Modernity essay esps - Compare and critically discuss the history and outcomes of modernisation processes PDF

Preview

Summary

Compare and critically discuss the history and outcomes of modernisation processes in two different European countries....

Description

2.2 Compare and critically discuss the history and outcomes of modernisation processes in two different European countries.

Since the Enlightenment, both the United Kingdom and Germany have undergone fundamental changes with regards to their political structure. This diffused through all aspects of their society, revolutionizing their internal and external edifices. Therefore, this essay sets to discuss how Germany and the UK embarked on the path of modernisation and evaluate its outcomes. Firstly, a debate on the terminology of modernity must take place, in order to understand its relevance as a concept in line with modernisation. Secondly, this essay aims to compare the two countries’ social, political and economic aspects in relation to one another, weighing out their similarities and differences and, finally, showing how despite the divergence of mentalities, there are still some characteristics that occurred both in Germany and the United Kingdom. Before actively discussing modernity and comparing its manifestation in different countries, there is a need to approach the definition of the term ‘modernity’ itself. First of all, the usage of the word is not founded in chronology, but rather in the political, social, cultural, economic, and aesthetic characteristics that form the basis of state function. When talking about modernity, one inherently refers to the period beginning with the French Revolution in 1789, however, different countries have entered modernity at significantly different times within this period. Notwithstanding when it began, modernity has clearly marked a break with the previous philosophy, opposing the mentality of ‘pre-modernity’, and renouncing the principle that God is ‘the ‘legislator’ of all resort’ 1, and thus putting less emphasis on the aspect of religion. Therefore, this allows for an interpretation of a country’s 1 “MODERNITY.” Eurocentrism, by SAMIR AMIN et al., NYU Press, 2009, pp. 13–24. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qfrws.4.

characteristics as ‘modern’ or ‘non-modern’, but it does not entail that what is ‘more recent’ is necessarily ‘more modern’. Having said this, modernity can also be interpreted, according to Mark Elvin, as a capacity to implement power, whether this is in the sense of military power or, in a more literal sense, as was the 18th century thermodynamic revolution2. When addressing the issue of modernity, Germany and the UK are two of the most relevant European countries that show how this concept evolved differently and at different times depending on each of their internal structures. To begin with, I will discuss the two countries’ paths to modernity separately, and then compare the similarities and differences that they experienced. Germany was a latecomer to modernization and, as some may argue, underwent a unique process unlike any other European country. The contested Sonderweg was mainly accepted because it was the only way to explain the Hitler regime, Nazism itself being an unprecedented event. Therefore, in order to explain this system’s success, one must look at how Germany, in spite of its unwillingness to abandon tradition, ended up being so prominent during the first half of the 20th century. This is what Jeffrey Herf referred to in the first chapter of his book on reactionary modernism, explaining how in his view, there is a cultural paradox that arises when a country accepts modern technology, but also rejects Enlightenment reason3. He pioneered the term ‘reactionary modernism’ so as to pertain to the peculiar combination of antimodernist and romantic thought on the one hand, and the embrace of modern technology on the other. This meant that the German Right managed to incorporate modern technology while keeping the mentality of romanticism and antirationality intact. This, says Herf, is the reason why the Nazist ideology maintained its 2 'A Working Definition Of "Modernity"?' (Past & Present, No. 113, pp. 209-213, 2019) accessed 20 March 2019. 3 Jeffrey Herf, Reactionary Modernism (Univ Microfilms Internat 1984)

dominance during the war and the Holocaust. Because of Germany’s partial modernization that only saw changes in industrialization, without the necessary equivalent in the political and social spheres, it never had a full enlightenment period. Rejecting the values and institutions of liberal democracy strengthened the notion of authoritarian state and governance. With regards to this, Thomas Mann stated that what made it so dangerous was the ‘mixture of robust modernity and an affirmative stance towards progress combined with dreams of the past: a highly technological romanticism’. Another unique aspect of German modernity was the fact that it has no successful bourgeois revolution, as the National Socialist movement was not in need of bourgeoisie. Therefore, there was no middle-class population to lead the Enlightenment which in turn led to the weakness of political liberalism. The thesis on which Herf bases his argument is that ‘it is paradoxical to reject the Enlightenment and embrace technology at the same time, as did the reactionary modernists in Germany’4. This, however, has been criticized among historians such as Thomas Rohkrämer5, who challenged the core of Herf’s argument, namely his thesis. Rohkrämer argues that the problem raised in Herf’s essay on the paradox of reactionary modernism is in fact not an existing issue. He says that ‘it is simply not strange or ‘paradoxical to reject the Enlightenment and embrace technology at the same time’, but common practice in nineteenth– and twentieth-century Germany as well as in many other countries.’ He agrees, however, that even though this theory is not as unique or innovative as some may think, there is still a clear improvement in the sphere of technological acceptance.

