历史研究的“现代化范式”,首先涉及对世界历史中的现代化的类型学分析。早在20世纪七十年代,美国政治学界便有人把现代化分为两种类型,即“内源型”(endogenous)和“外源型”(exogenous)。“内源性现代化”的典型在西欧,其特点是聚集于传统框架之内的因素发生内在变化,最终呈现为显著的社会变迁; “外源型现代化”则可见于西欧以外的所有其他社会,其特点是在传统模式之上叠加现代模式,或以现代模式取代传统模式。这种分类注重的是社会变迁的性质和结果,着眼点在于“现代”和“传统”的关系。“内源型现代化”乃是在一个社会自身传统演化的结果,而“外源型现代化”则是外在于一个社会的传统的革新。按照这种分类,“现代”与“传统”在西欧是一种融合共生的关系,“现代性”内生于其社会之中; 而在其他地区两者则难以两立,“现代性”是自外部叠加或植入的。这也就等于暗示说,西欧自生的现代化模式,可能成为其他地区现代化的源泉,对当地“传统”而言不啻一种入侵的外来物。

When the Chinese scholar Luo Rongqu discussed different types of world modernization processes, his initial formulation was “endogenous modernization” and “exogenous or externally induced modernization.” Later, in another article, he renamed these two types “endogenous type” and “exogenous type,” respectively; the former takes Western Europe as its typical case, while the latter is represented by East Asia. Here he borrowed the terminology of American political science but endowed it with new meaning. This classification emphasizes the genetic differences between different modernizations: “endogenous modernization” is triggered by conditions or factors internal to a given society, whereas “exogenous modernization” is primarily change brought about by external factors.

中国学者罗荣渠谈及世界现代化进程的不同类型,最初用的提法是“内生的现代化”和“外生或外诱的现代化”。后来他在另一篇文章中,把这两种现代化分别改称为“内源型(性)”和“外源型(性)”；前者以西欧为典型,后者则以东亚为代表。他这里借用了美国政治学界的说法,而赋予其新的含义。这种分类侧重的是不同的现代化在发生学意义上的差异,“内源型现代化”乃由其社会内部的条件或因素所引发,而“外源型现代化”则主要是外部因素所造成的变化。

Distinguishing modernization into “endogenous” and “exogenous” types certainly offers epistemological convenience, but it also has certain limitations. First, this classification easily obscures the historical dimension—that is, modernizations under different temporal and spatial conditions may have more specific differences and hybridity in terms of causes, nature, and outcomes, making them difficult to simply assign to these two types. Second, it may lead to a one-sided understanding of the roles of “internal causes” and “external causes.” From a transnational or global perspective, Western European modernization was not an isolated, self-sufficient phenomenon but was deeply involved in the globalization movement; external pressure or inducement also played a significant role. On the other hand, modernization in regions outside Western Europe was not entirely the product of external shock or inducement, but was inseparable from the internal autonomy and selectivity of specific societies. Third, it easily becomes entangled with ideological issues, sometimes even involving national sovereignty and dignity, because “exogenous type” in certain contexts can be accused of being “Westernization” or “worshiping foreign things and fawning on foreign powers.”

把现代化区分为“内源型”和“外源型”,固然有认识论方面的便利,但也存在一定的局限。第一,这种分类容易遮蔽历史性的维度，即不同时空条件下的现代化,在诱因、性质和结果等方面,可能有更多具体的差异和混合性，以致难以被简单地归入这两种类型。第二，有可能片面理解“内因”和“外因”的作用,因为从跨国或全球的视野来看,西欧的现代化并不是孤立自足的现象,而是深度卷入全球化运动的结果,外部的压力或诱因同样起了很大的作用； 另一方面,西欧以外地区的现代化,也不完全是外部的冲击或诱导的产物,而离不开具体社会内在的自主性和选择性。第三,容易牵扯到意识形态方面的问题,有时甚至关涉国家的主权和尊严,因为“外源型”在特定语境中有可能被指控为“西方化”或“崇洋媚外”。

If we shift perspective and consider the historical stages of modern social transformation, we can also discern two different types of modernization: one is “spontaneous modernization,” and the other is “conscious modernization.” “Spontaneous modernization” is mainly found in the North Atlantic world of the 17th–19th centuries. It is modernization carried out not in the name of “modernization,” but a social upheaval accumulated through long-term gradual evolution. From the mid-to-late 19th century onward, other regions and countries in the world, based on observation and reflection on the social transformation of the North Atlantic world, began to adopt imitative, catch-up strategies of social transformation. After World War II, the concept of modernization and related theories flourished for a time, and many “Third World” countries sought development and transformation in the name of “modernization.” At this point, “conscious modernization” became mainstream. At the same time, those “already modernized” countries also began to reflect on “modernity,” explore new development paths, and embarked on another path of “conscious modernization.”

如果换一个视角，从现代社会转型的历史阶段着眼，似乎也能看到现代化的两种不同类型，一种是“自发型现代化”，另一种则是“自觉型现代化”。“自发型现代化”主要见于17-19世纪的北大西洋世界，它是未以“现代化”的名义进行的现代化，是一种经漫长时期的不断演化累积而成的社会巨变。19世纪中后期以降，世界其他一些地区和国家，基于对北大西洋世界社会转型的观察和反思，开始采取模仿性、追赶式的社会转型战略。二战以后，现代化理念及相关理论兴盛一时，许多“第三世界”国家纷纷以“现代化”的名义来谋求发展与转型。这时，“自觉型现代化”便成为主流。同时，那些“已现代化”的国家也开始反思“现代性”，探索新的发展方式，走上了另一种“自觉型现代化”的道路。

The great social transformation that occurred in the North Atlantic world from the 17th to the 19th centuries is a well-known story. It was a long, gradual, and naturally occurring process of social change. In this process, historical movements such as conquest, colonization, trade, missionary work, revolution, democratization, equalization, technological innovation, industrialization, urbanization, consumerism, and welfarism either occurred sequentially or intertwined and advanced together, ultimately converging and fusing to present, after several centuries, a broad and profound social transformation. Any single one of these historical movements may have been a planned, deliberate pursuit—for example, British colonization and trade involved public discussion, civil society planning, and promotion by the monarchy and parliament. Moreover, some of these changes had chain or interactive effects. For instance, cities in Western Europe arose from the needs of military defense, governance, and exchange; they unintentionally provided a platform for technological innovation and the rise of industry. Industrialization, in turn, gave strong and sustained impetus to urban development and created basic conditions for urban expansion, including construction, transportation, water supply and drainage, and fuel. The continuously developing cities, in turn, opened up greater space for industrial, commercial, and financial activities, making the operation of industrial capital more convenient. In short, many changes converged by chance, like the reaction triggered by combining numerous elements in a chemical experiment, unexpectedly shaping a modern world vastly different from traditional society. The figures who played important roles in this process did not know that what they were doing was implementing a “social project” called “modernization.” That this social transformation they experienced and promoted became “modernization” is the result of later generations “retroactively recognizing” it through “conceptualization.”

17-19世纪北大西洋世界所发生的社会巨变，早已是一个为人所熟知的故事。这是一个自然发生的漫长而渐进的社会变迁过程，在这个过程中，征服、殖民、贸易、传教、革命、民主化、平等化、技术革新、工业化、城市化、消费主义、福利主义等历史运动，或相继发生，或交织并进，最终汇集融合，经数百年而呈现为广泛且深刻的社会转型。这些历史运动的单独某一种，也许是经过规划的刻意追求，比如英国的殖民和贸易，社会舆论有商讨，民间团体有擘画，王室和议会也曾加以推动。而且，其中某些变化也具有连锁或互动的效应。比如，西欧的城市产生于军事、统治和交换的需要，它们无意中为技术革新和工业兴起准备了平台；而工业化又给城市的发展带来强大而持续的动力，并为城市扩张创造基础性的条件，包括建筑、交通、上下水、燃料等；而不断发展的城市，反过来又为工业、商业和金融活动开辟了更大的空间，使工业资本的运作具备更为便利的条件。总之，诸多变化机缘巧合地汇聚合流，就像化学试验中将众多元素合在一起所引起的反应，不期然塑造出一个迥异于传统社会的现代世界。那些在这个过程中扮演重要角色的人物，并不知道他们的所作所为是在实施一个叫作“现代化”的“社会工程”。他们所经历和推动的这一社会转型之成为“现代化”，乃是后人以“概念化”的方式加以“追认”的结果。

In the social transformation of the North Atlantic world, most of the basic factors that ultimately distinguished the transformed society from its predecessor were not suddenly born novelties. Industrialization is both a major marker of modern society and a key force shaping it, but it did not suddenly appear in England at some moment in the 18th century; rather, it was the concentrated manifestation of the continuous evolution of knowledge, technology, crafts, energy, production organization, and market relations since the late Middle Ages. Current historiography generally recognizes that there was a stage of “proto-industrialization” before industrialization. Moreover, the economic growth driven by industrialization in England at that time was far slower than in many countries today. Furthermore, even the most transformative political revolutions of the Atlantic world did not create new political structures, power relations, and political concepts out of thin air, like building a house on flat ground; rather, they elevated new factors already gestating within the “old regime” from the inner layer to the surface, from illegality to legality. For example, the “parliamentary sovereignty” system formed after the English Revolution was largely an evolution of the “king-in-parliament” system that had existed since the mid-to-late Middle Ages. The “free government” created by the American Revolution was mainly a development of British and colonial traditions of self-government and electoral politics. In the prevailing narrative model of modern world history in European and American academia, the social transformation of the North Atlantic world is “conceptualized” as a “dual revolution” (the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution) or a “triple revolution” (the scientific-technological revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the political revolution). This may reduce a long, complex, and even chaotic spontaneous and gradual historical process to a set of planned, orderly, abrupt events.

在北大西洋世界的社会转型中,最终使得转型后的社会区别于此前社会的基本因素,大多不是突然降生的新事物。工业化既是现代社会的主要标志,也是塑造现代社会的关键力量,但它并非在18世纪某个时刻突然现身于英国,而是自中世纪后期以来知识、技术、工艺、能源、生产组织和市场关系不断演化的集中展现。当今史学界公认,在工业化之前还有一个“原工业化”的阶段。而且,由工业化所带动的经济增长，在当年的英国也远没有在当今许多国家那么快的速度。另外,即便最具激变性质的大西洋世界的政治革命,也不是平地起高楼式地创造出新的政治结构、权力关系和政治观念,而是把早已孕育于“旧体制”内部的新因素,从内层提升到外表,从不合法变成合法。比如,英国革命后形成的“议会主权”体制,大抵是中世纪中后期以来“王在议会”体制的演进; 美国革命所造就的“自由的政府”,主要是英国及殖民地自治传统和选举政治的发展。在欧美学界通行的现代世界历史叙事模式中,北大西洋世界的社会转型被“概念化”为“双元革命”(法国革命和工业革命)或“三重革命”(科技革命、工业革命、政治革命),这样似有可能把一个漫长、复杂乃至杂乱的自发而渐进的历史过程,“化约”为一些有规划、有条理的突变性事件。

From the experience of social transformation in the North Atlantic world, stable political order (few internal disturbances and civil wars), a less threatening international environment, a relaxed social system, a de-hierarchized social structure, expanding political participation, increasingly mature rule of law, guarantees of individual freedom and security, an atmosphere that permits and encourages innovation, and the habits and capacity for exploring the unknown and inventing new things—these factors were at the time not primarily conditions for social transformation but the basic content of “modernization.” They advanced in tandem with technological innovation, industrial revolution, economic takeoff, and social welfare, and became features of post-transformation society. The factors that later generations regard as conditions for “modernization” were, for those living through the transformation, not deliberately prepared for the sake of some grand social plan. For example, what the American revolutionaries were urgently concerned about was not developing the economy, promoting industrialization, or improving the quality of life of the people, but reforming the political system, consolidating independence, protecting freedom, promoting equality, and preventing rulers from oppressing the ruled. Yet, coincidentally, the political structure, power relations, and value orientations formed after the American Revolution were indeed conducive to technological change, economic development, and the improvement of living standards. But this was merely a certain historical conjuncture; if one regards the American Revolution as a political event consciously designed to create conditions for America’s development, one inevitably falls into the trap of teleological thinking.

从北大西洋世界社会转型的经验来看,稳定的政治秩序(较少内乱和内战),威胁性较小的国际环境,宽松的社会体制,去等级化的社会结构,不断扩大的政治参与,愈益成熟的法治,个人自由和安全的保障,允许和鼓励创新的风气,热衷于探索未知和发明新事物的习惯与能力,这些因素在当时主要不是社会转型的条件,而是“现代化”的基本内涵。它们与技术革新、产业革命、经济腾飞、社会福利等齐头并进,并成为转型后社会的特征。那些在后人眼里构成“现代化”条件的因素,对于身处转型过程的人来说,并不是为了某种宏大的社会规划而刻意所做的准备。例如,美国革命者所汲汲于心的问题,并不是发展经济,推动工业化,或提升国民生活质量,而是要革新政体,巩固独立,保护自由,促进平等,防止统治者压迫被统治者。然则巧合的是,美国革命后形成的政治结构、权力关系和价值取向,确实有利于技术变革、经济发展和生活水平的提升。但这只是某种历史的因缘际会,如果把美国革命视作一场自觉为美国的发展创造条件的政治事变,就难免陷入目的论思维的窠臼。

In Europe, America, and the world beyond, attempts to theoretically reflect on social transformation based on observations of the great social changes in the North Atlantic world began quite early. European and American intellectuals extracted from this the concept of “modernity” and called the economic “miracle” that occurred in Britain the “Industrial Revolution.” The intellectual and political elites of non-“Western” countries saw the powerful effects of “modernization” in the great changes of the North Atlantic world and tried to use it to promote changes in their own societies. The main founder of the Republic of Turkey, Kemal, explicitly made “Turkey’s modernization” his primary governing slogan, where “modernization” meant actively adopting the “Western” model to transform Turkey. This trend also radiated to China; the term “modernization” mentioned in Liu Keshu’s *New Turkey* (published by the Commercial Press in 1926) is said to have been taken from Turkish documents. At this stage, the understanding of the goal of “modernization” in the non-“Western” world focused mainly on “enriching the country and strengthening the military,” with the primary concern being the adoption of new technologies, the rapid realization of industrialization, and the simultaneous arming of a military sufficient to resist foreign aggression. By the time modernization theory took shape, there were more systematic versions of the definition of “modernity.”

在欧美以及欧美以外的世界,基于对北大西洋世界社会巨变的观察,从理论上思考社会转型的尝试,可谓起步甚早。欧美知识界从中提炼出“现代性”的理念,并把英国发生的经济“奇迹”称作“工业革命”。非“西方”国家的知识和政治精英,从北大西洋世界的巨变中看到了“现代化”的强大效应,试图借以推动自己社会的变革。土耳其共和国的主要创建者凯末尔,明确把“土耳其的现代化”作为主要的施政口号,而这里的“现代化”,就是主动采用“西方”模式以改造土耳其。这一动向的影响还辐射到了中国,柳克述所著《新土耳其》(商务印书馆1926年出版)提到的“现代化”一词,据说就是取自土耳其的文献。在这个阶段,非“西方”世界对于“现代化”目标的理解,主要聚焦于“富国强兵”,其首要关切在于采用新的技术,尽快实现工业化,同时武装一支足以抵御外侮的军队。及至现代化理论形成,关于“现代性”的界定便有了更多体系化的版本。

In the 1950s and 1960s, a group of “modernization” theorists emerged in the American social sciences, including Walt Whitman Rostow, Talcott Parsons, Edward Shils, Gabriel Almond, Lucian Pye, David Apter, Cyril Black, Karl Deutsch, and Daniel Lerner. They each drew blueprints for the economic, political, and social development of the “Third World.” Modernization theory did not create the concept of “modernization”; rather, it was mainly based on an understanding of the process and results of social transformation in the North Atlantic world, proposing a certain theoretical framework for the development of the “Third World.” In the theoretical perspective of “modernization,” the “West” was already a “modernized” country, capable of providing models and guidance for societies that had not yet or were about to be “modernized.” In the words of Seymour Martin Lipset: “The world has been moving in the American direction.” Admittedly, as a guiding principle for U.S. foreign policy, “modernization” theory failed in many places, but it still had a profound impact on the development of many countries. The political and intellectual elites of these countries, while adopting a critical attitude toward “modernization” theory, also drew inspiration from it, defining the development path they aspired to as “modernization” and setting the goal of development as “becoming modern.” Thus, “conscious modernization” flourished here. At this point, “modernization” was both a development plan and a process of change; it could serve as a social ideal for certain groups and as a strategic tool in “interstate politics.” In short, “modernization” had become a deliberately pursued goal, transformed into conscious action.

20世纪五六十年代,美国社会科学界涌现出一批“现代化”理论家,包括罗斯托(Walt Whitman Rostow)、帕森斯(Talcott Parsons)、希尔斯(Edward Shils)、阿尔蒙德(Gabriel Almond)、白鲁恂(Lucian Pye)、阿普特(David Apter)、布莱克(Cyril Black)、多伊奇(Karl Deutsch)和勒纳(Daniel Lerner)等。他们纷纷为“第三世界”描绘经济、政治和社会发展的蓝图。现代化理论并未创造“现代化”的概念,而主要是基于对北大西洋世界社会转型过程及其结果的认知,就“第三世界”的发展提出某种理论构想。在“现代化”的理论视野中,“西方”已经是“现代化”的国家,可为尚未或即将“现代化”的社会提供模式和指南。用李普塞特(Seymour Martin Lipset)的话说:“这个世界一直沿着美国的方向前进。”诚然,“现代化”理论作为美国政府对外政策的指导性原则,在不少地方遭遇了失败,但它对于许多国家的发展仍产生了深远的影响。这些国家的政治和知识精英,在对“现代化”理论持批判态度的同时,也从中汲取灵感,把自己向往的发展方式界定为“现代化”,把发展的目标确立为“成为现代”,于是“自觉型现代化”便在这里勃然而兴。这时的“现代化”既是一种发展规划,也是一种变迁过程; 既可作为某些群体的社会理想,也能成为“国家间政治”的战略工具。总之,这时的“现代化”成了着意追求的目标,已转化成自觉的行动。

Before World War I, when the European powers dominated the world, they were bent on making the world belong to themselves through “partition”; during the Cold War, the United States tried to make the world become like itself through “development,” thus becoming the main advocate and promoter of “conscious modernization.” In the view of America’s “modernization” proponents, “stagnant” societies, through contact with the United States, could obtain a “catalyst” for change and a model for development. Therefore, the United States should actively promote the modernization path of “Third World” countries through multiple channels. In fact, the United States and its European allies did use diplomatic, military, and economic aid to help “developing” or “underdeveloped” countries pursue economic development and social transformation, cultivate “modernity” in their societies, and strive to make them increasingly close to the “West,” in order to compete with the Soviet Union for intermediate forces and with socialism for adherents. However, the actual situation did not turn out as the United States wished; the interest of “Third World” countries in freedom and democracy was far less than their concern for economic growth and personal wealth accumulation. Some countries did achieve significant economic growth, but they did not undergo the political transformation the United States expected. Moreover, in the context of U.S.-Soviet competition, or for other political considerations, some countries, while accepting “Western” aid, deliberately avoided the American model and sought a “modernization” path different from the “West.”

一战以前,欧洲列强主导世界时,一心要通过“瓜分”以使世界属于自己; 而冷战时期的美国,则试图借助“发展”来让世界变得像自己,于是成为“自觉型现代化”的主要倡导者和推动者。在美国的“现代化”拥护者看来,那些“停滞的”社会通过与美国的交往,可以得到促进变化的“催化剂”,获得发展的范本。因此,美国应通过多方面的渠道,积极推动“第三世界”国家走现代化的道路。事实上,美国及其欧洲盟国的确借助外交、军事和经济援助等手段,帮助“发展中”或“不发达”的国家追求经济发展和社会转型,在其社会培育“现代性”,力图使之越来越接近“西方”,以达到与苏联争夺中间力量、与社会主义争夺信奉者的目的。可是,实际情况并不如美国所愿,“第三世界”国家对于自由和民主的兴趣,远不及对经济增长和个人财富增加的关切。有些国家的确获得了显著的经济增长,但并没有出现美国所期望的政治转型。而且,在美苏竞争的背景下,或出于其他的政治考量,有些国家在接受“西方”援助的同时,却有意避开美国模式,努力寻求不同于“西方”的“现代化”道路。

From the 1960s to the late 1980s, “conscious modernization” was also a policy guideline of the United Nations for “underdeveloped” countries, as seen in a series of its resolutions, especially the “UN Development Decade” series of reports. The gist of this policy was that “underdeveloped” countries, promoted by external aid and with industrialization as the axis, could achieve economic growth measured by a continuous increase in gross domestic product; once the economy developed, other problems would be solved. However, this “modernization paradigm” unilaterally focused on economic development while neglecting human welfare and public well-being. Later, the United Nations switched to a “human development approach.” This new approach no longer took economic growth as the core goal but placed welfare goals first and treated development as a multidimensional holistic process, including social development, good governance, poverty eradication, and institutional development.

在20世纪六十年代至八十年代末,“自觉型现代化”一度也是联合国针对“不发达”国家的政策指南,可见于其一系列的决议,尤其是“发展的十年”(UN Development Decade)系列报告。这一政策的要旨是,“不发达”国家在外部援助的促进下,通过以工业化为中轴,可以获得以国内生产总值不断提高为指标的经济增长; 一旦经济得到发展,其他问题便会迎刃而解。不过,这一“现代化范式”片面关注经济发展,而忽视人的福利及公共福祉,后来联合国改而采用“人的发展路径”。这一新的路径不再以经济增长为核心目标,而把福利目标置于首位,并把发展作为一个多维度的整体过程,包括社会发展、良好治理、消除贫困和制度发展。

If “spontaneous modernization” is a process of the natural convergence of multi-dimensional changes, then “conscious modernization” mostly exhibits a selectivity driven by the pursuit of quick success and instant benefits. This selectivity, on the one hand, stems from an understanding of the experience of pioneering modernizing countries. For example, if the key to the success of developed countries is believed to lie in developing education, then education will become a priority option in the modernization strategy; if the political system is considered decisive for modernization, then political reform will be regarded as the “top priority” of social transformation. On the other hand, the selectivity of modernization also arises from the judgments of its advocates and implementers regarding “national conditions.” In July 1933, *Shenbao Monthly* initiated a discussion on “the issue of China’s modernization.” Its editors stated that although the scope of modernization was very broad, they intended to focus on issues of production and economy, because China’s economy had at that time fallen into a deep predicament. Among the scholars participating in the discussion, some explicitly proposed: “For the nation and society, modernization means industrialization. … Industrialization is the foundation for all other modernizations. If China is industrialized, then education, academia, and other social systems will naturally follow suit and modernize.” [8]8 *Shenbao Monthly* (*申報月刊*) was a periodical published in Shanghai in the 1930s, known for hosting a major public debate on China’s modernization path. Moreover, selective modernization generally carries the goal of “catching up and surpassing,” aiming to traverse in a shorter time the path that its pioneers took several centuries to cover. But the problem is that the drawbacks that accompanied social transformation over those centuries will also erupt in a “blowout” manner in a concentrated form during the process of “conscious modernization,” even rendering a particular society unable to bear them. Unsurprisingly, while some countries experience rapid economic growth, inequality in income distribution also sharply expands, corruption intensifies, and problems such as resource waste and environmental destruction become increasingly prominent.

如果说“自发型现代化”是一个多维度变迁的自然凑集的过程,那么“自觉型现代化”大都表现出急功近利的选择性。这种选择性一方面源自对现代化先行国家经验的理解,比如,如果认为发达国家成功的关键在于发展教育,那么教育就会成为现代化战略的优先选项; 如果认为政治体制对现代化具有决定意义,那么政治改革就会被当作社会转型的“重中之重”。另一方面,现代化的选择性也出自其倡导者和实施者对于“国情”的判断。1933年7月,《申报月刊》发起关于“中国现代化问题”的讨论,其编者表示,虽然现代化范围甚广,但拟集中讨论生产和经济方面的问题,因为当时中国经济已陷入深重的困局。参与讨论的学者中有人明确提出：“就国家社会而言,现代化即是工业化。……工业化为其他一切的现代化之基础,如果中国工业化了,则教育、学术,和其他社会制度,自然会跟着现代化。”而且,选择性的现代化一般都带有“赶超”的目标,要用较短的时间走完其先行者在数百年里所走过的道路。但问题是,那些在数百年里伴随社会转型而陆续出现的弊端,也会以浓缩的形式在“自觉型现代化”过程中“井喷式”爆发,甚至导致某一社会无法承受。无足为怪,一些国家在经济快速增长的同时,收入分配的不平等也急剧扩大,腐败不断加剧,资源浪费和环境破坏等问题也愈加突出。

Contrary to the expectations of the American architects of “modernization,” in the process of “conscious modernization,” economic development and political transformation often do not keep pace, and are even completely disconnected. In “Third World” countries, the government becomes the main planner, promoter, and implementer of modernization. The more centralized and powerful the government, the greater its ability to propose and implement a certain modernization plan; sometimes modernization even becomes a powerful tool of its rule. American scholar Jack Donnelly observed that “less developed countries,” in order to pursue economic growth, had to accept authoritarian systems, because democratic governments were too “weak” to implement forceful policies conducive to improving economic conditions. A study from the 1970s involving 98 countries showed that “among poor countries, authoritarian regimes increased the rate of economic development, while democratic regimes were indeed a luxury that hindered development.” [9]9 Jack Donnelly is an American political scientist known for his work on international relations theory and human rights. South Korea, during the Park Chung-hee era, vigorously promoted modernization, focusing on developing the economy and improving people’s livelihoods, without including political democracy. Park Chung-hee himself explicitly stated that for “people suffering from hunger and despair,” democracy was “meaningless.” [10]10 Park Chung-hee (1917–1979) was the military ruler of South Korea from 1961 to 1979, who oversaw rapid industrialization under an authoritarian regime. This is markedly different from the situation of “spontaneous modernization,” where industrialization and democratization generally proceeded in parallel and mutually reinforced each other.

出乎美国“现代化”构想者的意料,在“自觉型现代化”过程中,经济发展和政治转型往往不合拍,甚至完全脱节。在“第三世界”国家,政府成为现代化的主要规划者、推动者和实施者,越是集权和强大的政府,就越有能力提出和推行某种现代化方案,有时现代化甚至成为其有力的统治工具。美国学者杰克·唐纳利观察到,“欠发达国家”为谋求经济增长,不得不接受威权主义体制,因为民主政府过于“软弱”,没有能力推行有利于改善经济状况的强有力的政策。20世纪七十年代一项涉及98个国家的研究表明,“在穷国当中,权威主义政体提高了经济发展率,而民主政体则确实是有碍于发展的一种奢侈品”。韩国在朴正熙当政时期大力推进现代化,以发展经济、改善民生为旨趣,而不包括政治民主。朴正熙本人明确表示,“对于在饥饿和绝望中受苦的人民来说”,民主是“毫无意义”的。这与“自发型现代化”的情况可谓迥然不同,那时工业化与民主化一般是并行不悖、相互促进的。

Another common situation in “conscious modernization” is the excessive tension between policy planning and environmental conditions. Since the late 18th and early 19th centuries, “Western” scholars have observed Asian and African societies and cultures through the lens of “Orientalism” and “othering,” believing that they lack rational religion, have no tradition of contract, possess no true private property ownership, lack mechanisms or habits for political participation, and place excessive emphasis on the significance of villages or collectives. In the view of modernization theorists, these are all obstacles to implementing “Western”-style modernization. Although such views are full of imagination and prejudice, they also reveal a truth: the “Western” model of modernization is difficult to implement smoothly in certain non-“Western” societies. Furthermore, the modernization of “Third World” countries is intertwined with issues such as independence, sovereignty, power distribution, resource conditions, and market capacity, and can change direction or even be interrupted at any time.

在“自觉型现代化”中还有一种常见情况,即政策规划与环境条件之间存在过大的张力。18世纪末19世纪初以来,“西方”学者以“东方主义”和“他者化”眼光观察亚非社会及文化,认为它们缺乏理性宗教,没有契约传统,不存在真正的财产私有制,缺乏政治参与的机制或习惯,过于重视村社或集体的意义。在现代化理论家看来,这些都是实行“西方”式现代化的阻碍。这类看法固然饱含想象和偏见,但也揭示了一个道理,即“西方”现代化模式在某些非“西方”社会是滞碍难通的。此外,“第三世界”国家的现代化还与独立、主权、权力分配、资源状况、市场容量等问题交织在一起,随时都能发生转向乃至中断。

The modernization of non-“Western” countries is also frequently haunted by the specter of “Westernization.” In the 1960s, when modernization theory was flourishing, American political scientist Rupert Emerson pointed out: “What makes ‘modernization’ modern lies in the ability to substantially adopt ways of living, thinking, producing, and organizing similar to those of Western countries, even though the imperialist control of Western countries has now been thoroughly broken.” [11]11 Rupert Emerson (1899–1979) was an American political scientist specializing in colonialism, nationalism, and the politics of developing nations. His implication was that the true meaning of “modernization” for non-“Western” countries lay in imitating the “West” to become “Western.” This view of equating “modernization” with “Westernization” reflected, on the one hand, the US intention to resist the Soviet-style “modernization,” and on the other hand, the self-admiration and self-confidence of Americans regarding their own model of social development. However, an increasing number of non-“Western” countries gradually moved away from the path of imitative modernization, striving to explore their own ways of achieving modernization. In the early 1970s, whether the development of “backward” societies must follow the “Western” path of industrialization, and whether “modernization” merely meant “Westernization,” became concerns for many non-“Western” scholars. Some non-“Western” scholars well-versed in modernization theory criticized the “Western” “narrative of modernity” and vigorously constructed a set of “discourse of modernity” to counter the “West.” After the end of the Cold War, modernization became intertwined with issues such as globalization, the war on terror, color revolutions, and new geopolitics. “Established” modernizing countries showed a trend of relative decline, while some non-“Western” countries moved to the center of the international stage, and the “de-Westernization” orientation of modernization further strengthened.

非“西方”国家的现代化,还经常受到“西方化”幽灵的纠缠。在现代化理论兴盛的60年代,美国政治学家鲁伯特·爱默生(Rupert Emerson)指出：“使得‘现代化'成为现代的东西,在于一种实质性地采用与西方国家一样的方式来生活、思考、生产和组织的能力,尽管现在西方国家的帝国主义控制已被彻底打破。”他的言外之意是,非“西方”国家“现代化”的真义,在于模仿“西方”以变成“西方”。这种在“现代化”和“西方化”之间画等号的观点,一方面体现了美国抵制苏联式“现代化”的意图,另一方面也反映了美国人对于自身社会发展模式的自赏和自信。但是,越来越多的非“西方”国家逐渐远离模仿性现代化的路径,努力探索自己的实现现代化的方式。20世纪70年代初,“落后”社会的发展是否必须走“西方”式的工业化道路,“现代化”是否仅仅意味着“西方化”,成为许多非“西方”学者所关心的问题。一些熟知现代化理论的非“西方”学者,纷纷抨击“西方”的“现代性叙事”,并极力构筑一套用以抗衡“西方”的“现代性话语”。冷战结束以后,现代化与全球化、反恐战争、颜色革命、新地缘政治等问题交织在一起,“老牌”现代化国家出现相对衰落的趋向,而一些非“西方”国家则走到了国际舞台的中央,现代化的“去西方化”取向也进一步增强。

From the above discussion, it is not difficult to see that “spontaneous” and “conscious” are both two types of modernization and two stages of modernization. The former is modernization without the name of “modernization,” occurring in the North Atlantic world from the 17th to the 19th centuries; the latter is usually carried out based on a “modernization plan,” belonging to planned modernization, beginning in non-“Western” regions in the mid-to-late 19th century, gradually expanding worldwide after World War II, and also affecting those “already modernized” countries. Compared to the classification of “endogenous” and “exogenous,” the division of “spontaneous” and “conscious” can take into account both diachronic and synchronic dimensions, possessing a more specific sense of time and space, and can also bring new epistemological effects. The nature of historical thinking requires historians to think in terms of time and space, and for the historiography of modernization, the most severe challenge precisely comes from the aspect of time and space. Therefore, the distinction between “spontaneous” and “conscious” provides an appropriate starting point for reflecting on the methodology of modernization historiography.

从以上的讨论不难看出,“自发型”和“自觉型”既是现代化的两种类型,也是现代化的两个阶段。前者是没有“现代化”之名的现代化,发生在17-19世纪的北大西洋世界； 后者通常基于“现代化方案”而展开,属于有规划的现代化,初起于19世纪中后期的非“西方”地区,二战后逐渐扩展到全世界,并波及那些“已现代化”的国家。相较于“内源型”和“外源型”的分类,“自发型”和“自觉型”的划分可以兼顾历时性和共时性,具有更为具体的时空感,也能带来新的认识论效应。历史思维的特性要求史家必须按照时空来思考,而对于现代化史学来说,最严峻的挑战也恰恰来自时空方面。因此,“自发型”和“自觉型”的区分,为反思现代化史学的方法论提供了一个恰当的起点

II. The “Historicization” of Modernization Studies

二、现代化研究的“历史化”

When American historian Richard Brown discusses the meaning of “modernization,” he says it is a concept encompassing the major changes in “Western” society over the “past six centuries.” [12]12 Richard D. Brown (1939–) is an American historian of early American social and cultural history, known for his work on modernization. It might be said that this statement precisely exposes a huge methodological flaw in the historiography of modernization, indicating that the relevant researchers are not clearly aware that “modernization” is also a concept with its own history. Especially during the stage of “spontaneous modernization,” the term “modernization” did not yet possess its current meaning. Only after “modernization” became a concept specifically referring to the transformation of modern society could the social changes of the “West” over the past several centuries be labeled as “modernization.” Furthermore, during the stage of “conscious modernization,” different societies have different definitions of “modernization,” and there are even conflicting ones among them. Consequently, the “modernization” that historians face is neither a self-evident and self-contained historical fact nor a continuous and consistent historical process. Only by clearly recognizing this can we begin to discuss the “historicization” of modernization studies.

美国历史学家理查德·布朗论及“现代化”的含义时说,这是一个囊括“以往6个世纪”“西方”社会主要变化的概念。不妨说,这句话正好暴露了现代化史学在方法论上的一个巨大漏洞,表明相关的研究者没有明确意识到,“现代化”也是一个有自身历史的概念,尤其是在“自发型现代化”阶段,“现代化”一词还不具备当今的含义。只有当“现代化”成为一个特指现代社会转型的概念之后,以往数百年“西方”的社会变迁,才可以贴上“现代化”的标签。再则,在“自觉型现代化”阶段,不同的社会对于“现代化”有不同的界定,而且其中不乏相互冲突的地方。这样一来,历史学家所面对的“现代化”,并不是一个理所当然的自足的历史事实,也不是一个连续一贯的历史过程。唯有清醒地认识到这一点,方可谈及现代化研究的“历史化”。

In English, the word “modernization” likely appeared before the mid-18th century. Samuel Johnson’s *Dictionary of the English Language*, compiled in 1755, includes the entry “To Modernise” after the word “Modern,” defining it as “to adapt ancient works to modern persons or things” and “to turn ancient language into modern language.” That is to say, “modernization” referred to making ancient things conform to current norms or requirements, and did not involve “social transformation.” For a long period thereafter, the English-speaking world largely used the term “moderniz(s)ation” in this sense. For example, an 1895 issue of *The Illustrated Monthly* spoke of “the modernization of Greek classicism.” An 1896 issue of *The Journal of American Folklore* mentioned “the modernization of spelling.” In 1925, an article titled “The Modernization of International Law” wrote, “The modernization of international law means the adaptation of international law to modern conditions.” In 1929, Arnold Toynbee, based on Denison Ross’s field notes in the Middle East, gave a lecture titled “The Modernization of the Middle East,” which sparked heated discussion among the audience. The “modernization” they repeatedly referred to mainly meant the reform of Islam, and did not imply an overall social transformation.

在英语中,“现代化”一词的出现当早于18世纪中叶。由塞缪尔·约翰逊1755年所编的《英语词典》,在“Modern”一词之后收有“To Modernise”一条,其释义为“使古代作品适应现代的人或物”; “把古代语言变成现代语言”。也就是说,“现代化”指的是把古代事物变得适应当前的规范或要求,并不涉及“社会转型”。此后很长一个时期,英语世界大都在这个意义上使用“moderniz(s)ation”一词。比如,1895年的《插图月刊》有“希腊古典主义的现代化”之说。1896年的《美国民俗杂志》提到了“拼写的现代化”。1925年,一篇题为《国际法的现代化》的文章写道,“国际法的现代化意味着国际法对现代条件的适应”。1929年,阿诺德·汤因比基于丹尼森·罗斯(Denison Ross)在中东的考察笔记,做了一个题为《中东的现代化》的演讲,在听众中引发热烈讨论。他们反复提及的“现代化”,主要指伊斯兰教的改革,并不包含整体的社会转型的意思。

“Modernization” as a term describing “social transformation” (in English, *social transformation*, not *societal transformation*) appeared later in the English-speaking world. According to the *Oxford English Dictionary*, in 1860 the British writer William Thackeray said, “Printing and gunpowder will tend to modernize the world,” a statement marking a turning point in the usage of the term “modernization.” Yet upon closer examination, Thackeray’s usage still largely did not go beyond the scope of Johnson’s *Dictionary* definition. Only when social change is regarded as a departure from and transcendence of “traditional society,” and “modernization” is used to describe this process, does the term acquire the meaning of social transformation. In 1895, an article in an American geographical journal noted that at that time there were some “ultra-conservatives” in Korea who strongly advocated adhering to “China’s ethical system” in order to prevent “the modernization of Korea.” Here, invoking the opposition between “tradition” and “modernity” seems to understand “modernization” as a social transformation of “becoming modern.” This is the earliest evidence seen so far of the “modern” usage of the term “modernization.” From the mid-19th century onward, some “backward countries” in Asia and Africa began to learn from or imitate “the West,” either by undertaking political reforms, social transformations, or advancing industrialization; in the early 20th century, European and American travelers observed these trends and described them as “modernization.” In 1923, the Chinese educator Zhang Pengchun published an English-language book in New York titled *Education for Modernization in China*, discussing China’s educational reforms since the Xinhai Revolution [13]13 The Xinhai Revolution (1911-1912) overthrew the Qing dynasty and established the Republic of China.; the term “modernization” used in the book clearly carried the meaning of social transformation. A review of the book stated: “The modernization of China is a process long predicted and long delayed. The weight of tradition is so heavy, the momentum of a particular form of life continued through countless centuries so great, that change is very difficult.” Here, “modernization” is explicitly contrasted with adherence to “tradition,” undoubtedly referring to a transformative type of social change.

“现代化”作为一个描述“社会转型”(英文为social transformation,而非societal transformation)的词汇,在英语世界出现较晚。据《牛津英语词典》,1860年英国作家萨克雷(William Thackeray)说,“印刷术和火药将会把世界现代化(tend to modernize the world)”,这句话标志着“现代化”一词在用法上的转折。可是细究起来,萨克雷的用法大体上仍未越出约翰逊《英语词典》释义的范围。只有把社会变迁视为对于“传统社会”的背离与超越,进而用“现代化”来描述这一过程,这个词才具有社会转型的意义。1895年,美国一份地理杂志上有文章提到,当时朝鲜有一些“极端保守分子”,强烈主张坚持“中国的伦理体系”,以阻止“朝鲜的现代化”。此处诉诸“传统”与“现代”的对立,似乎是把“现代化”理解为“成为现代”的社会转型。这是迄今所见“现代化”一词的“现代”用法的较早证据。19世纪中叶以来,亚非一些“落后国家”开始学习或模仿“西方”,或进行政治变革,或进行社会改造,或推进工业化; 20世纪初期有欧美旅行者观察到这些动向,便以“现代化”来加以描述。1923年,中国教育家张彭春在纽约出版英文著作《为中国之现代化的教育》,讨论辛亥革命以来中国的教育改革,书中所用“现代化”一词,明显带有社会转型之义。有一篇关于该书的评论称:“中国的现代化,这是一个预言已久而迟迟未实现的过程。传统的分量如此之沉重,基于特定形式的生活延续无数世纪,其势能如此巨大,使得变化的发生非常之难。此处明确把“现代化”与固守“传统”相对,指的无疑是一种带有转型性质的社会变迁。

In the decades after World War II, “modernization” became a hot topic in both political and academic spheres, with the focus on exploring how underdeveloped countries could embark on the path of development. At this time, the usage of “modernization” specifically referring to social transformation acquired a solid theoretical and practical foundation. S. N. Eisenstadt noted that after World War II, the development issues of “Third World” countries aroused interest in (American) academia, and research on “modernization” in a narrow sense and development subsequently emerged, covering disciplines such as economics, sociology, political science, and social anthropology; but from a deeper perspective, concern with the nature of modern society and social change and development belongs to the foundations of modern social science, and thus the upsurge in research on modernization and development was a natural extension of this characteristic. In other words, since the onset of modernity, the North Atlantic world’s reflections on “modernity” had accumulated deep academic resources for the rise of modernization studies and the maturation of modernization theory, and also provided historical grounds for the “modern” usage of the term “modernization.”

二战以后的几十年里,“现代化”在政治和学术领域都成为热门话题,其旨趣在于探讨不发达国家如何走上发展的道路。这时,“现代化”特指社会转型的用法,也就具备了稳固的学理和现实的基础。艾森斯塔特谈到,二战以后,“第三世界”国家的发展问题引起了(美国)学术界的兴趣,对狭义的“现代化”与发展的研究随之兴起,覆盖经济学、社会学、政治学和社会人类学等学科; 但从更深的层面来看,对于现代社会及社会变迁和发展的性质的关注,属于现代社会科学的根基,因之关于现代化和发展的研究热潮,乃是这一特性自然延展的产物。换言之,自进入现代以来北大西洋世界关于“现代性”的思考,为现代化研究的兴起及现代化理论的成熟,储备了深层的学术资源,也为“现代化”一词的“现代”用法提供了历史根由。

The term “modernization” began to appear in Chinese newspapers and periodicals roughly from the end of the 19th century, and by the 1920s and 1930s it had become a common term in various publications, usually referring to social change or civilizational transformation. By the 1930s, how to build China into a “modernized country” had become a strong concern of the intellectual community, and the concept of “modernization” at this time carried the full meaning of social transformation. In July 1933, *Shenbao Monthly* published a special issue titled “The Problem of China’s Modernization,” discussing the principled issues of China’s modernization, covering topics such as: whether to imitate “the West” or take its own path; whether to take the capitalist road or the socialist road; whether to prioritize industrialization or develop both industry and agriculture; and so on. This indicates that at that time, China’s intellectual community had already grasped the concept of “modernization” relatively clearly.

“现代化”一词大致从19世纪末开始见于中国报刊,到20世纪二三十年代已成为各类书刊的常用词,通常用以指社会变迁或文明转型。及至三十年代,如何把中国建成一个“现代化国家”,成了知识界的强烈关切所在,这时的“现代化”概念便具有全面的社会转型的含义。1933年7月,《申报月刊》编发“中国现代化问题号”,就中国现代化的原则性问题进行讨论,涉及的话题有：是模仿“西方”,还是走自己的路； 是走资本主义道路,还是走社会主义道路； 是工业化优先,还是工业、农业并举； 等等。这表明,当时中国知识界对于“现代化”的概念已有比较清晰的把握。

There is no doubt that during the period of social transformation in the North Atlantic world from the 17th to the 19th centuries, no one knew that the changes they were experiencing were “modernization.” What the English people of this period saw was not a holistic social change called “modernization,” but rather various specific changes, such as the gradual shrinking of common lands, the increasing number of new pastures and farms, the continuous emergence of new technologies and machines, chimneys billowing smoke everywhere, more and more young men and women entering factories to work, the growing power of Parliament, the gradual lowering of voting qualifications, and the distribution and possession of wealth gradually differing from before. Regarding the great changes in England from the mid-18th century onward, even social theorists with sharp insight and profound thought at the time, such as Engels, only referred to them as a “social revolution.” Similarly, those in late Qing China who advocated introducing foreign knowledge, technology, and institutions, the officials who managed “foreign affairs” [14]14 “Foreign affairs” (洋务) refers to the Self-Strengthening Movement (c. 1861-1895), a series of reforms and modernization efforts in military, industry, and education led by Qing officials., and the founders of the Tongwen Guan [15]15 The Tongwen Guan (同文馆, School of Combined Learning) was a government school in Beijing established in 1862 to teach Western languages and subjects. and the advocates for abolishing the imperial examinations [16]16 The imperial examinations (科举), a civil service recruitment system based on Confucian classics, were abolished in 1905., did not classify what they did under the category of “China’s modernization.” In short, using “modernization” to describe social transformations that have already occurred or are underway around the world is merely a form of “hindsight” knowledge; the fact that the social transformation of the North Atlantic world before the end of the 19th century came to be called “modernization” is the result of later “conceptualization.”

