Modernization may be selective, with rapid social change in one area
obstructing change in others, rather than tradition being the obstacle to
development. Hence the eventual realization among political scientists of the
modernization persuasion that modernization and political stability do not
always go together: modernization in one sphere does not necessarily
produce compatible (‘eurhythmic’) change in another (Tipps, 1973, p. 215).
Once it is recognized that traditional values and practices may persist in
otherwise modern societies, further doubt is thrown on the idea that tradi-
tion impedes change. Furthermore, if the destruction of tradition proves not
to be necessary for ‘modernization’, except in purely tautological terms,
then traditional societies must be seen as being able to develop in directions
other than towards ‘modernity’ (Tipps, 1973, p. 214).
Thus the characteristics attributed by modernization theory to developed
and underdeveloped countries ‘present a distorted and inadequate concep-
tion of social reality’. The important determinants of development and
underdevelopment lie elsewhere than in ideal–typical models of tradition
and modernity. In adition to questioning the empirical validity of the pattern
variable approach, Frank also argues that it is theoretically inadequate not to
differentiate between the importance of the roles to be affected by modern-
ization and not to recognize that the determinants of underdevelopment
extend beyond the family, tribe, community or even a whole poor country
taken in isolation. Frank’s understanding of underdevelopment led him
to question the ‘social whole’ whose role patterns are to be changed by
modernization (Frank, 1972c, p. 321).
The concept of ‘integration’
Functionalism misjudges the level of harmony and integration in modern
society. It tended not to accommodate the idea of conflicting interests and
the differential power of groups in conflict with others. The idea that differ-
ent parts of the political system are supportive of everything else, producing
a functional unity, seems a distorted way of describing any society. The
functionalists directed their attention mainly towards the factors in society
which maintain consensus and stability. This is understandable, given the
areas of natural science which they and their social anthropological precur-
sors chose as analogous to social science.
Functionalism’s systemic theorizing sees society in organic terms, with
specialized and interdependent parts functioning to satisfy the requirements
of the whole for survival. The tendencies in society that are central to the
64 Understanding Third World Politics