Journal of Siberian Federal University.

Humanities & Social Sciences 11 (2013 6) 1673-1691

~~~

УДК 316.42

Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features

of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse1

Yuriy B. Savelyev*
National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv
60 Volodymyrska Str., Kyiv, 01601 Ukraine

Received 04.07.2013, received in revised form 25.08.2013, accepted 11.10.2013

The paper suggests a comparative analysis of sociological discourse of modern society and
modernization and systematically displays essential features of modernity. Five leading segments
of the discourse are identified and an integrated approach on existing theories of modernity is
elaborated. The novelty of the proposed analysis is a focus on profound similitude of different theories
of modernity and possibility of synergic application of the distinct explanatory platforms. Such an
application significantly differs from existing traditional vision of sociological discourse of modernity
and modernization as a subsequent change of theoretical approaches or dramatic competition of
alternative research programs. Suggested analysis allows identifying multiple dimensions of modernity
that overall constitute a whole picture of modern society. In addition to the segments of the discourse
of modernity and modernization that have been classified, a structure of essential features of modern
society is revealed comprising 1) universality (invariance) of social development; 2) civilization
variability and uniqueness of cultural programs; 3) emancipation trend and antinomies; 4) permanence
of change and innovations; 5) increase of productivity, competitiveness and the quality of life.
Keywords: modernity, modernization, development, theory of modern society.

In recent years, the concept of modernization capabilities of this theory (Allard, 2002). This is
has become popular in the statements of the the second wave of critical attitude after a brief,
leaders of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, since the second half of the 1980s, period of
as an important component of the declared “rebirth of modernization theory” as a paradigm
government policy of development in these of “neomodernisation analysis”, which, in
countries.2 Modernization in this context is particular, was associated with the revolutionary
understood as technological innovation and changes in the socialist countries (Tiryakian,
development of globally competitive innovative 1991). One of the most consistent critics of the
industries, the growth of productivity of labor modernization theory I. Wallerstain, like other
and capital, creation of new products and services representatives of the world-system analysis in
(Zevin, 2008). general, emphasizes that this theory provides
In contrast to this rhetoric, the contemporary an ideologically distorted idea of social reality.
sociology is dominated by a cautious attitude According to his famous words, “we do not live
to the concept of modernization and heuristic in a modernizing world, but rather in the capitalist

© Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved

* Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected]

– 1673 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

world”, which is divided into the core, semi- to the traditional view of sociological discourse
periphery and periphery, and in which there is an of modernity and modernization as a consistent
unfair redistribution of resources and asymmetric stage-by-stage change of different paradigms or
competition (Wallerstein, 2000). uncompromising competitiveness of research
A deep analysis of theories of modernity and programs, I focus on their similitude and the
modernization, the stages of their development, possibility of simultaneous application of different
advantages and disadvantages, systematization explanatory platforms. This allows selecting
and a detailed criticism of certain approaches the basic dimensions of modern society. Unlike
are contained in in the works of J. Alexander, J. Alexander, who believed that sociologists-
H. Haferkamp, N. Smelzer, A. Martinelli, theorists are intellectuals trying to “understand
E. Tiryakian, P.  Sztompka, W. Zapf K. Kumar, the crisis of their time”, so that different theoretical
V. Inozemtsev, P.  Kutuev, N. Tikhonova, approaches come and go depending on how well
V. Fedotova and many others (Alexander, 1994; they help to do it (Alexander, 1994, p.  165), I
Haferkamp, Smelzer, 1992; Martinelli, 2005; assume that these approaches do not lose their
Kumar, 1995; Tiryakian, 1991; Zapf, 1998; relevance. In modern society there are a variety
Sztompka , 1996; Inozemtsev, 2000; Kutuev, of challenges that can have a different weight
2009; Fedotova, 1997 Tikhonova et al. 2007). But and importance in certain historical periods.
the logic of the analysis is usually subordinated to However, modernity  – is a multidimensional
the chronological order, reflecting the emergence phenomenon and for its holistic understanding a
and development of ideas about the society of systematic application of a complex of theories
modernity and modernization. The periodization of modernity and modernization, reflecting the
of this intellectual process as a gradual main features of modern society, is necessary.
succession of theoretical approaches is given The notion of modernization as a normative
(Martinelli, 2005; Tiryakian, 1991; Sztompka, and predetermined process means introduction
1996; Inozemtsev, 2000b Tikhonova et al, 2007). of a value component into scientific theory and,
Even if an alternative analytical approach is used, accordingly, accusing opponents of indoctrinated
formation and evolution of concepts of modernity vision of the ways of development of modern
and modernization are still subject to the logic of society. At the same time, modernity is not
sociological theory (Kutuev, 2009, p. 152-153). In only a certain current state of the society, the
contrast to this J. Alexander (1994) and W. Zapf complex of properties of its institutions, forms of
(1998) used, though in different ways, such a production, social structure and culture, but also
method of analysis of theories of modernity a philosophical and ideological system, which by
and modernization in which the logic of a definition suggests a value reference.
scientific discourse is associated with the trends This duality is a fundamental contradiction
of development and challenges of the modern of theories of modern society and theories of
society itself. modernization. Modern society is a reality,
This paper develops such an approach and yet it is also an ideology. Moreover, it is a
proposes a systematization of contemporary utopia that is “just like any utopia has the
theories of modern society and modernization highest expansionist potential” (Ionin, 2002,
by identifying the common and different in p. 230). Modernity, of course, was not planned
interpretations of modernity. The novelty of the and designed in accordance with European
proposed method of analysis is that, in contrast rationalist philosophy of the early modern
– 1674 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

period and the ideals of the Enlightenment. But and democratic institutions (Inglehart, 2010;
it turned out to be a self-sufficient “Project” (in Inglehart, 2009).
terms of J. Habermas), in which social reality Within this paradigm modern society has
is reconstructed and represented as modernity a certain set of features (well-known from any
society with all its characteristic features. serious textbook on sociology), which reflect
Reality with its alternative representations, evolutionary changes in social institutions,
on the one hand, and socio-philosophical and structure and cultural life. This is a structural
ideological project (or different projects)  – on differentiation, urbanization, industrialization,
the other, are often not the same. market economy, the nation-state and the nation,
This implies the differences in understanding bureaucratic organizations, rationalization,
of the nature of modern society and the process strengthening the role of science and turning it
of modernization. There are five segments of into a productive force, the spread of education,
sociological discourse, which I will analyze secularization etc. (Lerner, 1968, p.  387;
in this article. They intersect at certain points, Eisenstadt, 2010)
may be related in their theoretical origins, but Modernization, according to it, is
differ in key interpretations of modernity.3 These conceptualized as “is the specific sum of the
interpretations correspond to the five major large-scale social, economic, political and
(features) of modern society. cultural changes that have characterized world
First of all (and this is most natural for history in the past 200 years and that originate
sociology as European science of the early from the multi-faceted revolution (economic,
modern period), modernity is understood as social, political, cultural) of the second half of
a stage of evolution of human society, the the eighteenth century” (Martinelli, 2005, p.  8).
successor to the agrarian society, based on Modernization is a “special form of development,
tradition, and therefore as a step forward on the the essence of which is the transition from
path of historical progress. This understanding in traditional to modern society” (Fedotova, 2008,
sociology is characteristic of, in the first place, p. 74).
the evolutionary theories of the XX century, This approach was most of all criticized by
T. Parsons, N. Smelzer, G. Lenski, K. Deutch, all subsequent theories, and the attitude to the
M. Levi, D. Lerner and many others ( Haferkamp, original theory of modernization 1950-1960,
Smelzer, 1992; Lenski, 1970; Parsons, 1971; based on it, is rather ironic in modern sociology.
