On Modernization

Introductory note: I have perhaps never written so many five-paragraph essays in my life...

===

Felipe Armesto-Fernandez is quite open in the textbook in stating that the term modernization is "strictly speaking, meaningless"[1] because its definition can change according to place and especially time. However, with regard to the nineteenth century, it can at least be said that modernization can be characterized in part by the political, social, and cultural movements that arose internationally over the course of that century, even if these movements had specific national manifestations and varying levels of success -- as well as cases of countries that avoided them entirely. Among the movements that characterized modernization in the nineteenth century, militarization, nationalism, and constitutionalism were among the most important, not only because of their immediate effects but also because of their longer-term consequences.

Militarization is a fairly self-explanatory term, and it can fairly be said that, during the nineteenth century, militarization was primarily the consequences of industrialization: in so far as countries industrialized, they militarized. The quintessential example of a state that heavily militarized over the nineteenth century is Germany. Although it had been heavily victimized by Napoleon as a loose confederation of states, the militarization of the Kingdom of Prussia spread to other German states until, upon unification, the German Empire was among the most heavily militarized states in Europe -- so much so that it played key roles in international diplomatic/military crises (e.g., the Moroccan crisis of 1905) than it would have ever in the past. In contrast, those states that failed in militarization were by and large those states that lost wars to other militarized powers. For instance, while Egyptian and Sudanese potentates formed armies during the nineteenth century, both areas were eventually brought under British control, owing to the latter's superior military strength. China, different from Germany, the Egyptians, and Sudanese, did not militarize as a consequence of not industrializing. The anecdote that Armesto-Fernandez offers of a Chinese general consulting oracles before facing British warships is emblematic of such rejectionism.

Nationalism is a more difficult term to define, although I have personally favored Benedict Anderson's idea of a nation as an "imagined community," unified by language, culture, and geography.[2] In many cases, the experience of colonialism was a direct factor in causing nationalism to emerge. A true success story of nineteenth-century nationalism is Italy, which (like Germany, which also successfully implemented a nationalist agenda) was  a conglomeration of smaller states -- under the rule of Austria, France, and Spain -- until united in the 1860s. The emergence of the Kingdom of Italy as a regional power was a direct consequence. In contrast, any nationalist movement for which a state failed to materialize can be considered an example of failed implementation of nationalism. Here, prominent examples include the minorities of Spain, primarily the Basque and Catalonian peoples, although it bears mention that neither group's nationalist movement died out. The United Kingdom, itself united under a single monarch in 1603 and then under a single government in 1707, largely ignored nationalism as a trend during the century, in part because it already had established a national identity before the nineteenth century began, accomplishing this goal in part by emphasizing a British identity over an English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish identity (although certain peoples -- Scottish highlanders, e.g., were omitted). It might be argued that this is nationalism nevertheless, but it is a civic nationalism, rather than the ethnic nationalism that characterized the nineteenth century.

Constitutionalism, the emphasis on the rule of law rather than the rule of human beings, was most successful in the United States, where a constitution ratified in 1789 remains in effect to this very day. That constitutionalists, reacting to tyranny in the form of British taxation without parliamentary representation, were successful in throwing off the yoke of rule from the metropole provided evidence to other states that such a movement was feasible. However, some states, such as the Ottoman Empire, failed to implement constitutionalism. Although attempts were made throughout the nineteenth century by the Turks to adopt constitutional government, these efforts were generally short-lived and followed by the sultanate receiving its previous power, usually somewhat enhanced. Finally, some states did not bother with constitutionalism at all. For example, the Russian Empire elected instead to maintain an autocratic state under a tsar. Despite the abolition of serfdom and quasi-constitutional reforms under Alexander II, the tsar's assassination and the subsequent despotic rule of his son and grandson -- Alexander III and Nicholas II -- resulted in Russia still being an absolute monarchy by the end of the century.

The consequences of these movements seem clear. The consequence of militarization is war. It is no accident of history that the militarization of virtually all European states during the nineteenth century culminated in a major military conflict soon after the century came to a close. The consequence of nationalism is oppression because it is fundamentally unprepared to address the problem -- or even the existence -- of ethnic minorities, resulting in programs of forced assimilation, expulsion, and genocide -- consider the genocide of Armenians that accompanied World War I. Finally, the consequence of constitutionalism seems to be democracy.  The longer that constitutionalism remains in effect, the more likely it is that democracy will expand rather than contract. Consider here the case of the United States, which has expanded its franchise from perhaps 20% of Americans (property-owning, 21-year-old white men) being able to vote in 1789 to universal suffrage, including of the working class, non-whites, women, and people subject to military conscription. Thus, we can see that the long-term consequences of the nineteenth century trends of militarization, nationalism, and constitutionalism had substantial effects on the twentieth century and beyond.

====

[1] Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, The World: A History, vol. 2, 3rd ed. (New York: Pearson, 2015), 732.
[2] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Verso, 2006).