Expert answer:Critical review writing
Solved by verified expert:The course which I take is “Late Industrialization and Social Change” Choose one of the readings and write a critical review. Try to think why you disagree in case you do not disagree, and in case you agree is what the author says enough? What can you add your own thoughts and ideas to those of the author? Is there enough evidence to support the arguments? Is there logical consistency in the arguments? All in all, the professor is seeking how much thinking you put into critical review. Not summary of the readings. 6-8 pages, double spaced. I will upload a sample of critical review later. Readings: *Reinhard Bendix, “Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered,” Ch. 8. **Herbert Blumer, Industrialization as An Agent of Social Change：A Critical Analysis, Ch. 1 & 8. *John Walton, “Theory and Research on Industrialization,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13 (1987), pp. 89-108. **Alexander Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (New York: Prager, 1962), Ch. 1. *George A. Theodorson, “Acceptance of Industrialization and Its Attendant Consequences for the Social Patterns of Non-Western Societies,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 18, No. 5 (Oct., 1953), pp. 477-484. **Theda Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research.” In Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol (eds.), Bringing the State Back in (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). **Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), Ch. 3 &10.
bendix_tradition_ch8.pdf
blumer_ch1_3.pdf
evans_1.pdf
gerschenkron_ch_1.pdf
grad_checklist_york.pdf
john_walton.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Graduate Admission Package Checklist
York University
Use the following checklist to ensure that your application is complete. An offer of admission cannot be extended
to an applicant without all official transcripts* and required documents. Apply online at yorku.ca/apply and send
the documents listed below to complete your application. Application requirements are listed on specific program and
admission websites. If you are applying to more than one program, please fill out a separate checklist for each program.
NAME & IDENTITY
Title
Mr
Ms
Other (Specify)
Legal First Name
Date of Birth (YYYY/MM/DD)
Other Name(s) Indicate if name differs on submitted document(s)
Legal Middle Name
Legal Surname (Family Name)
Application Reference #
Applying to Graduate Program in
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Indicate the status of each application requirement listed below.
Status
Application Requirement
Complete
Supplementary Information Form
Complete
Letters of Recommendation
Comments
Internal Use
Fee paid online Non-refundable application fee OR
Credit card information submitted with application
Enclosed
Uploaded
Enclosed
Official sealed transcript* from each postsecondary
institution attended outside of York University
Note: York University graduates are not required to
submit York transcripts.
Enclosed
Official degree certificate**
Uploaded
Enclosed
Statement of Interest, if required
Uploaded
Enclosed
Sample of written work, if required
Uploaded
Enclosed
CV/Resumé, if required
Enclosed
Portfolio/videotapes/CD/DVD, if required
Enclosed
English language proficiency test, if required
(TOEFL, YELT, etc)
futurestudents.yorku.ca/graduate/apply_now/elp
Enclosed
Other enclosures (specify)
York student number
* A conditional offer can be extended with uploaded transcripts until an official transcript arrives. Transcripts are considered official
when sent directly from the issuing institution(s) in unopened, sealed envelopes. In some instances, the issuing institution(s) may
mail the transcripts to you in unopened, sealed envelopes to submit with your application package. This is acceptable for the graduate
application process and transcripts will be considered official. Opened envelopes will be considered unofficial. Photocopied, faxed or
verified true copies are not considered official documents.
** In countries where degree certificates are issued separately (i.e., Bangladesh, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, etc.), official copies must be submitted.
14-1.0
Theory and Research on Industrialization
Author(s): John Walton
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13 (1987), pp. 89-108
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083241
Accessed: 24-08-2015 13:09 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:09:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1987. 13:89-108
Copyright ? 1987 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
THEORY AND RESEARCH ON
INDUSTRIALIZATION
John Walton
Departmentof Sociology, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Abstract
Sociological approachesto industrializationare framedby two majortheories:
social differentiation,based on classical liberalismand Durkheimiansociology, and uneven development, derived from the critical work of Marx and
Weber. Although social differentiationcontinues to influence general treatments of the subject, uneven development has proven more fruitful in research. Importantthemes in recent research are reviewed by means of a
property space based on epochs and processes of industrialization.A summaryof five key researchareasdescribesthe importantissues in currentwork
and, by way of conclusion, suggests some convergence.