Deutsch, 1961; Lerner, 1958; Levy, 1996 (1966)). Nonetheless, evolutionism remains a powerful
But evolutionist and progressivist paradigm was intellectual tradition and is, to a varying degree,
typical for the whole of classical sociology from implicitly represented in many existing theories
A. Comte to E. Durkheim. Even in the 2000s, the of social changes. The definitions of modern
authoritative researcher D. Chirot continues to society and modernization, given above, are
defend its advantage in explaining social changes not half a century old. They, along with other
in relation to the theories of civilization, the world- interpretations, are still used today. J. Alexander
systems analysis and theories of postmodernism noted the rise of neomodernism in the 1980-
(Chirot, 2001). R. Inglegart and C. Welzel, based 1990s, which was acquiring new forms  – as “a
on data of longitudinal comparative studies, more heroic and romantic” perspective in solving
prove universalism of the scheme of development “the problems of our time” (Alexander, 1994,
through formation of emancipatory values p.  165). The noticeable decline in popularity of
– 1675 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

postmodern theories in the last 10-15 years is also The second “narrow” definition of
a proof of this. modernization, following from it, is as “the
The second segment of sociological combination of processes through which
discourse of modernity and modernization underdeveloped or developing societies, i.e. the
is a kind of detailing of the first one, but various peripheries of the world, try to reduce or
in it the universalist-evolutionary view of wipe the gap that separates them from developed
social development is changed dramatically. countries (the central areas of Europe, North
Modernism is defined as a specific-historical America and Japan) in terms of economic growth
type of the society, it also has a certain set of competitiveness in the global market and the
specific features, which, at least in the Western social well-being of its people” (Martinelli,
European version, is identical to the specified 2005, p. 25). That is, in this sense modernization
above. Nevertheless, it is not a universal stage is a response to “the West» from the rest of the
of evolutionary change, but rather is localized world. P.  Sztompka in this regard notes that
in space and time, that is, can be considered “modernization is something quite different
as a separate civilization. According to from spontaneous development in progressive
E. Giddens, modernity “refers to modes of direction. It means a conscious copying of
social life or organisation which emerged in Western societies, acting as “model countries”
Europe from about the seventeenth century (Sztompka, 1996, p. 173).
onwards and which subsequently became more I would like to note that, firstly, in this aspect,
or less worldwide in their influence” (Giddens, modernization is always a task-oriented project
1990, p. 1). of political elites of the society, trying to compete
This civilizational approach, in its turn, has with more developed and successful societies.
two fundamentally different variants. According Therefore, we can agree with distinguishing a
to the first, in a somewhat simplified wording of the mobilization type of modernization (Fedotova,
West versus the Rest, modernity is considered as 2008, p. 110-112). However, existence of organic
a purely European phenomenon and corresponds and innovative types of modernization seems
to the above-mentioned definition of E. Giddens. doubtful. Secondly, according to modernization
After its rise (or simultaneously with it) the theory, copying developed societies should lead to
local European (or North Atlantic) civilization increase in the level of development of societies,
carried out global expansion. It can be assumed imitating the models, however, empirical data
that such an increase was possible, in particular, of the second half of the XX century did not
due to global expansion. It is important to note confirm this prediction, therefore, the ideas of
that on the surface this civilization is perceived world-systems analysis seem more substantiated,
as integral, as the “Western world”, “West”, as according to which, systemic changes are
opposed to the rest of the world. Accordingly, necessary to improve the position of the society
from such post-colonial perspective modernity and deprivation of other societies of their
is conceptualized as a “challenge of the West”, privileged position, which is not possible without
“challenge of the present to the past”, when the political struggle (Wallerstein, 2000).
concept of progress is interpreted as “legitimizing The second version of the civilizational
the challenge of the West under the conditions approach (the second segment in the discourse of
of transformation of human history into world modernity in our classification) was formulated
history” (Fedotova, 1997, p. 27) 1. S. Eisenstadt and is known as the theory of multiple
– 1676 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

modernities (Eisenstadt, 2000; Eisenstadt, 2001). P. Wagner, D.P.Gaonkar, I. Kaya, R. Lee and others
Conceptually, it is in tune with the civilizational (Wagner, 2010; Wagner, 2011; Gaonkar, 2001;
analysis J. Arnason, and also understanding of Kaya, 2004; Lee, 2008) can be considered today
modernity as different ways of interpreting the the most wide-spread (and even fashionable; it
world, “tension” and “imaginary significances” eagerly supported by sociologists from countries
proposed by C. Castoriadis (Arnason, 1989; outside Europe and North America) in the study of
Arnason, 2010 Castoriadis, 1987). Its essence lies modern society, it has been criticized for reduction
in conceptualization of modernity as a distinct of modernity to cultural programs of modernity
new type of civilization. As in the previous and weakness of empirical substantiation of
Eurocentric version, S. Eisenstadt believes that results (Schmidt, 2006; Schmidt, 2007; Schmidt,
modern civilization first “crystallized in Western 2010; Martinelli, 2005 ).
Europe”, and eventually spread (in particular It should be added that the weakness of the
by means of imperialist, colonial and economic theories “multiple modernities” is also in the
expansion) to other parts of Europe and the rest uncertainty of the term “modernization”. Taking
of the world. However, the difference lies in the into account the conceptual basis of this approach,
fact that, according to S. Eisenstadt, expansion of this term simply does not make sense. The
this civilization did not lead to homogenization approach of “multiple modernities” was proposed
and formation of a unified civilization of as an alternative to the theory of modernization
modernity, but rather led to appearance of and aimed at denial of the existence of such
“multiple modernities” – civilization-determined a phenomenon as modernization. P.  Wagner,
(i.e. determined by a specific context of local considering the end of apartheid in South Africa,
civilizations) alternative interpretations of says that in this case, transition to individual
modernity and different responses to new and collective autonomy can be considered
challenges (Eisenstadt, 2001, p. 322 ). “modernization” and it appears to be “the only
Supporting this approach, E. Tiryakian defendable use of this term after the critique of
formulates the thesis about the dialectic of sociological modernization theory from the 1960s
a single modern civilization (contemporary) onwards” (Wagner, 2011, p. 498).
and modernity (contemporaneity) of different However, as it will be shown later, the
civilizations and emphasizes that the triumph of problem for the theories of “multiple modernities”
“Western civilization” has become possible, in is the lack of criteria for comparing alternative
particular, due to the fact that it spread worldwide interpretations of modernity and determining
and become the civilization of modernity, which the criteria of modernity and also the ways of
involves other civilizations (Tiryakian, 2001, acquiring the status of modernity. After all, for
p. 289-290). A similar view is shared by B.Wittrock, acquisition of this status one needs modernization
who stresses that modernity is a global condition that is conceptually denied in these theories.
