The nature of modern society | Sunday Observer

The nature of modern society

Modernity must be understood, in part at least, against the background of what went before. Industrial society emerged only patchily and unevenly out of agrarian society, a system that had endured 5,000 years.

Industrial structures thus took much of their characteristic form and colour from the rejection, conscious or unconscious, of pre-industrial ways. Industrialism certainly contained much that was new, but it remained always at least partly an idea that in both its theory and its practice was to be understood as much by what it denied as by what it affirmed.

The force of the modern has always been partly a reactive force, a force that derived meaning and momentum by a comparison or contrast with, and by rejection or negation of, what went before.

Considered at the most general level, this point suggests a view of modernisation as a process of individualisation, differentiation or specialisation, and abstraction. Put more concretely: first, the structures of modern society take as their basic unit the individual rather than, as with agrarian or peasant society, the group or community.

Division of labour

Second, modern institutions are assigned the performance of specific, specialised tasks in a social system with a highly developed and complex division of labour; in this they stand in the sharpest possible contrast with, for instance, the family in peasant society, which is at once the unit of production, consumption, socialisation, and authoritative decision-making.

Third, rather than attaching rights and prerogatives to particular groups and persons, or being guided by custom or tradition, modern institutions tend to be governed and guided by general rules and regulations that derive their legitimacy from the methods and findings of science.

In principle at least, they are not the agents of particular individuals, such as a king or priest, endowed with divine or prescriptive authority, but act according to the rational and impersonal precepts formulated by “experts.”

These contrasts by no means complete the characterisation of modern society, nor are they the only ones that might be drawn. Nevertheless, they do illustrate the dependence of the concept of modernity on past structures that form the basis of comparison and exclusion.

Indeed, it is such a set of contrasts, not necessarily carefully distinguished, that most people have in mind when they speak of modern as opposed to traditional society.

With regard to the more positive features of industrialism, industrial society can best be thought of as consisting of an economic core around which other, noneconomic structures crystallize.

In Marxist terminology, this is rendered in the more deterministic form of an economic base conditioning a noneconomic “superstructure.” This seems unnecessarily rigid and misleading.

The relation of the economic to the noneconomic realm is mutual and interactive, as can be seen by considering the impact of scientific ideas on economic and technological development. Still, it is true to say that, fundamentally, it is the economic changes that most dramatically affect industrial society.

Economic change

Economic historians and theorists have been inclined to stress economic growth as the central defining feature of an industrial as opposed to a nonindustrial economy. Thus, the British historian Edward Anthony Wrigley (b. 1931) declared that “industrialization is said to occur in a given country when real incomes per head begin to rise steadily and without apparent limit.”

The American economic historian W.W. Rostow (b. 1916) popularized a similar conception in suggesting that with industrialisation, the economy at a certain point “takes off” into “self-sustained growth”; all the relevant statistical indexes of the economy—investment, output, growth rate, and so on—take sudden, sharp, almost vertical upward turns.

Underlying this phenomenon of growth are certain core components of the industrial system. These include technological change, whereby work is increasingly done by machines rather than by hand; the supplementing or replacement of human and animal power by inanimate sources of energy, such as coal and oil; the freeing of the labourer from feudal and customary ties and obligations, and the consequent creation of a free market in labour; the concentration of workers in single, comprehensive enterprises (the factory system); and a pivotal role for a specific social type, the entrepreneur.

It would be easy to vary and extend this list. Not all components are of equal importance, nor are all equally indispensable to the industrial economy. They are drawn largely from the experience of the first industrializing nations, in western Europe and North America. Later industrialisers were able to dispense with some of them, or at least to try to do so.

The Soviet Union, for instance, industrialised on the basis largely of forced rather than free labour and made a point of doing away with entrepreneurs, while in Japan the entrepreneur was throughout stimulated and sustained by strong state involvement in industrialisation.

Moreover, it should be remembered that states—as, for instance, Denmark and New Zealand—can industrialise largely through the commercialisation and mechanisation of agriculture. Agriculture simply becomes another industry; farms are simply rural factories.

Even in this latter case, there is no place for a distinctively rural way of life in industrial society. Mechanisation brings an increase in productivity that renders a large portion of the rural labour force superfluous. Even where agriculture remains an important part of the industrial economy, the proportion of the labour force employed in agriculture drops steadily with industrialisation. This is the “sectoral transformation” that is one of industrialisation’s clearest and most obvious effects.


A majority of the workforce comes to be employed in the production of manufactured goods and in services rather than in the primary sector of agriculture.

In both the United Kingdom and the United States, for instance, by the end of the 20th century more than 97 percent of the employed population worked in manufacturing and service jobs, while the number in agriculture had declined to less than 3 percent. Japan, as an example of a late developer, showed the same pattern: in 1970 more than 80 percent of the employed population worked in manufacturing and services and less than 20 percent in agriculture.

By the late 1990s the declining number of workers involved in Japanese agricultural production represented only 5 percent of the workforce. These figures should be compared with the normal condition of preindustrial agrarian societies, where typically 90 percent of the adult population are peasant farmers or farm workers.

The vast increase in agricultural productivity on which this sectoral change in employment depends is characteristic of industrialism. Industrial society breaks through the historic limits of scarcity.

In the past, the potential for economic growth was always cut short by Malthusian checks on population, by limitations of food supply, or by the shortage of easily available raw materials such as wood. Industrialization permits the creation of large food surpluses that can feed a largely urban population.

The entire world, both on land and in the sea, is scoured for raw materials and further energy sources to supply industry. Science has so far proved remarkably effective at finding substitutes for those sources that have dried up and those materials that have become dangerously scarce.

The British economist John Maynard Keynes suggested that, for the first time in human history, “the economic problem may be solved,” and that “the economic problem is not the permanent problem of the human race.” In the mid-1980s it still seemed reasonable to believe that industrialism promised growth for the foreseeable future, even that it might bring abundance to all.

- Britannica