INTRODUCTION
Industrializationplays a central, yet ambiguous,role in social theory. On the
one hand, industrializationis often understoodas the principalagent in the
making of modem society: “The industrialrevolution marks the most fundamentaltransformationof humanlife in the historyof the world recordedin
written documents”(Hobsbawm 1968:13). On the other hand, industrialization is sometimesconstruedas simply one element in a set of changes, such as
urbanizationand rationalization,which combine in a broaderevolutionary
transformation:”The industrializationprocess . . . is an expression of a
complex of forces that arereally rootedin more generalprocesses, in what are
most aptly characterizedas the processes of modernization”(Berg 1979:6).
Most featuresof modem society aretracedto the influenceof industrialization
89
0360-0572/87/0815-0089$02.00
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:09:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90
WALTON
in some theory. Yet in the theorizing about industrial society, the interconnections and causal relations among these processes are matters of
considerable debate. Controversy surroundssuch basic questions as these:
When did industrializationbegin? Has it ended in some “post-industrial”
societies? How is it causally and temporallyrelated to urbanization?Has it
developed along one path or many? How does it affect the family and social
classes?
Such ambiguities are common in social theory, and when they force
themselves upon us as distressing anomalies, they facilitate critical research.
In the last two decades sociological theories of industrializationhave been
hounded by anomaly. For example, growth models of industrialtakeoff that
posit a repetition of Western development have not reflected reality in the
Third World. Industryhas come to many less developed countries without
initiating growth in other sectors of the economy and society. Developed
countries once assumed to be sailing smoothly on a course of sustained
growth are now suffering the effects of decline in heavy industry and the
internationalizationof productionin many aspects of high technology. Plants
close, industrialcommunitieswither, and “sunrise”industriesseem unable to
reabsorbworkers. Conventionalsociological wisdom cannot account for the
change. Yet refutationof standardmodels has stimulatedand coincided with a
rekindledinterestin comparativeand historicalresearch.The combinedresult
of these circumstances (ambiguity, anomaly, and new research) is a
reinterpretationof the industrializationprocess that carries fundamentalimplications for social theory.
This chapter is intended to show that currentsociological theories do not
explain what we have recently learned from history and what we are now
witnessing in the development of industrialization.The argumentrelies on
resurgenthistorical and comparativeresearchthat challenges the old theories
and suggests some convergence on new explanations.Finally, I shall venture
some generalizationsdrawnfrom the confrontationof theory andresearchand
suggest that the themes for a new theoreticalinterpretationare at hand. The
argument, accordingly, proceeds in three steps. First, I characterizetwo
major and sharplycontrastingtheoreticaltraditionsthat have shaped sociological thinking about industrialization.Although these theories are now in
doubt, they have effectively stimulatedcritical research, and they still retain
many adherents. Second, I develop a purely heuristic propertyspace within
which the sprawling research literaturecan be organized and critical foci
highlighted. The purpose here is to show in exemplary detail how current
theory fails us and what alternativeinterpretationsdemandattentionin a more
complete explanation.Third, I propose a synthesis of currentresearchand the
nascent theory it implies.
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:09:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEORY AND INDUSTRIALIZATION
91
CONVENTIONALINTERPRETATIONS
In succinct form, sociological theory divides into two camps on the meaning
and development of industrialization:first, the classic liberal theory of an
evolving division of labor generalizedto social differentiationand, second,
the criticaltheory of uneven development.The paradigmsare fully contrasted
in Durkheim and Marx respectively, although each perspective antedates
these writers and has been reformulatedin relationto succeeding generations
of industrialsociety. Liberaltheory combines assumptionsfrom laissez faire
economics and the theory of comparativeadvantagefrom the late eighteenth
century with the biological and evolutionarymetaphorsthat appearin Durkheim and Spencer. These are carriedinto contemporarythinkingby Parsons
and his followers. The theory of uneven developmentbegins with the misgivings of St. Simon and is amplifiedin the varied, yet related, criticisms of
industrialcapitalism developed by Marx (1867), Weber (1946), Schumpeter
(1935), Polanyi (1944), and Thompson (1963). In the most general terms
these orientationsto industrializationhighlight fundamentaldifferences and
the competing images that have promptedcriticalresearch.The terms “social
differentiation”and “uneven development,” are shorthand, of course, and
might be hyphenated-in the first instancewith specializationand integration
or, in the second, with exploitation and contradiction.