and as a global condition it is characterized by The third segment that I distinguish is
unity. However, the existence of institutions and clearly Eurocentric in its origin, although,
cultural features causes a great variety of modern paradoxically, contains a universalist potential.
society (Wittrock, 2000, p. 31, 55). It is an approach to modernity as a “project”, as
Although the approach of “multiple a societal and cultural achievement of mankind.
modernities” in its different variants (except the It is intellectually similar to the previous one,
aforementioned researchers, it is also used by and some authors can even be attributed to both
– 1677 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

approaches. At the same time, the difference is, side. Long before the appearance of postmodern
in my view, essential, since understanding of theorists, and even the theory of modernization,
modernity as a “project” is not limited to local W. Benjamin “formulated understanding of
civilizations. In this respect, the first evolutionist modernity (and understanding of capitalism) as
approach can be considered closer to this one, a mythological and even religious phenomenon
because “modernization theory make Weber’s in opposition to Weber” (Ionin, 2007, p.  302).
notion of “modernity” abstract, which has serious Postmodern philosophy encroached upon
consequences. It separates modernity from its fundamental metanarratives of modernity:
origins  – the early modern period in Europe  – rationality, objectivity, even scientific knowledge
and stylized it as a model for the process of social itself as the leading tool of reflection.
development in general, neutral to the space-time At the same time, development of the
relation” (Habermas, 2003, p. 8). project of modernity cannot be reduced to purely
Understanding modernity in this approach intellectual search. As it is rightly pointed by
cannot be reduced to a set of familiar features J. Habermas, the Reformation, the Enlightenment
(differentiation, urbanization, industrialization, and the French Revolution were the “key historical
etc.). Moreover, we cannot speak of “alternative” events for implementation of the principle of
or “different” modernities, because in this case subjectivity ... Declaration of Human Rights and
the ideal type (as defined by M. Weber) of the the Napoleonic Code brought to life the principle
society is constructed, its social and cultural of free will as the substantial foundation of the
organization. It is a clearly world-outlook, value state, as opposed to historically given right”
and normative approach that was born in the (Habermas, 2003, p. 17).
depths of European social and moral philosophy. Taking into account the diversity of
But it would be a mistake to attribute to philosophical tradition in interpretation of
this approach only those theories that consider modernity and its contradictions, it is extremely
the phenomenon of modernity mostly positive. difficult to determine its invariant properties,
“The project of modernity” cannot be understood but even in this case, it can be argued that the
without its critics and revealing its contradictions essence of the project of modernity is that it is
and “lines of tension”. Therefore, it is quite relevant an emancipation project. This is the dominant
to attribute to it postmodern schools, questioning view in different interpretations  – from Hegel
the theoretical and ideological foundations of and Marx to Habermas. Despite the limitations
the “project of modernity”. Thus (by negation) of such an understanding, due to emergence
postmodern philosophy and sociology explain in the process of actualization of this project
(reinterpret) the nature of modern society, its past of new limitations, dependencies, new “non-
and future. transparencies” of the world, realization of the
Chronologically, this approach emerged shortcomings of rationalism etc., it is in the
before the first one and all the others that are modern era that a specific idea of freedom and
considered here. The very idea of modernity human rights are formulated, resources for their
itself formed within it. The philosophy of the provision are created and made available.
Enlightenment and classical German philosophy Emancipation, from this point of view,
of the XVIII-XIX centuries caused its optimistic denotes both an aspect of negative freedom
orientation. Non-classical irrational philosophies from “barriers and constraints” and an aspect
of the XIX-XX centuries revealed its reverse dark of positive freedom, to have the possibility for
– 1678 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

“individual self-expression and self-realization” early modern period, though not the way that
and also “influence on their own society”; it also was imagined by the European philosophers
means “expansion of the field of action for those of the XVIII  – first half of the XIX century,
who are full-fledged members, eligible subjects” changed significantly on the way of human
(Sztompka, 1996, p. 52). emancipation. It also remains an open question
Emancipation in European dimension is whether the ideals of modernity can, in
inextricably linked to the “Western rationalism”, principal, be brought to life. J. Habermas,
“disenchantment”, belief in the principal for example, believes that it is, in principle,
possibility to cognize the objective world, possible, although the chances are minimal
belief in the power of science, an irrepressible (Habermas, 1992, p. 50).
desire of man to “instrumentally overtake the Recognition of emancipation and rationalism
world”. (Habermas, 2003, p. 10). As J. Habermas as the essence of modernity does not deny the
concludes, “the project of modernity formulated presence of antinomies and “tension lines” in it.
in the XVIII century by philosophers of the There distinguished several of such antinomies.
Enlightenment, is ... in steady development of P. Berger as far back as in the 1970s, brilliantly
objectifying sciences, universalistic basis of formulated five dilemmas of modern time,
morality and law, and an autonomous art ..., and fundamentally affecting human life in modern
at the same time in releasing thus accumulated society:
cognitive capacities from their higher esoteric 1) abstraction – that is “hostility” of impersonal
forms and using them in practice, that is, for social institutions (the capitalist market, the
rational organization of conditions of living” bureaucratic state, technology, the city, the
(Habermas, 1992, p. 45). media), the forms of thought and emotion
Yet, emancipation led to unexpected to human life, personal relationships and
contradictory results, and the threats to “compact” communities;
freedom of man came from development of 2) “futurity”  – “change of temporal structure
the public sphere, as well as the private one of human perception, in which the future
(Bauman, 2000, p.  50-51). Confidence of the becomes the main orientation of not only the
early modern period that “the art and science imagination, but also activities”;
will not only contribute to conquest of nature, 3) individualization  – “a growing separation
but also to understanding of the world and man, of an individual from social groups and
moral perfection, justice, public institutions communities” and “an unprecedented
and even happiness of people” turned out “vain confrontation between an individual and the
hope” (Habermas, 1992, p.  45). Despite this, society”;
J. Habermas calls on us “rather ... to draw a 4) “emancipation – the growing role of human
lesson than to admit defeat of modernity and its choice – both individual and collective, the
project” (Habermas, 1992, p. 49). Z. Bauman is increase of the “burden” of choice for the
also convinced that “the war of emancipations modern man;
is not over” even though its priorities has 5) secularization  – a controversial attitude
changed (Bauman, 2000, p. 50-51). This project “towards the transcendent dimension of
is far from completion, because its principles human being” (Berger, 1990, p. 127-133).
and ideals have not been realized. At the same Already in the 2000s, S. Eisenstadt also
time, it can be argued that the society of the identifies five antinomies which are slightly
– 1679 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

different from the previous typology (Eisenstadt, either purely positively, as the path to freedom,
2010, p. 5) or merely negatively as “the twilight of reason”.
1) the antinomy of dimensions of human Compared to M. Foucault, who firmly and
existence, that is, “the tension between pessimistically noted the formation, at the time of
the predominance of reason as against emancipation processes in Europe of early modern
the emotional and aesthetic dimensions” period, of efficient and sophisticated control
(actually coincides with the first dilemma of system, discipline and exclusion (Foucault, 1965;
P. Berger;) Foucault, 1977), P. Wagner convincingly showed
2) the antinomy of human autonomy and the ambivalence of modernity. Describing the type
foundations of morality, in particular, the of society, which he calls “organized modernity”,
universal principles (can be identified with P.  Wagner emphasizes that extremely powerful
the third dilemma of P. Berger); institutions and discourses of this society “was
3) the antinomy “of reflection and action”  – enabling constraining, liberating and disciplining
the tension between cognition of nature at the same time” (Wagner, 1994, p. XI, 193).
and the society, and “mastering” them, the The modern “imagined importance” of
construction of nature and society; human autonomy and self-actualization can be
4) the antinomy of totality (universalist) and marked by coercion, harassment, exclusion and
pluralistic vision of different values and destruction, and the creating more opportunities
“rationalities” (this tension is central for for individual subjects’ self-realization may lead
S. Eisenstadt and is used in the polemic in to “the threat of self-cancellation of modernity”
defense of the fundamental possibility of the (italics is in original.  – Y. S.) (Wagner, 1994,
existence of “multiple modernities”); p. 65).
5) the antinomy of human autonomy and From other positions Z. Bauman draws
existing restrictions, freedom and control attention to the antinomy of the public and
(partially coincides with the fourth dilemma private spheres, which, though in different ways,
of P. Berger). pose threat to individual freedom. He notes that
Starting from understanding of the essence modernity emancipation after confrontation with
of the project of modernity as emancipation the public sphere, power, which has always been
project, it is possible to come to the conclusion “under suspicion”, so that it was accused of all
that all of the aforementioned antinomies and the “all drawbacks and frustrations suffered
dilemmas in one way or another are related to by freedom”, now confronts the private sphere,
its essence and the process of emancipation. In which, in its turn, “colonizes” the public one.
other words, the key “tension” of the project of (Bauman, 2000, p.  50-51). Z. Bauman claims
modernity  – both in theoretical -philosophical that at the present stage, the public sphere
perspective, and in the actual-historical one is paradoxically promotes individual freedom and,
the dialectic of emancipation –it is a struggle, therefore, “any true emancipation requires not
liberation, obtaining rights and choices, which is less, but more of the public sphere and the public
accompanied by imposing external constraints, authority” (Bauman, 2000, p. 51).
losses, strengthening of control, realization of the The dialectic of the project of modernity
“burden” of choice. is also convincingly proved by A. Touraine.
Therefore, the emancipation project of Firstly, he assumes that the Western European
modernity cannot be realistically considered modernity is unique because nothing like the
– 1680 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

way of modernization, which aimed at “making autonomy and the right of individual choice,
society not as a means, but an end”, has occurred and the other  – external control, liabilities,
anywhere else in the world. (Touraine, 2007, integration, solidarity and the rights of choice of
p. 51). counterparties. It is also important in what way
Secondly, he distinguishes between and by what procedure this contradiction will
modernity and modernization, and stresses be resolved in each particular society. Without
that there are many ways of modernization, in this, it is impossible to comprehend the project
particular, when modernity is not a goal, and only of modernity and the peripeteias of its specific
serves as a means of achieving power, especially historical realization.
military one. (Touraine, 2009, p.  106). Touraine For this reason, we have to admit hopeless the
believes that there are two fundamental principles attempts of W. Beck, C. Lau and their followers to
of modernity: build theories of the “second modernity” (Beck,
1) “belief in reason and rational action”; 2010; 2005). Conceptualizing the profound
2) recognition of universality of individuals’ changes in recent decades as the “modernization
rights regardless of their social positions of modern society”, they argue that “the old
(Touraine, 2007, p. 72-73). certainties, distinctions and dichotomies are
In general, modernity means the possibility fading away” and there are “new rules of the
that “every individual has the right to conquer game” (Beck, Bonss, Lau, 2003, p. 3).
his or her rights and choices and to defend them Of course, one has to agree with the fact
against established powers” (Touraine, 2009, that the occurring changes are not radical,
p. 104). This should be interpreted as an admission but the basic proposition of the theory about
that the idea of modernity opposes the idea of the completion of the “first modernity” era of
the society, no matter how it is understood  – in nation-states is controversial. However, they are
terms of functionality and utilitarianism, or from not these modern changes at all that became a
the standpoint of the methods and consequences challenge for “Enlightenment-based modernity”
of dominance. In contrast to this, the idea of (Beck, Lau, 2005, p.  525). It was challenged
modernity “contains an insurmountable tension not today. The challenge is laid (as I have tried
between, on the one hand, reason and the rights to show, based on the theory of J. Habermas,
of individuals and, on the other, and the collective Z. Bauman, P. Berger, A. Touraine, P. Wagner) in
interest (italics is mine. – Y. S.)” (Touraine, 2007, the nature of the project of modernity. They are,
p.  75). In addition, reason and the rights of the therefore, absolutely utopian hopes, that “reflexive
subject, according to Touraine, can also contradict modernization” is able to identify “cracks in the
each other. European foundation”, elimination of which is an
These contradictions are crucial to intellectual challenge of the “theory of second
understanding of the project of modernity and modernity” (Lee, 2008, p. 56).
the dialectics of development. Emancipation The fourth segment of sociological discourse
as the main promise of European modernity of modernity and modernization is formed
(or promissory note, in terms of B. Wittrock) by the theories, which can be roughly defined
inevitably raises the question of at what cost it as temporal. In these theories modernity is
will be implemented. But, in my opinion, the key conceptualized as a specific time dimension – the
point is not only the contradiction between, on modern state of society, regardless of its stages
the one hand, individualization, subjectivization, or civilization features and value-normative
– 1681 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

content of ideological systems. The fundamental of modernity, which crystallized in the philosophy
characteristics of such modern state are considered of postmodernism (Ionin, 2007, p. 49-50).
to be orientation to changes and ability to them, In the contemporary sociology the temporal
i.e. innovativeness. theory of modernity is developed by G. Therborn.
Despite the stated universality of these He proposed a relative concept of modernity
characteristics, temporal conceptualization of to refer to any kind of “a culture, an epoch,
modernity has deep cultural roots in Europe. a society, a social sphere having a particular
It was the European Christian civilization that time orientation” (italics is in original.  – Y. S.)
laid the premises for the change in the balance (Therborn, 2006, p. 279).
between tradition and modernity, as well as Relativity of this approach comes from the
forming ideas about modernity. Actually, the fact that modernity does not mean “a particular
concept of “modernity”, being European in chronological period or any particular institutional
origin, has a pronounced temporal content. forms” but a universal “time conception looking
J. Habermas, using the works of H. Jauss, notes forward to this worldly future, open, novel,
that this concept “reflects the consciousness of reachable or constructable, a conception seeing
the epochs, correlating themselves with the past the present as a possible preparation for a future”
and the antiquity and understanding themselves (Therborn, 2003, p. 294). G. Therborn proposes
as a result of transition from “old” to “new” to empirically evaluate the degree of modernity
(Habermas, 1992, p. 41). through this kind of “temporal orientation
Moreover, in European culture, there not of specified institutional spheres, such as the
only formed the opposition of the modern to production of knowledge, the arts, the economy,
the past, but there is also a comprehension of politics.” And “the predominant time culture of
contemporary as non-permanent. Modern is these spheres may vary well differ in a given
contrasted with “eternal” and is, in the words society at any given point in time” (Therborn,
of H.-U. Gumbrecht, “the past of the present’s 2003, p. 294).
future” (quoted in Ionin, 2007, p.  48). From Accordingly, in this approach, modernity of
philosophical perspective, J. Habermas defines individual societies is evaluated in terms of their
its essence as “the relevance of spontaneously ability to change. Sociologists and futurists point
renewing spirit of the times” (Habermas, 1992, to different newest features of modernity, which
p. 41). It is, on the one hand, social life under the are change-oriented, an unprecedented rate of
conditions of a “general feeling of acceleration” economic growth, innovation-based economy,
(in economics, politics, technology, daily life, spread of technological innovations in different
fashion, etc.) (Ionin, 2007, p.  48-49), and on spheres of life, dominance of the financial and
the other  – idealization of change, reduction of service sectors as branches of economy, formation
meaning of social life to change, to constant of “the society based on knowledge”, increasing
renewal. According to the figurative expression role of venture businesses, and communication
of P. Berger, “one of the most alluring principles technologies, the “creative class”, the heyday of
of modernly is: things may not be as they were network structures, flexible management, etc.
before”; modernity “strives for innovation and the (Bell, 1996; Shtompka 1996; Stehr, 1994; Castells,
revolution” and “the future is an open horizon” 2004; Florida, 2005). Among the conditions for
(Berger, 1990, s. 131). However, there is an transition to an innovative economy they mention
alternative critical version of this comprehension a sufficient level of well-being of population,
– 1682 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

freedom of creativity, freedom of enterprise and any society is “transformation of the perception
competition, a high level of education and science, of time” (Berger, 1990, p. 129).
the presence of the industry of innovation, social It is important to note that when Z. Bauman
capital and trust (Yasin, 2007, p. 10). distinguishes the forms of modernity (“solid”
It is obvious that orientation to changes and “liquid” modernity), he at the same time
and constant innovation are the opposite of the emphasizes their essential similarity, despite
society based on tradition. While in classical the existence of very significant differences. He
modernization theory it was customary to strictly argues that “the society which enters the twenty-
oppose modernity to tradition, over time the first century is no less 'modern' than the society
studies have shown that modern society is more which entered the twentieth; the most one can
complex and contradictory, and that tradition say is that it is modern in a different way. What
is its integral component (Bendix, 1977 (1964); makes it as modern… is what sets modernity
Gusfield, 1967). Therefore, absolutely innovative apart from all other historical forms of human
society, in contrast to the traditional one, is cohabitation: the compulsive and obsessive,
a utopia. However, societies can differ in the continuous, unstoppable, forever incomplete
degree of innovativeness, and inside them there modernization…” (Bauman, 2000, p.  28).
can exist, as noted by G. Therborn, some social Z. Bauman uses the concept of ‘permanent’,
institutions and actors focused on innovation. ‘continuous’ modernization, emphasizing that
The opposition of tradition and modernity “the habit of viewing modernization as ‘a road to
is also removed in the theories of “reflexive modernity’, and modernity as an end-product of
modernization” and “late modernity”, according modernization is mistaken to the core: modernity
to which the present state of society is related to is modernization ... modernizing is modernity’s
the previous period of modernity, rather than the mode of being” (Bauman, 1999, p. 192).
traditional society (Beck, 2003). Here, there are Therefore, permanent change and innovation
two interpretations, are an extremely important dimension of modernity.
1) modern society can be described as a new As well as its principal incompleteness, openness
stage of transformation and modernization to the future. V. Fedotova and her colleagues
in certain chronological framework of “late”, distinguish four aspects of this incompleteness,
“second”, “liquid” modernity or even in its among which, in particular, there is the fact that
various local-civilization forms (Giddens, modernity “cannot be completely built because to
1990; Beck, 2010; Lee, 2006, 2006); think so means to believe that societies achieve
2) modernity is more generally interpreted or can achieve some ideal conditions that do not
as a constant focus on never-ending require further improvements” (Fedotova, 2008,
modernization (Bauman, 2000, p. 28). p. 284).
IF the first interpretation is closer to However, one must beware of the dangers
civilization theories, according to which the type of understanding this dimension as an abstract
of modern society is not universal (it is either a property of social systems. After all, the changes
purely European phenomenon that has reached take place in spite of, not because of these systems.
global scale, or a variety of “multiple modernities”), The driving force of change and innovation
the second one focuses on the universal ability/ is social actors that require motivation and
capability of the society to innovate and change. favorable conditions for creativity. Therefore, a
In this case, the essence of any modernization in seemingly quite relative innovative dimension of
– 1683 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

modern society is inextricably linked to the value least, in the economic sphere. Innovation is often
dimension of modernity as a project. They are the identified with the effective, and the “modern”
principles of the latter (the rights of an individual, both in academic and in everyday sense means
rationality) that act as premises for “freedom and “the best, most advanced” (Fedotova, 2008,
creativity within social systems, which naturally p. 284). From this point of view, to remain modern
tend to reinforce themselves rather than to form and competitive, one needs constant change,
free actors” (Touraine, 2007, p. 72). updating. In scientific and everyday discourse to
The fifth segment of sociological discourse, be ahead is good, it gives a competitive advantage.
which should be outlined, is the least coherent. According Z. Bauman, all this never-ending
Different in their conceptual origin theories from permanent modernization is not for its own sake,
different social sciences can be attributed to it. it is “all for the sake of a greater capacity for
They are united by a common understanding doing more of the same in the future – enhancing
of modern society as currently most effective productivity or competitiveness” (Bauman, 2000,
social order. Accordingly, the main criterion p. 28).
for evaluation the state of the society and its Several groups can be distinguished among
various institutions, above all, economic ones, the theories of efficiency. The first group, the
will be efficiency, or in a more specific economic most coherent and influential, was formed
interpretation, productivity, when compared in the framework of new institutionalism. It
with other societies. Productivity (efficiency) dominates in the modern economic theory and
can be determined diachronically  – compared political economy. Here, the productivity and
to previous historic periods. However, the competitiveness of the society in the economic
simultaneous comparison of modern societies in and political spheres are due to the efficiency
the framework of this approach allows detecting of its economic institutions, which determine
a competitive advantage and, finally, to evaluate not only the overall economic growth, but also
the level of their competitiveness. “the distribution of resources in the future (i.e.,
These theories, which I propose to designate the distribution of wealth, of physical capital
as “efficiency theories”, are often similar to the or human capital)” (Acemoglu, 2005, p.  389-
evolutionary theories of the first segment. After 390). In its turn, economic institutions depend
all, for example, the basic Parson’s concepts of on political institutions and distribution of
social evolution (differentiation, increase of resources and operate under the influence of
the adaptive capacity) primarily mean greater the political system of the society (Acemoglu,
efficiency. Common to these approaches is 2005, p.  392). This basic model, supplemented
distinguishing the groups of “more and less by specific elements (such as direct or indirect
developed” societies. The basic difference transfer of resources by political elites,
between them is that, in this case, efficiency is not blocking institutional development by political
considered as equally achievable for all societies elites), gives really interesting results (see, eg.:
and existence of universal stages of evolution is Acemoglu, 2006).