毫无疑问,在17-19世纪北大西洋世界发生社会转型的时期,没有人知道他们所经历的变化是“现代化”。这个时期的英国人所看到的,并不是一个叫作“现代化”的整体性社会变迁,而可能是各式各样的具体变化,比如公地逐渐缩小,新型牧场和农场日益增多,新技术和新机器不断问世,到处都有浓烟滚滚的烟囱,越来越多的年轻男女进入工厂做工，议会的权势不断增大,选举的资格逐步降低,财富的分配和占有也渐异于从前。对于英国18世纪中叶以降的巨变,当时即便眼光敏锐、思想深邃的社会理论家,比如恩格斯,也只是以“社会革命”称之。同理,晚清中国那些主张引进域外知识、技术和制度的人,那些主办“洋务”的官员,以及同文馆的创办者和废除科举的倡议者,也没有把他们所做的事归入“中国现代化”的范畴。总之,用“现代化”来描述世界各地已经发生或正在进行的社会转型，只是一种“后知后觉”的认识；19世纪末以前北大西洋世界的社会转型之有“现代化”之名，乃是后世加以“概念化”的结果。

This situation poses a sharp challenge to the study of the history of modernization: “spontaneous modernization” is not a self-sufficient historical fact, but a “social fact” formed through the researcher’s identification and integration; whether it can be handled by the conventional methods of historiography thus becomes a problem. That is to say, in world history before the end of the 19th century, “modernization” was not an event with a clear face, self-sufficient content, and its own “label,” like the “Glorious Revolution” or the “Luddite movement,” but rather a product constructed by researchers with the aid of the concept of “modernization.” At a deeper level, the fact that “spontaneous modernization” became a “social fact” is the result of repeated interaction between the concept of “modernization” and people’s observation of actual social change. In other words, people discerned an overall social transformation from the historical movements of the 17th to 19th centuries; the “modern society” that thus emerged had many fundamental differences from earlier eras. At the same time, people discovered that the term “modernization,” used to refer to making ancient things suitable for the present, could describe this already-occurring social transformation. Consequently, the process of social transformation in the North Atlantic world before the end of the 19th century came to be called “modernization.”

这一情况就给现代化历史的研究带来了一个尖锐的挑战:“自发型现代化”并不是一种自足的历史事实,而是需要研究者加以识别和整合而形成的“社会事实”,它能否用历史学的常规方法来处理,也就成了一个问题。这就是说,在19世纪末以前的世界历史中,“现代化”并不像“光荣革命”或“卢德运动”一样,是一种面目清晰、内涵自足和自带“标签”的事件,而是研究者借助“现代化”的概念加以建构的产物。从更深的层面来看,“自发型现代化”之成为“社会事实”,乃是“现代化”的概念与人们对实际社会变迁的观察反复互动的结果。换言之,人们从17-19世纪的历史运动中看出了整体性的社会转型,由此浮现的“现代社会”,较此前的时代有许多根本的差别; 同时人们又发现,用于指把古代事物变得适应当前的“现代化”一词,可以用来描述这种已然发生的社会转型。于是,19世纪末以前北大西洋世界的社会转型过程,便得名“现代化”。

So, is “conscious modernization” since the end of the 19th century a self-sufficient fact? It seems one cannot generalize. As a development strategy or social movement, modernization—whether as a whole or in its specific aspects, such as industrialization, urbanization, political reform, changes in customs, adjustment of social structure, and transformation of lifestyles and values—can be a self-sufficient fact. However, in the process of “conscious modernization,” the “modernization plan” implemented by the modernizing subject may produce concomitant effects. For example, in a modernization movement centered on industrialization, changes are not limited to the technological and economic spheres, because economic development also drives changes in other areas. These changes may not have been in the original modernization plan, nor do they bear the label of “modernization,” but they equally constitute important content of social change. These changes require the use of the theoretical tool of “modernization” to identify and interpret them. Therefore, certain aspects of “conscious modernization,” as objects of historical research, may also possess a certain constructed character.

那么,19世纪末以来的“自觉型现代化”,是否就是一种自足的事实呢?似乎也不可一概而论。作为发展战略或社会运动的现代化，不论是作为一个整体,还是其中的具体方面,如工业化,城市化,政治改革,风习变迁,社会结构的调整,生活方式和价值观念的转变,都可以是具有自足性的事实。但是,在“自觉型现代化”的过程中,现代化主体所推行的“现代化方案”可能产生连带效应,比如,在以工业化为中心的现代化运动中,变动并不仅限于技术和经济领域,因为经济发展也会带动其他方面的变化,这些变化可能不在最初的现代化规划中,也不带“现代化”的标签,但同样构成社会变迁的重要内容。这些变化就需要运用“现代化”这一理论工具来加以识别和诠释。因此,“自觉型现代化”的某些方面作为历史研究的对象,也可能具有某种建构性。

From this perspective, modernization as an object of historical research does not have the identifiable contours and characteristics of the figures, events, institutions, and ideas examined by classical historiography, and thus cannot be handled entirely by conventional historical methods. Here, the methods of the new social history may offer something useful. Since the 1950s and 1960s, social historians, using sociological theory as a method, have integrated the trivial behaviors of millions of people—such as clothing, food, housing, transportation, entertainment, and leisure—into social facts of daily life, and then examined them with historical methods. In essence, when researchers examine specific events or phenomena in the process of modernization—such as economic development, social reform, party politics, and university education—they can draw on classical historical methods; but when constructing an explanatory framework, they need to draw on modernization theory, the purpose being to reveal the significance of specific events or phenomena in social transformation. At this point, “modernization” is no longer merely the subject of research, but primarily a method of research. Even when writing a general theory of the history of “modernization,” “modernization” is mainly an “organizing idea” for integrating materials and constructing a framework.

由此看来,现代化作为历史学的研究对象,并不像经典史学所考察的人物、事件、制度和观念那样,具有可识别的轮廓和特性,因而也就不能完全依靠常规的历史学方法来处理。在这里,新社会史的方法或有可资借鉴之处。自20世纪五六十年代以来,社会史家以社会学理论为方法,把千百万人的零碎分散的衣食住行、吃喝玩乐等琐细行为,整合成社会性的日常生活事实,进而以历史学的方法加以考察。质言之,研究者考察现代化过程中的具体事件或现象,诸如经济发展、社会改良、政党政治、大学教育等,可以借助经典的历史学方法； 而在建构解释框架时则需借助现代化理论,目的在于揭示具体事件或现象在社会转型中的意义。这时,“现代化”就不再仅是研究的题材,而主要是研究的方法。即便在进行“现代化”历史的通论性写作时,“现代化”也主要是一个整合材料和构筑框架的“组织性理念”。

At the same time, different types of modernization are not entirely consistent in research paths and methods; conflating different historical types of modernization is equivalent to ignoring the constraints of specific temporal and spatial conditions. For example, some scholars, using Weber’s theoretical paradigm of the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, have examined the role of cultural factors in East Asian development, only to find that “Weber was wrong,” because East Asia, where Protestantism is not dominant (the so-called “Confucian” East Asia), has also experienced a wave of modernization. The flaw in this explanation lies precisely in failing to consider that modernization has different historical types. Even if Weber’s theory is reliably accurate, the historical events it concerns come from the “spontaneous modernization” stage; whereas East Asian development has the characteristics of “conscious modernization,” where a massive influx of foreign values, ideas, and customs, state guidance, the shaping of public opinion, and the effects of education can all “manufacture” social values and ethics compatible with capitalism. Another example: in discussions of “conscious modernization,” certain social, political, and cultural factors are treated as preconditions for industrialization, used to explain the industrialization status of “late-developing countries.” However, if this line of thinking is applied to discussions of “spontaneous modernization,” it leads to serious “anachronism.” “Spontaneous modernization” was originally the result of the interweaving and fusion of multiple changes and transformations; industrialization and various social, political, and cultural factors proceeded side by side, mutually promoting each other, together constituting social transformation. Things like the formation of the “nation-state,” changes in the political system, adjustments in power relations, and changes in values are themselves part of modernization, not conditions that appear for modernization. There may be situations of mutual conditionality or mutual support among them, but they do not form a chain-like causal relationship.

同时,不同类型的现代化在研究的路径和方法上也不尽一致,混淆现代化的不同历史类型,也就等于忽略了具体时空条件的制约。比如,有的学者以韦伯关于新教伦理与资本主义精神的理论范式,来考察东亚发展中文化因素的作用,结果发现“韦伯错了”,因为新教不占主导地位的东亚(即所谓“儒教”东亚),同样也兴起了现代化的浪潮。这种解释的缺陷,正源于未考虑到现代化有不同的历史类型。韦伯的理论即便是确切可凭的,其所涉及的史事也是来自“自发型现代化”阶段; 而东亚的发展带有“自觉型现代化”的特点,大量涌入的外来价值、理念和习俗,国家的引导,舆论的塑造,以及教育的效应,都有可能“制造”出与资本主义相协调的社会价值和伦理。又如,在关于“自觉型现代化”的讨论中,某些社会的、政治的和文化的因素,被当作工业化的前提条件,用以解释“后发国家”的工业化状况。可是,如果把这种思路用于讨论“自发型现代化”,就会带来严重的“时代倒错”。“自发型现代化”原本是多种变迁和转型交织融合的结果,工业化与各种社会的、政治的和文化的因素相辅而行,相互促动,一起构成社会转型。举凡“国民国家”的形成,政治体制的变革,权力关系的调整,价值观念的变化,这些本身就是现代化的一部分,而不是作为现代化的条件而出现的。它们之间可能存在互为条件或相互支持的状况,但并不是链条式的因果关系。

Furthermore, in the study of the history of modernization, if one does not pay attention to distinguishing the historical types of modernization, one may also develop an illusion that modernization in world history has a certain uniformity, that it is a consistent process from beginning to end. Indeed, early modernization theory had a tendency toward “convergence theory,” believing that all countries that undergo modernization will eventually become similar or alike (based on the “Western model”), and that a “modernized” world would be a homogeneous world. However, modernization in its historical forms, whether “spontaneous” or “conscious,” exhibits a high degree of diversity. First, for “spontaneous modernization,” social forces played the main role; artisans, entrepreneurs, inventors, workers, universities, newspapers, and associations were the protagonists, while the state and rulers played the role of “night watchman” or “patron.” But in “conscious modernization,” the government and those in power become the dominant force; the core driving force of modernization comes from government policy. Although various elite power groups or international forces can influence, constrain, or even dictate government policy, the modernization strategy and its measures implemented through the state are the key factors directly shaping the process of modernization. Second, modernization is diverse in degree; even within the same society, the degree of transformation is usually uneven. Moreover, for different countries, regions, and groups, the meaning of modernization may be vastly different or even diametrically opposed. For example, groups that lose power due to equalization, groups that lose land and even livelihoods due to industrialization and urbanization, and the urban poor and homeless may not welcome modernization. Third, neither “spontaneous modernization” nor “conscious modernization” is a process that moves unwaveringly toward improvement; it is full of setbacks, failures, destruction, and even ruin. The social transformation of the North Atlantic world was long accompanied by “negative phenomena” such as conquest, expansion, colonization, war, disease, the gap between rich and poor, social unrest, and environmental destruction. In many countries, the pollution and traffic congestion brought by industrialization and urbanization have also been heavily criticized. Finally, there are often complex connections and interactions between different countries and different types of modernization, which requires the introduction of transnational and global historical perspectives and methods.

再则,在现代化历史的研究中,如果不留意区分现代化的历史类型,还有可能产生一种错觉,以为世界历史中的现代化具有某种统一性,是一个一贯到底的过程。的确,最初的现代化理论带有“合流论”(convergence theory)的倾向,相信所有经过现代化的国家,最终都会(基于“西方”模式)变得接近或相似,一个“现代化”的世界将会是一个同质的世界。然则历史形态的现代化,无论是“自发型”还是“自觉型”,都表现出高度的多样性。首先,对于“自发型现代化”而言,社会的力量发挥了主要作用,工匠、企业主、发明家、工人、大学、报纸、社团乃是主角,国家和统治者则扮演“守夜人”或“赞助者”的角色。然则在“自觉型现代化”中,政府和当权者成为主导者,现代化的核心动力来自政府的政策,尽管各种精英权势集团或国际势力可以影响、制约乃至左右政府的政策,但通过国家而推行的现代化战略及其举措,乃是直接塑造现代化过程的关键因素。其次,现代化在程度上具有多样性,即便在同一个社会,其转型的程度通常也是不均衡的。而且,对于不同的国家、不同的地区和群体来说,现代化的意义也可能大不一样乃至截然相反。比如,因平等化而失去权势的集团,因工业化和城市化而失去土地乃至生计的群体,城市的贫民和流浪汉,可能并不欢迎现代化。再次,无论是“自发型现代化”还是“自觉型现代化”,都不是一个一往无前地走向改善的过程,其间充满挫折、失败、破坏乃至毁灭。北大西洋世界的社会转型,即长期伴随着征服、扩张、殖民、战争、疾病、贫富分化、社会动荡、环境破坏等“负面现象”。在许多国家,工业化和城市化所带来的污染和交通拥堵,也深受诟病。最后,不同国家、不同类型的现代化之间,往往存在复杂的联系和互动,这样就需要引入跨国史、全球史的视野及方法。

III. Modernization Theory and the Historiography of Modernization

三、现代化理论与现代化史学

The discussion above faintly reveals that the relationship between modernization historiography and modernization theory has always been both intimately connected and intricately entangled. On the one hand, in research on the history of modernization, modernization theory possesses an indispensable methodological significance; whether in identifying and defining research topics or in forming a line of argument, one must draw upon and even rely on modernization theory. On the other hand, modernization theory, whether as a part of “conscious modernization” or in terms of its influence on U.S. foreign policy and post-World War II international relations, is itself an object of study for modernization historiography. However, modernization theory is not a single theory but a hodgepodge of multiple theories; moreover, modernization theory is not merely a theory but often an ideology. Consequently, modernization theory inevitably creates difficulties for modernization historiography. Researchers must maintain a sharp sense of discernment, knowing which specific modernization theory they are employing, in what sense they understand the concept of “modernization,” and which pitfalls to avoid when drawing on modernization theory.

上文的讨论隐约显示,现代化史学和现代化理论之间,始终存在息息相关而又缠绕不清的关系。一方面,在关于现代化历史的研究中,现代化理论具有不可或缺的方法论意义,无论是研究题材的识别及界定,还是论述思路的形成,都需要借助乃至依赖现代化理论; 另一方面,现代化理论不论是作为“自觉型现代化”的一部分,还是就其对美国外交政策和二战后国际关系的影响而言,其本身就是现代化史学的研究对象。可是,现代化理论并不是一种理论,而是多种理论的杂烩; 而且,现代化理论也不仅仅是一种理论,而经常是一种意识形态。这样一来,现代化理论就难免给现代化史学带来困扰,研究者必须保持敏锐的鉴别意识,知晓自己所采用的是哪一种现代化理论,是在何种意义上理解“现代化”概念,以及在借鉴现代化理论时要留心避开哪些陷阱。

Undoubtedly, modernization theory, and especially the concept of “modernization,” constitutes the foundation of modernization historiography. It could even be said that without the idea of “modernization,” there would be no modernization historiography to speak of. However, “modernization” is precisely a concept that is extremely difficult to grasp; its meaning is indeterminate, opinions vary widely, and it is saturated with value orientations and ideological implications. From the scholarly rationale of modernization studies, the concept of “modernization” has roughly two different usages. First, it emphasizes the temporal dimension, that is, simply “becoming modern,” especially making ancient things adapt to the present. Second, it emphasizes the value dimension, stressing a shift from “backward” to “advanced.” When used to refer to social transformation, it focuses on making various conditions of a society—such as production, institutions, facilities, ideas, and customs—more conducive to the improvement of human life. After the formation of modernization theory, the latter concept of “modernization” became dominant. The concept of “modernization” used by European and American historians generally also belongs to the latter type.

毫无疑问,现代化理论,特别是“现代化”概念,构成现代化史学的基础。甚至可以说,离开“现代化”的理念,也就无从谈及现代化史学。但是,“现代化”恰恰是一个至难把握的概念,其含义不定,众说纷纭,而且饱含价值取向和意识形态的意蕴。从现代化研究的学理来看,“现代化”概念大致有两种不同的用法。其一,偏重时间的维度,也就是单纯的“成为现代”,尤其是使古代的事物变得适应当前; 其二,偏重价值的维度,强调从“落后”变成“先进”,用于指社会转型时,侧重的是把一个社会各方面的条件,诸如生产、制度、设施、观念和习俗等,都变得更有利于人类生活的改善。在现代化理论形成以后,后一种“现代化”概念居于主导地位。欧美史家所用的“现代化”概念,大体也属于后一种。

Specifically regarding the connotation of the concept of “modernization,” European and American academic circles have various formulations. Eisenstadt once reviewed early modernization theory, mentioning Deutsch’s theory of “social mobilization,” the structural-functional school’s theory of “organizational development,” as well as theories of cultural change and theories of modern personality orientation. Taking a comprehensive view of various scholarly discourses on modernization in Europe and America, the goals and results of “modernization” can be roughly summarized as: (1) secularization, i.e., the separation of state and church, and the “disembedding” of religious activities from daily life; (2) rationalization, i.e., eliminating superstition and blind obedience, revering science, relying on knowledge, and respecting common sense; (3) equalization, i.e., abolishing social hierarchies and obligations of subordination, basing adult interactions on voluntariness, contract, and equivalence, with active social mobility; (4) democratization, i.e., implementing competitive politics based on mass voting, where the state is no longer a tool for a particular class, group, or family to obtain and maintain privileges, but a “public instrument” promoting the security and well-being of all citizens; (5) rule of law, i.e., entrusting citizens’ rights, disputes, and security to law and the judiciary; (6) industrialization, i.e., adopting machine production, implementing a market economy, and striving for sustained economic growth; (7) urbanization, i.e., the concentration of population, wealth, and high-quality facilities in cities; (8) improvement in quality of life, i.e., increased income, the rise of consumerism, a decrease in the “Engel coefficient,” and extended life expectancy. These terms describing trends and results of social change had long existed in European and American languages, but were now “co-opted” and integrated by modernization theory. In addition, some scholars established indicator systems for “modernization” to identify and distinguish “traditional society” from “modern society.” These indicators cover various aspects, such as population, marriage, family, education, morality, values, technology, division of labor, religion, state, associations, institutions, political processes, social relations, social mobility, and lifestyles, all measurable by numbers (indices). Such a definition of the connotation of “modernization” undoubtedly takes the experience of social transformation in the North Atlantic world as its reference. Its historical view is linear, its process is expressed as development and transformation, and its value orientation is progress, abundance, and freedom.

具体到“现代化”概念的内涵,欧美学术界也有各色各样的说法。艾森斯塔特曾对早期的现代化理论做过梳理,提到了多伊奇的“社会流动”理论,结构-功能学派的“组织性发展”理论,以及文化变迁理论、现代人人格取向理论等。综观欧美学界关于现代化的各家论说,似可将“现代化”的目标和结果粗略归纳为:(1)世俗化,即国家和教会分离,宗教活动从日常生活中“脱嵌”;(2)理性化,即去除迷信和盲从,崇奉科学,依靠知识,尊重常识;(3)平等化,即取消社会等级制及从属性义务,成年人的交往建立在自愿、契约和等价的基础上,社会流动活跃;(4)民主化,即实行基于大众投票的竞争性政治,国家不再是某个等级、团体或家族获取和维护其特权的工具,而是促进全体国民的安全和福祉的“公器”;(5)法治化,即将国民的权利、争端和安全交予法律和司法;(6)工业化,即采用机器生产,实行市场经济,争取经济持续增长;(7)城市化,即人口、财富和优良设施均汇聚于城市;(8)生活质量提升,即收入增加,消费主义兴起,“恩格尔系数”降低,预期寿命延长。以上这些描述社会变迁的趋势和结果的词汇,早就存在于欧美语言之中,此时均被现代化理论加以“收编”和整合。此外,还有学者为“现代化”制定了指标体系,以鉴别和区分“传统社会”与“现代社会”。这些指标涉及方方面面,诸如人口、婚姻、家庭、教育、道德、价值、技术、分工、宗教、国家、社团、机构、政治过程、社会关系、社会流动、生活方式等,均可用数字(指数)来衡量。对于“现代化”的内涵做出这样的界定,所参照的无疑是北大西洋世界社会转型的经验,其历史观是线性的,其过程表现为发展和转型,其价值取向则是进步、丰裕和自由。

The most prominent problem with this concept of “modernization” is clearly its strong “Western-centric” orientation. Initially, European and American academic circles mostly equated modernization with “Westernization.” In June 1959, the American sociologist Shils, discussing the development of “new states,” declared that “modern” states should be “welfare states” and also “democratic states,” eliminating privileges, carrying out land reform, adopting “highly progressive income taxes,” implementing universal suffrage, popularizing public education, valuing science and technology, continuously achieving economic progress, and possessing a high standard of living. In a word, for “new states,” “‘modern’ means being Western without the onus of the West. It is in some degree a Western model freed from its geographical origins and locale.” [19]19 Edward Shils, “Political Development in the New States,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 2, no. 3 (April 1960): 285. The picture of “modernization” depicted by Shils also contains a certain “cosmopolitan” sentiment, believing that “modernization” is not merely a special phenomenon limited to the “West” but can become a universal world historical process. However, it not only takes the experience of the North Atlantic world as its blueprint but also uses the current situation of “new states” as a contrast, thus being an undisguised “Western-centrism” and embodying classic “othering” thinking. Shils also applied the “Western” version of the modernization mold to the Soviet Union’s “modernization,” calling it at best only “a deformed modernization.” [20]20 Edward Shils, “Political Development in the New States,” 286. In 1964, a “Western” journalist wrote a book on modernization, criticizing the conditions of “non-Western” countries and prescribing remedies, instructing them on how to follow the “Western” path to escape their “backward” state. A book review sharply pointed out that this was entirely a reprint of the “white man’s burden.” [21]21 The book referred to is likely a work such as those critiqued for imposing Western models; the specific review is not identified in the source text.

这种“现代化”理念最为突出的问题,显然是强烈的“西方中心主义”取向。欧美学界最初大多把现代化等同于“西方化”。1959年6月,美国社会学家希尔斯论及“新国家”的发展时宣称,“现代”国家应是“福利国家”,也应是“民主国家”,要消除特权,进行土地改革,采取“大差距所得税”,实行普选权,普及公共教育,重视科学技术,不断取得经济进步,拥有很高的生活标准。一言以蔽之,对于“新国家”来说,“‘现代'意味着成为没有追随西方负担的西方。它是在某种程度上摆脱了其地理渊源和所在地的西方模式”。希尔斯所描绘的这种“现代化”图景,其中也包含某种“世界主义”(cosmopolitan)情怀,相信“现代化”并不仅只是限于“西方”的特殊现象,而可以成为一种普遍的世界历史过程; 但是,它不仅以北大西洋世界的经验为蓝本,而且也以“新国家”的现状为对照,因而是一种不加掩饰的“西方中心主义”,也体现了经典的“他者化”思维。希尔斯还曾用“西方”版的现代化模子来套苏联的“现代化”,称其至多只是一种“畸形的现代化”(a deformed modernization)。1964年,有一位“西方”记者写了一本关于现代化的书,对“非西方”国家的状况多有指摘,并且开具药方,指点其如何走“西方”的道路,以摆脱“落后”的状态。有一篇书评尖锐地指出,这完全是“白种人负担”的翻版。

It is generally believed that the modernization theory of the United States during the Cold War was explicitly in service of U.S. foreign strategy. However, this was mainly the intention of U.S. policymakers and think tanks, while the attitude of the U.S. academic community was quite complex. There were both supporters and opponents of modernization theory; some scholars also offered strong criticism of the arrogance and prejudice inherent in the “modernization model.” Their general argument was that modernization theory is biased toward the “West” and “developed countries,” bearing the color of “ethnocentrism”; it also has an ideological bias, championing liberal democratic systems; it is ahistorical in its framework, mechanically assuming that some societies are pioneers of modernization while backward countries must catch up with advanced ones; it even has a certain “teleological” nature, treating “modernity” as the common destination of humanity.

一般认为,冷战时期美国的现代化理论,乃是旗帜鲜明地服务于美国的外交战略的。不过,这主要是美国决策者及智库的意图,而美国学术界的态度则相当复杂。对于现代化理论,拥护者有之,反对者亦有之; 对于“现代化模式”所带有的傲慢与偏见,也有学者提出了强烈的批评。他们的大意是,现代化理论偏向于“西方”和“发达国家”,带有“族裔中心论”的色彩; 它还具有意识形态的偏见,推崇自由民主体制; 它在框架上也是非历史的,机械地认定有的社会是现代化的先行者,而落后国家则必须追赶先进国家; 它甚至还有某种“目的论”的性质,把“现代性”作为人类的共同归宿。

Moreover, after the formation of modernization theory, adversarial theories quickly emerged in European and American academia, among which the well-known ones include “dependency theory” and “world-systems theory.” The former explicitly opposes mainstream modernization concepts, arguing that “underdeveloped” countries cannot achieve development by adopting the models of developed countries, because the very reason for their “underdevelopment” lies in their dependency on developed countries; the solution lies in doing the opposite, breaking away from the international capitalist order, and seeking development through self-determination, self-reliance, and import substitution. The latter explicitly challenges “Eurocentrism,” claiming that the situation of the periphery is constrained by the core, and in the relational model of core and periphery, the more the economy develops, the greater the gap between core and periphery. Both theories carry a certain pessimistic tone, insisting that the “Western” model of modernization cannot be universal. At the same time, they both touch upon a truth: “development” is not a matter for a single country but is constrained by multiple factors such as great-power politics, international relations, and the world market. Furthermore, modernization theory has encountered several subversive intellectual opponents; for example, postmodernists directly target the predicament of “modernity,” while postcolonial theory links modernization with “Western” hegemony. After the end of the Cold War, “Western” modernization theory began to appear in a new guise, its scope of observation encompassing cultural change, gender equality, democratization and the democratic peace theory, and making various corrections to previous theories, believing that “economic and technological development will bring about a corresponding set of social, cultural, and political changes.” Particularly noteworthy is that in many non-“Western” countries, various indigenous modernization theories with nationalist or other political orientations have emerged one after another, and most of their arguments take European and American modernization theory as their target.

而且,在现代化理论形成后,欧美学术界很快就出现了对抗性的理论,其中广为人知的有“依附论”和“世界体系论”。前者明确反对主流的现代化理念,认为“不发达”国家不可能通过采纳发达国家的模式而获得发展,因为它们“不发达”的原因恰恰在于对发达国家的依附,其化解之法在于反其道而行之,摆脱国际资本主义秩序,通过自决、自立和进口替代以谋求发展。后者明确挑战“欧洲中心论”,称边缘的境况受到中心的限制,在中心与边缘的关系模式中,经济越发展,中心和边缘的差距就越大。这两种理论都带有一定的悲观色彩,坚称“西方”式的现代化道路不可能具有普适性。同时,它们也都触及一个道理,即“发展”不是单个国家的事情,而受到大国政治、国际关系、世界市场等多方面因素的制约。此外,现代化理论还遇到了几个颠覆性的思想对手,比如,后现代主义者将矛头直指“现代性”的困境,后殖民理论则把现代化与“西方”霸权挂钩。冷战结束后,“西方”的现代化理论开始以新的面目行世,其观照范围涵盖文化变迁、性别平等、民主化及民主和平论,并对以往的理论做出多方面的修正,相信“经济和技术的发展会带来一整套相应的社会、文化和政治的变迁”。尤其值得注意的是,在广大非“西方”国家,各种带有民族主义或其他政治取向的本土现代化理论纷纷问世,而且其立论大多以欧美的现代化理论为靶子。

This complexity and diversity of modernization theory suggests that when historians borrow from it, they need to pay attention to the following issues. First, the use of modernization theory by governments in Europe and America is something that needs to be distinguished from the meaning and value of modernization theory itself. Second, the “Western-centric” orientation of modernization theory should be carefully identified; when applying the concept of “modernization,” it is also necessary to subject it to a certain “de-Westernization” treatment. Third, although modernization theory comes from history, it is not equivalent to history; when borrowing these theories in historical research, they must never be used as evidence for arguments, but only as methods and tools, or as targets for dialogue and debate. Finally, those voices that “sing a different tune” against modernization theory should not be ignored; they can be used to hone the theoretical tool of “modernization.”

现代化理论的这种复杂性和多样性,提示历史学者在加以借用时,有必要留心以下几方面的问题。首先,欧美多国政府对现代化理论的利用,与现代化理论自身的含义和价值,是需要加以区分的两件事。其次,对于现代化理论的“西方中心主义”取向,应慎加以辨识; 在运用“现代化”概念时,也有必要对它做某种“去西方化”的处理。再次,现代化理论虽然来自历史,但并不等于历史; 在历史研究中借取这些理论,绝不可当成论述的证据,而只能用作方法和工具,或者树为对话和商榷的靶标。最后,那些针对现代化理论“唱反调”的声音也不可忽视,不妨把它们用来打磨“现代化”这一理论工具。

Another highly controversial aspect of modernization theory is its use of the “tradition-modernity” binary opposition to understand and plan social transformation. As Eisenstadt said, early modernization theory defined the nature of modern society mainly through binary oppositional thinking, referencing the understanding of the characteristics of “traditional society”; so-called “modernization” meant dismantling and eliminating the characteristics of “traditional society,” thereby ensuring the continuous development of modern economic, political, and social forces. The “traditional society” referred to here includes both the “pre-modern” society of the “West” and the non-“Western” societies as the “other.” According to this concept of “tradition-modernity” binary opposition, “traditional” equates to stagnation, closure, superstition, poverty, and backwardness, while “modern” means development, openness, rationality, affluence, and progress. Understanding modernization according to this logic would simplistically view modernization as a departure from “tradition,” overemphasizing sudden change and rupture. This inevitably severs the continuity of history and fails to consider the significance of gradual change and transition. If the distinction between “spontaneous” and “conscious” types is introduced, it may alleviate the oversimplification of the “tradition-modernity” binary opposition, turning it into a pair of complementary and tension-filled categories.

现代化理论另一个备受争议的地方,就是采用“传统-现代”二元对立的方式,来理解和规划社会转型。诚如艾森斯塔特所说,早期的现代化理论对现代社会性质的界定,主要采取二元对立的思维方式,参照对“传统社会”特征的理解而进行; 所谓“现代化”,就是要瓦解和消除“传统社会”的特性,从而保障现代经济、政治和社会的力量不断发展。这里所说的“传统社会”,既指“西方”的“前现代”社会,也包括作为“他者”的非“西方”社会。按照这种“传统-现代”二元对立的理念,“传统的”等于是停滞、封闭、迷信、贫穷和落后,而“现代的”则意味着发展、开放、理性、富裕和进步。按照这种逻辑来理解现代化,就会把现代化简单地视作对“传统”的背离,过于强调突变和断裂。这就不免割断了历史的连续性,未能考虑渐变和过渡的意义。如果引入“自发型”与“自觉型”的区分,似可缓解“传统-现代”二元对立的简单化之弊,使之变成一对相辅而成而具有张力的范畴。

As discussed earlier, the greatest characteristic of “spontaneous modernization” is that it accumulates gradual changes into great transformations. In this process, “tradition” and “modernity” are not simply opposed and antagonistic but coexist and symbiotically develop over a long period; the transition from “tradition” to “modernity” is not a ruptured sudden change but a gradual evolution and transformation. In other words, “spontaneous modernization” does not manifest as “modernity” abruptly replacing “tradition,” but as “tradition” slowly transforming into “modernity”; it is only because the final difference and contrast between “modern society” and “traditional society” are so strong that, in the eyes of later generations, “modernization” appears to have the character of a sudden change. Recently, European and American academia, in response to the previous tendency to focus excessively on rupture and sudden change, has vigorously conducted research on the “transitional period” or “period of transformation,” abandoning the concept of “tradition-modernity” binary opposition, criticizing single “modernity” and the sole model of modernization, reflecting on linear views of modernization history, and using the concept of “multiple modernities” to interpret non-“Western” modernization.

前文论及,“自发型现代化”最大的特点,是由渐变累积而成巨变。在这个过程中,“传统”与“现代”并不是简单的对立和对抗,而是长期并存和共生; 从“传统”到“现代”,也不是断裂式的突变,而是逐渐的演变和转化。换言之,“自发型现代化”不是表现为“现代”陡然取代“传统”,而是“传统”缓慢转变为“现代”,只是因为“现代社会”最终与“传统社会”的差别和对比过于强烈,以致在后人眼里“现代化”带有突变的意味。近期欧美学术界针对以往过于关注断裂与突变的倾向,大力开展对“过渡时期”或“转型时期”(transitional period)的研究,抛弃“传统-现代”二元对立的观念,对单一“现代性”和唯一现代化模式展开批判,反思线性的现代化史观,并借助“多元现代性”的理念来诠释非“西方”的现代化。

Entering the stage of “conscious modernization,” the relationship between “tradition” and “modernity” presents an even more complex situation. Some countries initially believed in the “tradition-modernity” binary opposition, attempting to forcibly smash “tradition” and quickly enter “modernity.” However, this often fails to bring about genuine “modernity”; sometimes, after tradition is shattered, what emerges is merely chaos and regression. Other countries implementing modernization exhibit a certain hybridity in their societies, with some aspects already modernized while others retain old characteristics; this type of modernization is known as “partial modernization.” Still other countries strive to seek modernization paths different from “Westernization,” attempting to explore the significance of “tradition” for the transition to “modern society,” and considering how to strive to maintain and promote “fine” traditions in the process of modernization. This not only abandons the concept of “tradition-modernity” binary opposition but also intentionally relies on “tradition” to highlight the characteristics of their modernization.

进入“自觉型现代化”的阶段,“传统”与“现代”的关系则呈现更为复杂的局面。有的国家最初也执信“传统-现代”的二元对立,试图强行打碎“传统”,快速走入“现代”。可是,这样往往不能带来真正的“现代性”,有时传统破碎以后出现的,不过是混乱和倒退。另一些实行现代化的国家,其社会则表现出一定的混合性,某些方面已经现代化,而某些方面则继续保持旧有的特点,这种现代化因有“部分现代化”之称。还有一些国家致力于寻求不同于“西方化”的现代化路径,试图发掘“传统”对于向“现代社会”转型的意义,思考如何在现代化过程中努力维护和发扬“优良”传统。这样就不仅摈弃了“传统-现代”二元对立的理念,而且还有意依托“传统”以凸显其现代化的特色。

In European and American social theory, there are also some regularities and hypotheses about the modernization process. Some scholars believe that in social transformation, the political, economic, and cultural systems are interconnected, even mutually conditional; changes in the political system can become a prerequisite for economic development, and the results of economic development can in turn play a role in political change. Other scholars propose that once a certain core institutional system is established, its development and change are continuous and inevitable; for example, after economic “take-off,” there must be “sustained development.” Among all the regularities and hypotheses about modernization, “industrialization determinism” has the most enduring vitality. Some economists have constructed modernization models with industrialization as the backbone and sustained economic growth as support; other economists, when discussing the economic development of the “Third World,” even simulate specific economic processes in the laboratory. Many people believe that economic development inevitably brings corresponding political transformation, and modernization inevitably accompanies political democratization. One scholar writes that in the long run, “democratic government systems” are “the most revolutionary force in political affairs,” and “modernization is a key step in the universalization of this ideal.” Eisenstadt also attempted to extend the economic concept of “sustained growth” to non-economic fields, in order to understand the development of modern political systems, especially the formation and maintenance of political democratization. The above theories may have heuristic value for understanding modernization as a historical phenomenon, but they are more likely to be viewpoints that need to be questioned and challenged in empirical research.

在欧美的社会理论中,关于现代化过程还有一些规律性的假设。有学者认为,社会转型中政治、经济、文化诸系统之间是相互关联的,甚至互为条件; 政治系统的变化可以成为经济发展的前提,而经济发展的结果又能对政治变迁发挥作用。还有学者提出,一旦某种核心制度系统得以确立,其发展和变化就是持续的、不可避免的,比如,经济“起飞”以后必有“持续发展”。在所有关于现代化的规律性假设中,“工业化决定论”具有最为持久的生命力。有些经济学家所构建的现代化模式,以工业化为主干,以经济的持续增长为支撑; 还有经济学家在讨论“第三世界”的经济发展时,甚至在实验室模拟具体的经济过程。许多人相信,经济发展必然带来相应的政治转型,现代化必然伴随政治民主化。有一位学者写道,从长远来看,“民主政府体制”乃是“政治事务中最具革命性的力量”,而“现代化则是这一理想普世化的关键一步”。艾森斯塔特也试图把经济学的“持续增长”理念扩展到非经济的领域,借以理解现代政治体制的发展,尤其是政治民主化的形成及维持。以上这些论说,对于理解作为历史现象的现代化,或许具有启发的价值,但更有可能是需要在实证研究中加以质疑和挑战的观点。

Modernization theory also has a characteristic in its research methods: it relies particularly heavily on causal models. In related research in economics, political science, and sociology, some scholars tend to regard modernization as a “dependent variable,” whose emergence and development are inseparable from the effects of other “variables.” Following this line of thought to discuss modernization naturally leads to a focus on the various conditions of modernization. American political scientist Gabriel Almond noted that four variables influence the modernization process: government capacity (power), political participation (participation), economic growth (wealth), and income distribution (welfare), among which government capacity and economic growth are more decisive, because without government capacity, political participation is meaningless, and without wealth, distribution and welfare are out of the question. What is emphasized here is the significance of order, freedom, growth, and equality for modernization. Almond believed that by examining the four variables and their interrelationships, one could explain the success or failure of modernization in the “Third World.”

现代化理论在研究方法上还有一个特点,就是特别倚重因果模式。在经济学、政治学和社会学的相关研究中,有些学者倾向于把现代化视作一种“因变量”(dependent variable),其发生和发展均离不开其他“变量”的作用。按照这种思路来讨论现代化,自然会关注现代化的各种条件。美国政治学家阿尔蒙德谈到,有四个变量影响现代化过程,即政府能力(power)、政治参与(participation)、经济增长(wealth)和收入分配(welfare),其中政府能力和经济增长更具决定意义,因为政府缺乏能力,政治参与也就没有意义,而没有财富,也就谈不到分配和福利。这里所注重的,是秩序、自由、增长和平等对于现代化的意义。阿尔蒙德相信,从四个变量及其相互关系着眼,可以解释“第三世界”现代化的成败。

Whether this “variable” analysis method from the social sciences can be introduced into historical research is also a question that requires careful consideration. Admittedly, many historians have long been enamored with causal analysis, but when exploring the causes of “spontaneous modernization,” if the question is framed as “why modernization” or “what caused modernization,” it is easy to fall into “ahistorical” or “anti-historical” problems, because people in the North Atlantic world of the 17th–19th centuries did not know that they were undergoing or experiencing so-called “modernization.” Even when discussing the causes of “conscious modernization,” one cannot treat it in a blanket manner, because among the elements that constitute modernization in the sense of an “ideal type,” although there may be correlation, there is not necessarily a causal relationship; moreover, different elements have different weights in importance and appear at different times. If one or several elements are regarded as decisive, or if one or several elements are treated as “variables” affecting other changes, it is also easy to fall into the trap of simple causal determinism. Ultimately, the basic meaning of “modernization” as explored by historians is “becoming modern,” so the issues that need to be focused on are, first, the specific connotations of “modernization” in particular eras and societies, and second, the diversity of the processes of “becoming modern.”

社会科学中的这种“变量”分析法,能否引入历史研究,也是一个需要仔细斟酌的问题。诚然,许多史家长期迷恋因果分析,但在探讨“自发型现代化”的原因时,如果把问题设定为“何以现代化”或“因何现代化”,就容易出现“非历史”或“反历史”的问题,因为17-19世纪北大西洋世界的人们,并不知道他们正在进行或经历所谓的“现代化”。即便讨论“自觉型现代化”的原因,也不能笼统视之,因为在“理想类型”意义上构成现代化的各要素之间,虽然存在相关性(correlation),但不一定有因果联系; 而且,不同要素的地位有轻重之别,其出现则有迟早的不同,若把某个或某几个要素视作决定性的,或把某个或某几个要素当作影响其他变迁的“变量”,也容易跌入简单因果论的陷阱。归根结底,历史学家所探讨的“现代化”,其基本含义乃是“成为现代”,因而需要重点关注的问题,一是“现代化”在具体时代和社会的内涵,二是“变成现代”过程的多样性。

Finally, historical research on modernization must also take into account the current state of modernization. In today’s world, is modernization still a universally visible reality? For “post-industrial societies” that are “already modernized,” is “modernization” still a meaningful category for viewing their social evolution? Some clues to an answer to this can also be found in new modernization theories.

最后,历史学的现代化研究,还须考虑到现代化的当前状态。在当今世界,现代化还是一种普遍可见的现实吗?对于“已现代化”的“后工业社会”来说,“现代化”还是一个看待其社会演变的有意义的范畴吗?对此,在新的现代化理论中也能找到某种答案的线索。

In the 1970s, American political scientist Ronald Inglehart proposed that in the “post-industrial societies” of several European countries, there had been a shift from “materialist values” to “post-materialist values”; the former emphasize survival needs and security, while the latter prioritize quality of life. Does this mean that the social development of “developed countries” has long taken a new direction, while “late-developing countries” are always on the path of catching up in modernization? In the 1990s, Inglehart further stated that some countries are just beginning modernization (e.g., Nigeria), some are rapidly moving toward modernization (e.g., China), some have reached the turning point of “post-modernization” (e.g., South Korea), and some are racing along the road of “post-modernization” (e.g., the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States). That is to say, different countries are at different points on the spectrum of modernization, and modernization has different meanings for different countries. Additionally, other scholars have suggested that the hallmark features of modern society are in the process of formation in some places, while in Western Europe some have already ended and some have been modified, but this does not mean that “modernization” has already exited the stage in Western Europe. If “modernization” is defined in terms of “goals” rather than “functions,” then Western Europe is still in the process of modernization; because the universal goals of modernization, such as ever-expanding individual choice, more rationality in society and daily life, linear progress toward humanity, and secularization, although they began to emerge in Western Europe as early as the Renaissance, have not yet been fully realized. Only, the modernization of Western Europe today is different from the “objective modernization” centered on industrialization; it is a kind of “subjective modernization” with greater superiority.

20世纪七十年代,美国政治学家英格尔哈特提出,在欧洲数国的“后工业社会”,出现了从“物质主义价值”(materialist values)向“后物质主义价值”(post-materialist values)的转变; 前者注重生存需求和安全,而后者则把生活质量置于优先位置。这是否意味着“发达国家”的社会发展早已出现新的方向,而“后发国家”在现代化的道路上则总是处于追赶的途中?在20世纪九十年代,英格尔哈特又谈到,有的国家刚开始现代化(比如尼日利亚),有的国家正在迅速走向现代化(比如中国),有的国家已来到“后现代化”的转折点上(比如韩国); 有的国家则在“后现代化”的道路上疾驰(比如英国、德国和美国)。这就是说,不同的国家在现代化的光谱上处于不同的点位,而现代化对于不同的国家具有不同的意义。另外还有学者提出,现代社会的标志性特征,在某些地方正处于形成中,而在西欧则有些已经终结,有些已被修改,但这并不意味着“现代化”已在西欧谢幕。如果用“目标”而不是“功能”来界定“现代化”,那么西欧仍处在现代化的过程中; 因为现代化的普遍目标,诸如不断扩大的个人选择,社会和日常生活中更多的理性,向着人道的直线式进步,以及世俗化等,在西欧虽自文艺复兴时期就已露苗头,但至今并未完全实现。只不过,当今西欧的现代化,不同于以工业化为中心的“客观的现代化”,而是一种更具优越性的“主观的现代化”。

Following the logic of these statements, modernization remains a clearly evident global phenomenon. The historiography of modernization is still vibrant abroad, and in contemporary China it has seen a new surge, perhaps not unrelated to this.

从这些说法的逻辑来看,现代化依然是一种彰明较著的全球性现象。现代化史学在国外仍有活力,在当前的中国更有新的蔚起之势,或许与此不无关系。

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