Social Differentiation
Social differentiation,at bottom, combines classical liberalismand evolutionary precepts in a theory of social change aimed primarilyat explaining the
consequences of major transformations-in the modern era, that is, the
consequences of industrialization.Durkheim grantedthat Adam Smith and
John Stuart Mill had correctly identified a new division of labor as the
outstandingfact of eighteenth-centurysociety; they failed only to understand
“thatthe law of the division of labor applies to organismsas to societies …
the more specialized the functions of the organism, the greaterits development. . . . The division of labor in society appears to be no more than a
particularform of this generalprocess”(Durkheim1893:41). Durkheimposed
“the problem”of industrialsociety in terms of fragmentation.
We need have no furtherillusions about the tendencies of modem industry;it advances
steadily toward powerful machines, towards greaterconcentrationsof forces and capital,
and consequentlyto the extremedivision of labor. Occupationsare infinitely separatedand
specialized, not only inside the factories, but each productis itself a speciality dependent
on others … the principalbranchesof the agriculturalindustryare steadily being drawn
into the general movement. Finally, business itself is ingeniously following and reflecting
in all its shadings the infinite diversity of industrialenterprise. (Durkheim 1893:39)
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:09:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92
WALTON
Fragmentationand the dissolution of older forms of social solidarity produced the need for a new basis of social integration,a need that Durkheim
reasoned could only be met by occupationalgroups. Whateverthe merits of
this proposal, subsequentformulationsof the social differentiationapproach
have continued to emphasize the question of integration. Indeed, the most
influential modem statementsof the theory by Parsons and Smelser identify
the “structuraldifferentiation”of social systems with evolutionarystages and
economic development, taking the “functionalrequirement”of new forms of
social integration at each stage as the key to institutionallife (Parsons &
Smelser 1956; Smelser 1963; Parsons 1966).
Moore’s (1965) volume on The Impact of Industrysummarizesthe theory
under three general headings. These are “conditions for industrialization,”
“first order consequences,” and “reverberations.”The “conditions for industrialization”correspondto liberalprescriptionsfor economic development:
rational organization, alienable property, wage labor, political order, and
entrepreneurialvalues. The “first-orderconsequences”of economic growth
show a “remarkablyhigh degree of uniformity in the industrial system”:
productive organizations in which work relationships are technologically
determined and therefore functionally specific, impersonal, and affectively
neutral;administrativehierarchiesin which rationalauthorityis organizedon
a pyramidprinciple;sectoralrelocationof the labor force that follows modal
shifts from agricultureto manufacturingand to services; a varied association
between urbanization and industrializationthat moves in time from industrializationwithout urbanizationto their close correlationand, later, to
overurbanization. Finally, among the “reverberations”produced by industrialization,Moore includes: predominanceof the nuclear family; urban
social disorganization;the substitutionof formal for informal control; and
complex stratificationon the axes of occupation, skill, and economic criteria
as the primarydeterminantsof status.
Moore’s model defies summaryin a short space, in partbecause it allows
for wide variationacross time and space. The key analyticpoint, however, is
that where a generalization(e.g. sequentialchanges in the sectoral distribution of the labor force) is first identified and then qualified, the factors that
explain variations are themselves closely tied to the liberal evolutionary
approach(e.g. technologicalchanges in production,marketsand communication, or an upgradingof skill levels).
Although the model of social differentiationis derived mainly from a
reading of the Western industrialexperience, it has been extended in two
directions. First, it has been applied as a diagnostic and explanation for
underdevelopment.On the assumption that development follows the same
path in all societies, structuraldifferentiationis construedas a set of requirements that Third World countries must satisfy. “The concept of structural
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:09:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEORY AND INDUSTRIALIZATION
93
differentiationcan be employed to encompassmany of the structuralchanges
that accompanythe movement from pre-industrialto industrialsociety … In
the transition from domestic to factory industry, the division of labor increases, and the economic activities previously lodged in the family move to
the factory . . . Empirically we may classify underdeveloped or semideveloped economies accordingto how far they have moved along this line of
differentiation”(Smelser 1963:106-7). Second, present trends such as advances in informationtechnology, service sector expansion, and labor professionalization are projectedin the concept “post-industrialsociety [which]
emphasizes the centralityof theoreticalknowledge as the axis aroundwhich
new technology, economic growth and the stratificationof society will be
organized”(Bell 1973:113).