not recognized. A variant of the approach of new
The similarity to the previous segment of institutionalism is calculation of the index of
temporal theories is explained by the fact that competitiveness of countries by the organization
innovativeness in both segments is considered a “World Economic Forum” held since 2005.
premise for and a means of achieving efficiency, at X. Sala-i-Martin and his colleagues consider
– 1684 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

a set of institutional, political, infrastructural components of quality of living (welfare, health,

and human factors as determinants of the level education, etc.).
of productivity of a country (Sala-i-Martin In addition, value-regulatory elements
et al., 2011, p.  4). It should also be pointed out (human rights, civil society, equitable
that among the economists of the less developed distribution of resources, opportunities
countries with authoritarian regimes or regimes for personal development, etc.) fit into the
of unconsolidated democracy in evaluating conception of “a good society”, which likens
productivity there is often a shift from institutions this conception to the notion of modernity as
to the latest technology, efficiency of labor, a project. This normative-eclectic combination
renewal of machinery assets, development of is, above all, characteristic of the concept of a
high-tech industries, introduction of new products “good society” by J. K. Galbraith (Galbraith,
and services, and modernization is generally 1996, p.  3-4). At the same time A. Etzioni
understood as “transition to the innovative model emphasizes the normative aspect, proposing
of development” (Zevin, 2008, p.  291). In other a classical philosophical understanding of
words, in this case the position of technological “a good society” as the one in which people
determinism is used, which contradicts the treat themselves and others as objectives, not
essence of new institutionalism. means. (Etzioni, 2000, p.  11). R. Bellah and
The second group of theories focuses on a his co-authors perceive the foundation of “a
different aspect of productivity, resulting from good society” in “creativity and vitality of its
economic performance. It is the quality of living institutions” in combination with individual
and opportunities for people. However, it should and social responsibility (The Good Society,
be kept in mind that the relation between the 1991, p.  17). This new institutional approach
formation of modern society and the quality is complemented by what they call “pluralistic
of living is not linear. W. Zapf, combining the vision of the good society”, but in fact it is
studies of modernization, quality of living and an eclectic mix of empirical and normative
social security, demonstrated different possible characteristics, democratic participation,
constellation of factors (Zapf, 1979, p.  241). accountability of institutions, interdependence
E. Tiryakian indicates that modernization has of welfare, freedom, peace and justice (The
its price and requires certain sacrifices, but in Good Society, 1991, p.  9 ). Later R. Bellah
the long run, it means that “a greater number of made, in my view, a very promising attempt to
actors have better life chances” (Tiryakian, 1995, develop this concept, which, unfortunately, has
p. 255). not been completed (Bellah, 1997).
The theories of the third group are, on the one In general, the discourse of efficiency and
hand, eclectic, as they try to empirically capture competitiveness of modern society is logically
completely different features of the society complemented by the temporal theories of
“more suitable for living” that is “a good society” innovation and focus on changes. Within the
(Fedotova, 2005, p. 458). On the other hand, they framework of this approach, a very important
are normative, because their authors try to outline dimension of modernity was determined.
the parameters of the optimal social order. In the However, there are significant differences in
theories of “a good society” the provisions of new interpretations of dimension of efficiency that
institutionalism (effective institutions are the cannot be overcome within the framework of this
basis of this society) are combined with different discourse.
– 1685 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

Conclusion between these theories are graphically shown in

In an attempt to create a systematic picture Fig. 1.
of current theories of modern society and All of these theories have heuristic
modernization, I have outlined five key segments restrictions, but they do not lose their relevance
of sociological discourse: and highlight different dimensions of modernity,
1) the theory of modernity as a universal stage which together form a complete picture of it.
of evolution; These dimensions are:
2) the concepts of local civilizations (with two 1) universal social processes and invariant
variants, Eurocentric (the West versus the characteristics of development
Rest) and multiple modernities); (differentiation, urbanization, social
3) the theories of the “project of modernity” mobility, etc.);
as the values and normative core of the 2) civilization variability and unique features
culture; of cultural programs;
4) the temporal theories of changes; 3) specific value orientations, emancipative
5) the theories of efficiency, competitiveness trend and antinomies;
and “the good society”. 4) permanence of change and innovativeness
Within these approaches there are groups of (time orientation, focus on change and
theories in which the authors propose different innovation);
interpretation of the essence of modern society 5) increasing productivity and competitiveness,
and the objective laws of its development. It is improving the quality of living, increase
important to emphasize that these theories are living standards and opportunities for
not merely alternative research programs, but people.
complement each other. It is inappropriate to Thus, modernity is multi-dimensional,
consider them as a succession of explanatory and systematic application of the full set of the
schemes. These theories are closely related. above-mentioned theories of modernity and
Along with the general conceptual terms, they modernization is necessary for its holistic and
also have some differences. The interrelations adequate comprehension.

Fig. 1. The interrelation of theories (segments of sociological discourse) of modernity and modernization.
2.1 – Eurocentric approach (‘the West versus the Rest’), 2.2 – Theories of multiple modernities

– 1686 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

1
The author is sincerely grateful to his scientific advisor professor O.Kutsenko, Open Society Institute’s (OSI, Budapest)
Regional Seminar for Excellence in Teaching / Higher Education Support Program (HESP/ReSET), Faculty of Sociology
of St. Petersburg State University and International Center for Comparative and Institutional Research and in particular to
Dean of Faculty of Sociology, Vice-rector of St. Petersburg State University professor N.Skvortsov, professors A.Rezaev
and Yu.Veselov for opportunity to participate in the project “Modernity and the Futures of Capitalism in Eurasia”. The
author expresses special gratitude to professors J.C. Alexander, M.Burawoy, A.Martinelli, P. Le Gales, G.Therborn and
P.Sztompka for their inspiring consultations. The interpretations and opinions contained in the article are solely the au-
thor’s own and do not necessarily express the views of either Open Society Institute’s (OSI, Budapest) Regional Seminar
for Excellence in Teaching / Higher Education Support Program (HESP/ReSET), Faculty of Sociology of St. Petersburg
State University, International Center for Comparative and Institutional Research or other organizers and participants of
the project.
The earlier version of this paper was presented at the seminar of the project “Modernity and the Futures of Capitalism in
Eurasia” and published in Ukrainian in Sociology, Theory, Methods, Marketing.
2
Address of the President to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation from December 22, 2011 the Kremlin, Moscow.
Available at: http://www news.kremlin.ru.news.14088; Modernіzatsіya Ukrainy nash strategіchny vibіr: Schorіchne
Poslannya Presidenta Ukrainy do Verkhovnou Rady Ukrainy. K., 2011. 416. Available at: http://www.president.gov.
ua.docs.Poslannya_sborka.pdf ;
3
Certainly, there are other classifications. For example, V. Yadov considers the problems of modernization in the
frameworks of three macro-paradigms of theoretical sociology, 1) activist, 2) institutional and environmental conditions
of development, 3) global world-system (Yadov, 2010). In our case the criteria for distinguishing groups of theories are not
general factors’ approaches to the development of the society, but a specific understanding of the essence of modernity and
modernization.

References

1. Acemoglu D, Robinson J. (2006) Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective. Daron

Acemoglu, American Political Science Review, Vol.100, No. 1 (February 2006), pp. 115-131.
2. Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J. (2005) Institutions as Fundamental Determinants of
Long Run Growth, Handbook of Economic Growth, Volume 1A, edited by Philippe Aghion and Steven
Durlauf. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005, pp. 386-472.
3. Alexander J.C. (1994) Modern, Anti, Post and Neo: How Social Theories Have Tried to
Understand the “New World” of “Our Time”, Zetschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23. Heft 3. Juni 1994.
S. 165-197.
4. Allard, E. (2002) Somnitelnye dostoinstva kontseptsii modernizatsii [Questionable merits of
the concept of modernization], Sotsiologicheskie Issledovania, No. 9, pp. 60-66.
5. Arnason J. P. (1989) The Imaginary Constitution of Modernity, Revue européenne des sciences
sociales, T. 27, No. 86. Pour une philosophie militantede la démocratie (1989), pp. 323-337
6. Arnason J. P. (2010) The Cultural Turn and the Civilizational Approach, European Journal of
Social Theory, Vol.13(1), pp. 67-82.
7. Bauman Z. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, UK : Polity Press, 2000. 229 р.
8. Bauman Z. (1999) Second Letter, Smith D. Zygmunt Bauman: prophet of postmodernity.
Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1999, pp. 191-197.
9. Beck U., Lau C. (2005) Second modernity as a research agenda : Theoretical and empirical
explorations in the “metachange” of modern society, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 56. Issue 4,
pp. 525-557.
10. Beck U., Bonss W., Lau C. (2005) The theory of reflexive modernization : Problematic,
hypotheses and research programme, Theory, Culture and Society,. Vol. 20. (2), pp. 1-33.
11. Beck U., Grande E. (2010) Varieties of second modernity : the cosmopolitan turn in social and
political theory and research, British Journal of Sociology. 2010. Vol. 61. Issue 3, pp. 409-443.
12. Bellah R. (1997) The Necessity of Opportunity and Community in a Good Society,
International Sociology, Vol. 12 (4), pp. 387-393.
– 1687 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

13. Bendix R. Nation Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order. University
of California Press: Berkeley, 1977 [1964]. 450р.
14. Berger, P.  (1990) Ponomanie sovremennosti [Understanding modernity], Sotsiologicheskie
Issledovania, No. 7, pp. 127-133.
15. Castells М. The network society: a crosscultural perspective. Edited by Manuel Castells.
Northampton, Mass. : Edward Elgar, 2004. 465 р.
16. Castoriadis С. The imaginary institution of society; translated by Kathleen Blamey. 1st
MIT Press ed. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1987. 418 p.
17. Chirot D. A. (2001) Clash of Civilizations or of Paradigms?: Theorizing Progress and Social
Change, International Sociology, Vol. 16, (3), pp. 341-360.
18. Deutsch K. W. (1961) Social Mobilization and Political Development, The American Political
Science Review, Vol. 55, No. 3. (Sep., 1961), pp. 493-514.
19. Eisenstadt S. N. (2001) The Civilizational Dimension of Modernity: Modernity as a Distinct
Civilization, International Sociology, Vol. 16 (3), pp. 320-340.
20. Eisenstadt S. N. (2000) Multiple Modernities, Daedalus, Vol. 129, No. 1. Multiple Modernities
(Winter, 2000), pp. 1-29.
21. Eisenstadt S. N. Modernity and Modernization, Sociopedia. Internаtional Sociological
Association. 2010. Р. 1-15. Available at: http://www.sociopedia.isa.
22. Etzioni A. The Third Way to a Good Society. London : Demos, 2000. 63 p.
23. Fedotova, V. G. et al. Globalnyi kapitalizm: tri velikih transformatsii [Global capitalism: three
great transformations]. Fedotova, V.G., Kolpakov, V.A. Fedotova, N.N. M.: The Cultural Revolution,
2008. – 608 p. 
24. Fedotova, V. G. Modernizatsia “drugoi” Evropy [Modernization of the “other” Europe].
M.: IF RAN, 1997. 255 p. 
25. Fedotova, V. G. Horoshee obschestvo [The Good Society]: ProgressTradition 2005. 544 p.
26. Florida R. Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge, 2005. 199 р.
27. Foucault M. Discipline and punish : the birth of the prison; translated from the French by
Alan Sheridan. [1st American ed.]. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977. 333 p.
28. Foucault M. Madness and civilization : a history of insanity in the age of reason; Translated
from the French by Richard Howard. New York, Pantheon Books, 1965. 299 p. 
29. Habermas J. Filosofskii diskyrs o moderne [Philosophical Discourse of Modernity]. Translation
from German. M.: Publishing House “All the World”, 2003. 416 p.
30. Habermas J. (1992) Modern – nezavershennyi proekt [Modern unfinished project], Voprosy
Filosofii, No. 4, pp. 40-52.
31. Haferkamp H., Smelzer N. Social change and modernity. Edited by Hans Haferkamp and Neil
J. Smelser. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1992. 445 p.
32. Galbraith J. K. The good society: the humane agenda. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Co., 1996.
152 p.
33. Gaonkar D.P.  On Alternative Modernities, Alternative Modernities. Edited by Gaunkar,
D.P. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001. Р. 1-23.
34. Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press,
1990. 186 р.
– 1688 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

35. Gusfield J. (1967) Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social
Change, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp. 351-362.
36. Inglehart R., Welzel C. (2010) Changing Mass Priorities. The Link between Modernization
and Democracy, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 8, (2), pp. 551-567.
37. Inglehart R., Welzel C. (2009) How Development Leads to Democracy: What We Know about
Modernization Today, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 8, (2), March.April, pp. 33-41.
38. Inozemtsev, V.L. Predely “dogoniauschego razvitia” [Limits of the “catch-up” development].
Moscow: Economics, 2000. 299 p. 
39. Ionin, L. G. Postmodern: Novaia magicheskaia epoha [Postmodernism: A new era of magic].
Ed. by L.G.Ionina. Kharkov, 2002. P.221 -236.
40. Ionin, L.G. Sotsiologia v obschestve znanii: ot epohi modena k informatsionnomu obschestvu
[Sociology in the knowledge society: from the modern era to the information society]: State University
Higher School of Economics. M.:. House SU HSE, 2007. 431 p.
41. Kaya I. (2004) Modernity, openness, interpretation: A perspective on multiple modernities,
Social Science Information, Vol. 43 (1), pp. 35-57.
42. Kumar K. From postindustrial to postmodern society: new theories of the contemporary
world. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 1995. 253 р.
43. Kutuev, P.V. (2009) Problematika sovremennogo sotsiologicheskogo teoretizirovania [The
problems of contemporary sociological theorizing], Sotsiologia, Teoria, Metody, Marketing, No. 2,
pp. 144-165.
44. Lee R. (2008) In search of second modernity: reinterpreting reflexive modernization in the
context of multiple modernities, Social Science Information, Vol. 47, (1), pp. 55 -69.
45. Lee R. (2006) Reinventing Modernity: Reflexive Modernization vs Liquid Modernity vs
Multiple Modernities, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 9, (3), pp. 355-368.
46. Lenski G. Human societies: A macrolevel introduction to sociology. New York: McGrawHill,
1970. 525 p.
47. Lerner D. Modernization: social aspects, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
New York: Macmillan, 1968. pp. 386-395.
48. Lerner D. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. Glencoe, IL.:
Free Press, 1958. 466 р.
49. Levy M. J. Modernization and the Structure of Societies. Vol 2. The organizational contexts
of societies. New Brunswik: Transactions Pub., 1996 (1966). 867p.
50. Martinelli A. Global Modernization: Rethinking the project of modernity. London:
SAGE Publications, 2005. 159р.
51. Modernіzatsіya Ukrainy nash strategіchny vibіr: Schorіchne Poslannya Presidenta Ukrainy
do Verkhovnou Rady Ukrainy [Modernization of Ukraine is our strategic choice: Annual of the
President to the Parliament of Ukraine] K., 2011. 416 p. Available at: http://www.president.gov.ua.docs.
Poslannya_sborka.pdf
52. Parsons T. The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1971. 152 p.
53. Poslanie prezidenta Federalnomu sobraniu Rosiiskoi Federtsii [Address of the President to
the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation from December 22], 2011 Kremlin, Moscow. Available
at: http://www news.kremlin.ru.news.14088
– 1689 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

54. Sala-i-Martin X. et al. The Global Competitiveness Index 2011/2012: Setting the Foundations
for Strong Productivity, The Global Competitiveness Report 2011/2012. Geneva : World Economic
Forum, 2011. pp. 3-49.
55. Schmidt V.H. (2010) Modernity and diversity: Reflections on the controversy between
modernization theory and multiple modernists, Social Science Information, Vol. 49, ( 4), pp. 511-538.
56. Schmidt V.H. One world, one modernity, Modernity at the Beginning of the 21st Century.
Edited by Volker H. Schmidt. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007. pp. 205-228.
57. Schmidt V.H. (2006) Multiple modernities or varieties of modernity?, Current Sociology,.
Vol.54, ( 1), pp. 77-97.
58. Stehr N. Knowledge societies. London : Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 1994. 291 p.
59. Sztompka P. Sotsiologia sotsialnyh izmenenii [Sociology of social change]. Translated from
English, ed. by V.A. Yadov. M.: Aspect Press, 1996. 416 p.
60. Therborn G. (2003) Entangled Modernities, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 6, (3),
pp. 293-305.
61. Therborn G. Europe and Asias: In the Global Political Economy, and in the World as a Cultural
System, Asia and Europe in globalization: continents, regions, and nations. Edited by Goran Therborn
and Habibul Haque Khondker. Leiden, Boston : Brill, 2006. pp. 275-309.
62. Tikhonova, N. et al. (2007) Evolutsia kontseptsii modernizatsii vo vtoroi polovine XX veka
[The evolution of the concept of modernization in the second half of the XX century] [N.E.Tikhonova,
V.A.Anikin, S.V.Goryunova, Yu.P.Lezhnina], Sociologia: metodologia, metody, matematicheskoe
modelirovanie, No. 25, pp. 22-48.
63. Tiryakian E. А. (1991) Modernisation: Exhumetur in Pace (Rethinking Modernisation in the
1990s), International Sociology, Vol. 6 (June), pp. 165-180.
64. Tiryakian E.A. Modernization in a Millenarian Decade: Lessons for and from Eastern
Europe, Social Change and Modernization: Lessons from Eastern Europe. Berlin, New York, 1995.
pp. 249-264.
65. Tiryakian E.А. (2001) Introduction: The Civilization of Modernity and the Modernity of
Civilization, International Sociology, Vol. 16, (3), pp. 277-292.
66. Touraine А. A new paradigm for understanding today’s world. Cambridge, Eng.: Polity Press,
2007. 226 p.
67. Touraine А. Thinking differently. Cambridge, Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2009. 236 p.
68. The Good Society. [Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William Sullivan et al.]. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1991. 347 p.
69. Wagner P. A Sociology of Modernity: Liberty and Discipline. London: Routledge, 1994. 268 р.
70. Wagner P. (2010) Multiple Trajectories of Modernity: Why Social Theory Needs Historical
Sociology, Thesis Eleven, Vol. 100, pp. 53-60
71. Wagner P. (2011) Violence and justice in global modernity: Reflections on South Africa with
world sociological intent, Social Science Information, Vol. 50 (34). pp. 483-504
72. Wallerstein І. (2000) Globalization or the Age of Transition? : A LongTerm View of the
Trajectory of the WorldSystem, International Sociology, Vol.15. No.2, pp. 249-265.
73. Wittrock B. (2000) Modernity: One, None, or Many? European Origins and Modernity as a
Global Condition, Daedalus, Vol. 129. No. 1: Multiple Modernities, pp. 31-60.
– 1690 –
 Yuriy B. Savelyev. Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse

74. Yadov, V.A. (2010) K voprosy o natsionalnyh osobennostiah modernizatsii rossiiskogo

obschestva [To the question of the national features of modernization of Russian society], Mir Rossii,
No.3, pp. 46-56.
75. Yasin, E. (2007) Modernizatsia i obschestvo [Modernization and society], Voprosy Ekonomiki,
No. 5, pp. 3-29.
76. Zapf W. (1979) Modernization and welfare development: The case of Germany, Social Science
Information, Vol. 12, (2), pp. 219-246.
77. Zapf, W. (1998) Teoria modernizatsii I razlichie putei obschestvennogo razvitia [Theory of
modernization and the difference ways of social development], Sotsiologicheskie Issledovania, No. 8,
pp. 14-26.
78. Zevin, L.Z. Postsovetskoe prostranstvo v globalizirujuschemsia mire: problemy modernizatsii
[The post-Soviet space in a globalizing world. The problems of mod

Многомерная современность:
сущностные характеристики современного общества
в социологическом дискурсе

Ю.Б. Савельев
Киевский национальный университет
им. Т. Шевченко
Украина 01601, Киев, ул. Володимирская, 60

Настоящая статья предлагает сравнительный анализ социологического дискурса о

современном обществе и модернизации и систематизирует сущностные характеристики
модерна. Выделены пять ведущих сегментов социологического дискурса модерна и модернизации
и разработан комплексный подход к существующим теориям современности. Новизна
предложенного анализа заключается в фокусировке на глубоком сходстве различных теорий
современности и возможности совместного применения объяснительных платформ. Такой
подход значительно отличается от существующего традиционного видения социологического
дискурса о современности и модернизации как последовательной смены теоретических
подходов или бескомпромиссной конкуренции альтернативных исследовательских программ.
Предложенный анализ позволяет корректно идентифицировать различные измерения
современности, которые в своем единстве позволяют сформировать цельное видение эпохи
модерна. В дополнение к классифицированным сегментам социологического дискурса в
статье показана структура сущностных характеристик современного общества, которая
включает: 1) универсальность (инвариантность) социального развития, 2) цивилизационную
вариативность и уникальность культурных программ, 3) эмансипационный тренд и
культурные антиномии, 4) перманентность изменений и инноваций, 5) рост эффективности,
конкурентоспособности и качества жизни.
Ключевые слова: современность, модернизация, разработка, теория современного общества.