4 Jeffrey Herf, Reactionary Modernism (Univ Microfilms Internat 1984) 5 Rohkrämer T, “Antimodernism, Reactionary Modernism and National Socialism. Technocratic Tendencies in Germany, 1890–1945” (1999) 8 Contemporary European History 29

If Germany was a latecomer to modernity, The United Kingdom was one of the first states to modernize, serving as an exemplary model for others to follow. If Germany’s industry expanded extremely rapidly after the First World War, the UK went through a much slower, albeit earlier process. Because the main characteristics of British modernity were its focus on political representation and human rights, it was tightly associated with liberalism. However, in Jon Lawrence’s view, Britain’s modernity is not necessarily best characterized by liberalism, but more so by conservatism.6 This relates to the criticism pertaining to the peacefulness of its transition towards capitalism and democracy, more specifically, the continuation of paternalist ideas in the social and political life. Even though the UK has undeniably evolved in many respects, for example its granting people suffrage after the end of World War I, it still kept its outdated values in other ways, such as its ongoing struggles with imperialism. By keeping patrician models of political leadership deeply embedded in its structure, the UK maintained its older political and social traditions. In this sense, Lawrence acknowledges a variant of liberal individualism, namely ‘Tory liberalism’. What this essentially means is that instead of changing the political from corporate to individual, it remains the same. Therefore, he ascertains that ‘it was the long survival of these impulses that shaped Britain’s distinctive path to modernity’. In furtherance to this, partisans to conservative thought ‘envisaged adapting corporatism to British traditions of representative government and evolutionary change: in short, making it compatible with the central tenets of ‘conservative modernity’.7

6 Simon Gunn and James Vernon, The Peculiarities Of Liberal Modernity In Imperial Britain (Global, Area, and International Archive 2011). 7 Simon Gunn and James Vernon, The Peculiarities Of Liberal Modernity In Imperial Britain (Global, Area, and International Archive 2011).

The UK and Germany had strikingly different paths to modernity, as not only did they occur at significantly different times, but they also entertained contrasting ideas in the political and social sense. On the face of it, they were also similar in their outcomes and motivations, but these characteristics are believed to be far outweighed by the divergence in their mentalities. First of all, Britain’s process of modernization began more than a century before Germany’s, as in 1688 The Glorious Revolution resulted in an establishing of parliamentary supremacy over the British monarchy. This was followed up by the Industrial Revolution and, as the initial country to successfully carry it out, the UK received a massive economical head start over other European countries. In regard to Germany’s economy, this was characterized by a quick and thorough industrialization by the means of which, despite its late beginning, it managed to catch up to the UK. The result of this was The Second World War and the dominance of Nazism, both concepts that could not have been carried out without a strong, modern economy as a structural foundation. At first, Germany was, economically speaking, ahead of the UK. After losing the First World War, however, it fell behind and did not recover until more than 60 years later. In analysing how the two countries compare to each other when it comes to economic progress, Albrecht Ritschl said that ‘It has been argued that there was no decisive productivity advantage for Germany over Britain in manufacturing until WW2. Instead, Germany’s closing of the productivity gap is seen largely as the result of improved performance in services and of the gradual decline of peasant agriculture in Germany.’8 Even though there is an obvious political dichotomy between the UK liberalism and German reactionary modernism, there are still some similarities between the two. Despite 8 Albrecht Ritschl, 'How And When Did Germany Catch Up To Great Britain And The US? Results From The Official Statistics, 1901-1960' (Personal.lse.ac.uk, 2019) accessed 20 March 2019.

its successful modernism, Britain’s tradition of elitism meant that it continued to carry out a paternalistic style of leadership that, according to Lawrence, came to an end only after Thatcher’s leadership. ‘As Susan Pedersen has shown, during the war the state has stepped in to shore up the patriarchal, male-bread-winner model of citizenship both economically, through the payment of dependents’ allowances to servicemen’s families, and morally, through attempts to police the behaviours of their errant wives. In addition to this, because of the methods it conveyed during colonial rule, such as the use of un-free labour, the creation of traditional forms of authority and social systems, the suppression of civil rights, and the use of concentration camps, the extent to which its revolution was in fact liberal or not is now being brought into question. Germany’s approach to modernity was, albeit on a much more obvious note, unliberal. One of the key aspects that describes the German society of this time is romantic nationalism, as the state claims to be the outcome of an organic unity of its people. This resulted in the following of a conservative path to modernity, much like it is said about the UK. Socially, the two nations had very unique approaches. Germany, as opposed to other countries, had no bourgeois revolution. It managed to mobilise masses in support of state policy, therefore intertwining authoritarianism with social reform. Conversely, the UK was characterized by a strong hierarchical structure that remained embedded in the culture, despite the fact that ‘from the 1860s, the country has a mass franchise and from the 1920s one of its main political parties (Labour) was officially committed to the overthrow of class privilege in all its forms.’ 9 In sum, the modernisation period affected most European countries, changing their core social, economic, and, most importantly, political structures. A fundamental aspect of

9 Simon Gunn and James Vernon, The Peculiarities Of Liberal Modernity In Imperial Britain (Global, Area, and International Archive 2011).

this was international competition, as the aim was to achieve more power in external relations. This meant, however, that one could not stick to a fully traditional mentality, this period forcing countries to adapt to the new reality of modernization. This brought about many difficulties for Germany, namely, some may argue, the paradox of combining reactionary thought with modernist ideas, as Rohkrämer argued, ‘the critique of modern technology, capitalism and a pluralistic society on the one hand and the irrational dream of a harmonious, truly German ‘community of the people’ on the other hand allegedly reached its logical culmination in the Nazi ideology of ‘blood and soil’, the cult of the charismatic leader and the totalitarian integration of all ‘worthy’ members of society, connected with the annihilation of all ‘unworthy’ members.’10 Especially after the First World War, it became clear that accepting technological advancement was the only way forward. As Ernst Jünger put it, ‘The emotions of the heart and the systems of the mind can be disproved, while a material object cannot be disproved–and such a material object is a machine gun.’11 However, if Germany was pushed to accept these new ideals in a fairly short period of time commencing the First World War, the UK did so over a longer period, but the lack of a substantial revolution meant that Britain’s path to modernity could more so be considered a continuation of tradition, rather than, as was the case in Germany, a break from outdated values and acceptance of new culture. Thus, the modernization process undergone by Germany and the UK was specific to each of the two countries, but overall it meant the same thing: a desire not to abandon, but incorporate tradition into a new way of thinking, which is to provide the framework for internal evolution, and a change in the way states interact internationally, not only in regards to wars, but also peaceful relations as well. 10 Rohkrämer T, “Antimodernism, Reactionary Modernism and National Socialism. Technocratic Tendencies in Germany, 1890–1945” (1999) 8 Contemporary European History 29 11 Ibid.

Bibliography

'A Working Definition Of "Modernity"?' (Past & Present, No. 113, pp. 209-213, 2019) accessed 20 March 2019 Gunn SJ Vernon, The Peculiarities Of Liberal Modernity In Imperial Britain (Global, Area, and International Archive 2011) Gunn SJ Vernon, The Peculiarities Of Liberal Modernity In Imperial Britain (Global, Area, and International Archive/University of California Press 2011) Herf J, Reactionary Modernism (Univ Microfilms Internat 1984) Ritschl A, 'How And When Did Germany Catch Up To Great Britain And The US? Results From The Official Statistics, 1901-1960' (Personal.lse.ac.uk, 2019) accessed 20 March 2019 “MODERNITY.” Eurocentrism, by SAMIR AMIN et al., NYU Press, 2009, pp. 13–24. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qfrws.4....