Although the theory of social differentiation has recently come under
attack, it is far from moribund.Much researchis still animatedby its claims,
and it continues to be accepted as textbook sociology (e.g. Berg 1979).
Uneven Development
Critical theories of industrializationare fundamentallyconcerned with the
historicalprocess as it reveals the “laws of motion”of capitalistdevelopment.
The distinctlymodernphase of this process involves the adventof what Marx
called “large-scaleindustry,”itself an outgrowthof agricultureand “domestic
industry”(sometimes “handicrafts”).The process is complex, a choice example of the uneven natureof capitalistdevelopment.On one hand, “machinery does away with co-operationbased on handicrafts,and with manufacture
based on the handicraftdivision of labor”; on the other hand “(w)ith the
development of the factory system and the revolution in agriculturethat
accompanies it, production in all the other branches of industry not only
expands, but also alters its character”(Marx 1977:588-90, emphasis added).
Elsewhere, Marx describes a process in which capitalistmanufacturemay at
first “formally”subsumenoncapitalistlaborin independentworkshops,merely annexing it without changing its social relations of production, and later
may move to its “realsubsumption”in which work and industrialorganization
are integratedwith fully capitalist forms.
Marx’s point, of course, is that industrialdevelopment is an uneven and
contradictoryprocess: “large-scaleindustry, by its very nature, necessitates
variationof labor”and so at times it even “reproducesthe old division of labor
with its ossified particularities”(Marx 1977:617). Uneven developmentis not
random, however. The basic law governing these varied appearancesis the
drive for profit in a competitive economy: “the division of labor in manufacture is merely a particularmethod of creating relative surplus-value”
(Marx 1977:486). Having established the intricacies of this process, Marx
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:09:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
94
WALTON
moves to the familiar features and consequences of large-scale industry. In
brief, three major tendencies characterizethe transformation:concentrationcentralization,proletarianization,and crisis.
Concentrationis the process in which capitalistenterprisesbecome large as
a result of growth based on economies of scale. Centralizationis bigness
resulting from the acquisition of other less competitive enterprises. Both
tendencies describe the long-rundirectionof industrialization,althoughthey,
too, exhibit unevenness and contradiction.Bigness as a result of concentration entails the destructionof small-scale enterpriseand the incorporationof
labor in large firms with a detailed division of labor and hierarchicalcontrol
structure.Bigness stemmingfrom centralizationmeans oligopoly. Among the
manifold consequences of both tendencies Marx identified a “new and internationaldivision of labor . . . suited to the requirementsof the main
industrialcountries [that] converts one part of the globe into a chiefly agricultural field of production for supplying the other part, which remains a
pre-eminentlyindustrialfield” (Marx 1977:579-80).
Proletarianizationis defined by the steady decline of independentproduction and self-employmentand a correlativeincrease in the numbersof wage
laborers or workers dependent on the sale of their labor to capitalists. In
tandem with other changes, wage labor in the mature stage of capitalist
development is absorbed mainly in large-scale industry where conditions
(density, exploitation, alienation)are ripe for the creationof a self-conscious,
militant working class.
The meaning of crisis in Marxian theory is manifold and controversial
(Mandel 1975, O’Connor 1984). Here, it suffices to say thatMarxunderstood
capitalistdevelopmentas inherentlycrisis prone. Crises vary in magnitudein
the sense that some are overcome in the adaptationof capitalistdevelopment
to changing conditions (overproduction,underconsumption,falling rates of
profit, etc), yet in the long run capitalism undermines itself through the
antagonistic forces it generates. Inherent crisis implies that change is a
conflictual process (rather than a steady evolutionary upgrading through
differentiation)and that industrializationwill take distinctly different forms
under different historical conditions. Early and late (or Europeanand Third
World) industrializationwill not follow the same pattern …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades