EDUCATION, INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR AND INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY IN A DEVELOPING SOCIETY: AN AUEMPT IN MODEL CONSTRUCTION m for the Degree of PM). MICHIGAN STATE BMW KRISHNA KUMAR £972 ' L I B R. ‘. R Y Michigan State University m IIIIIUIHIIIIIIIIIIIIllllIll!llIlllIllIIIIHIIIIIIIIII 3 1293 10483 6493 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Education, Innovative Behavior and Individual Modernity in a Developing Society: An Attempt in Model Construction presented by Krishna Kumar has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in SOCiOlogy 3/5 MW ‘ Major professor Date 7-31-72 0-7639 ABSTRACT EDUCATION, INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR AKD INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY IN A DEVELOPING SOCIETY: AN ATTEMPT IN MODEL CONSTRUCTION BY Krishna Kumar The main objective of the present study is to explore the relationship between formal education and individual modernity in developing societies. More spe- cifically, the study is designed to focus on three crucial but interrelated questions: (1) whether formal education contributes significantly to individual modernity; (2) whether the impact is direct or indirect or both; and (3) whether formal education has more or less similar effects on the attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of modernity. We developed a conceptual model concerning the relationship between education and modernity. The model has five components. The first is the educational achieve- ment of the individual, which has been treated as an inde— pendent variable. The second and third components are psychic mobility and physical mobility. The model postu- lates that education is directly related to them, and this relationship is unidirectional. The two types of mobility Krishna Kumar also affect each other. Innovative behavior is the fourth component. The model stipulates both a direct and indirect relationship between education and innovative behavior. Psychic mobility and physical mobility serve as the inter- vening variables. The last component is individual modern- ity. Education has both direct and indirect impact on it. The mobility experience and innovative behavior serve as intervening variables. We also assert a direct, reciprocal relationship between individual modernity and innovative behavior. The hypothesized model, we insisted, is not uni— versally applicable. It is based on certain assumptions which are highly restrictive. The model assumes (1) that the universe to be studied or explained is composed of the adult population who have finished their formal education, (2) that population is engaged in self-employed occupations where there remains a significant scope for the adoption of innovations, and (3) the social system is underdeveloped and the programs of the planned social change are being undertaken in it. We utilized data from India to test the above model. We studied agricultural population from eight villages in three different states. We had 679 respond- ents, although we could use data for only 675 in this particular study. Krishna Kumar A scale of psychological modernity was constructed by taking into consideration the following six variables; secular-orientation, self-autonomy, achievement motiva- tion, inter-personal trust, deferred gratification and empathy. All these variables have been regarded as com- ponents of the modernity syndrome. The index for innovative behavior was based on the Fit innovations which are useful in agricultural Operations. Originally, 12 items were selected and subjected to a Guttman scaling. The scale retained ten items. Formal ii education was measured by the number of years spent at the school. We used three methodological strategies to test the model. First, we constructed cross tables. Respond- ents were classified under three broad heads; illiterate, low education and high education. All the other variables were dichotomized as high and low, and their relationship was studied. Second, we tested the conceptual proximity of the variables on the basis of the strength of their correlations. Finally, we used multi-variate regression, treating (l) modernity as dependent, and the remaining four variables as independent variables, (2) modernity as dependent, and education as an independent variable, (3) innovative behavior as dependent, and the remaining four variables as independent ones, (4) innovative behavior as dependent and education as an independent Krishna Kumar variable, and (5) innovative behavior as dependent, and psychic mobility, physical mobiltiy and modernity as independent variables. The same regressions were also calculated for each of the six components of the modernity syndrome, by regarding each of them as a separate indi— cator of modernity. The findings came as a total surprise. The data did not show any strong relationship between the different components of the model. With the simple exception of the association between psychic mobiltiy and innovative behavior, all other relationships were found to be very weak to be of any predictive value. Educational attain- ment had little effect on innovative behavior and negli- gible effects on the modernity syndrome. Again, contrary to our expectations, mobility did not have close associa- tion with modernity. Finally, the association between innovative behavior and modernity syndrome was found to be rather weak. Thus the data did not support our con— ceptual model. It is interesting to note here that during our analysis, we did not find any significant relationship between the various components of the modernity syndrome. This raises crucial issues about the validity as well as usefulness of the concept of individual modernity in the research enterprise. The very notion of the modernity becomes suspect. Krishna Kumar However, the findings cannot be taken at their face value; a great deal of caution is required in inter- preting our results. Several factors might have affected our findings. The extremely poor quality of formal educa- tion in village India, which was available in the past, the long interval between the completion of formal educa- tion and the time for interview, and finally the rela- tively small percentage of educated peeple in our sample, are some of the factors which deserve to be mentioned in this regard. Some allowance needs also to be made of the limitations of the operational definitions. Therefore we do not regard our findings as definitive. And yet they are sufficient to underscore the need for having a second look at the existing conceptualizations about the impact of formal education on individual modernity, the relation- ship between modern value orientations and innovative behavior and, above all, the very concept of the modernity syndrome. EDUCATION, INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR AND INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY IN A DEVELOPING SOCIETY: AN ATTEMPT IN MODEL CONSTRUCTION BY Krishna Kumar A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of persons and institutions have made it possible for me to pursue studies at the Department of Sociology at Michigan State University. I wish to acknowl- edge them. However, the following deserve special mention. My first debt of gratitude is to Professor Fred Waisanen, the Chairman of the Guidance Committee. It was as a visitor in his seminar on "Education and Moderniza- tion" that I became interested in this topic, and the present dissertation is but a culmination of that interest. His advice and encouragement have been of inestimable value. Professors Bo Anderson, Allen Beegle and Herbert Karp have helped to shape my thinking on modernization and social change. I have very much profited from their valu- able suggestions and criticisms at every stage of the study. I wish to record my gratitude to them for serving on my Guidance Committee and for their specific contribu- tions to the dissertation. I should be failing in my duty if I do not thank Professor Everett Rogers; I have learned a lot from his courses and writings. In fact, the data for this study were kindly provided by him. I am also thankful to my friends Raju, Mike and Gazal for their help. Finally, I thank the Ford Foundation, the Depart- ment of Sociology and the Center of Urban Affairs for their financial support. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O O O O O O O O O I O 0 ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'v Chapter I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O 1 Education and Individual Modernity . . . . 4 A Review of the Current Research . . . . . 7 The Objective of the Study . . . . . . . 19 II. THE MEANING OF INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY The Modern Society and Psychological Orientations . . . . . . . 23 The Concept of Modernity Syndrome . . . . 25 Components of the Modernity Syndrome . . . 28 Rationale for the Selection of the Modernity Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 III. EDUCATION AND MODERNITY: THE HYPOTHESIZED MODEL 0 I O O O O O O O I O I O O 36 The Components of the Model . . . . . . 36 Scope and Rationale . . . . . . . . . 38 IV. DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . 45 Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . 45 Operationalization of the Variables . . . . 46 Education . . . . . . . . . 46 Psychological Mobility . . . . . . . 47 Physical Mobility . . . . . . . . . 49 Innovative Behavior . . . . . . . . 49 Modernity . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . 53 Simple Cross Tables . . . . . . . . 55 Correlational Matrix . . . . . . . . 55 Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . 56 iv Chapter Page V. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . 59 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Discussion of the Findings . . . . . . . 64 VI. SOME RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS . 78 The Concept of Modernity . . . . . . . 78 Modern Values and Economic Behavior . . . . 84 Education and Individual Modernity . . . . 87 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . 90 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 9 8 LIST OF TABLES Relationship between educational attainment and mobility, innovative behavior and modernity . . . . . . . . . . . Zero order correlations between the relevant variables . . . . . . . . . . . Multi-variate repressions and partial correlations . . . . . . . . . . Correlations: education, psychological mobility, physical mobility, innovative behavior and the individual modernity variables . . . . . . . . . . . Regressions Regressions Regressions Regressions Regressions Regressions and partial and partial and partial and partial and partial and partial correlations. correlations correlations correlations correlations correlations vi Page 60 61 63 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Even among the intellectual circles which pride themselves on their objectivity, one hears the remark: “Education is the key to the modernization of traditional societies.” The remark looks casual, if not banal. And yet a little reflection would reveal that it is not without substance. Education is intimately related to the polity, economy and society; it profoundly affects their function- ing. Therefore the educational system of a country is bound to paly a crucial role in its modernization. The deveIOpmental experience of the last two decades goes to support the above assertion. Economists have begun to realize that economic deveIOpment is not a mere function of capital investment in the underdeveleped part of the world. It also requires continued supply of technical experts and qualified personnel. The develOping nations need trained scientists to conduct the surveys of their natural resources, and engineers to deveIOp technology suitable to their indigenous needs. They also need a vast army of managers, accountants, chemists, educationists and administrators. Factories cannot be built on conventional wisdom. Dams cannot be constructed in the absence of engineers, and bureaucratic structures cannot survive with- out trained administrators. No nation can totally depend upon the foreign expertise, much less the poor, impoverr ished nations constituting the third world. Realization of the importance of education and health has led economists to develop the notion of "invest— ment in man." Economists like Schultz, Becker and Myrdal insist that the expenditure on education and health should not be regarded as a consumption item but as a direct investment. Expansion of education accounts for the rise in national income. Some education is necessary not only for manning administrative and technical positions but also for the ordinary day to day activity. The commercialization of agriculture and expansion of industry necessitate ele- mentary knowledge of mathematics and some skills in read- ing and writing. Although, much can be learned by a person without going to the school, the role of formal education cannot be minimized. Political scientists View the modern educational system as a bare necessity for the integration of the new states. One serious problem encountered by the developing nations is the lack of national loyalties which transcend racial, parochial and linguistic considerations. Many of the nations in Asia and Africa are characterized by what the political scientist calls ”cultural fragmentation"; one notices sharp discontinuities among the different authority systems constituting the political culture. There is no established hierarchy among the different authority systems which automatically commands obedience. Under these circumstances, educational systems assume a critical role in political socialization. Political -. 1331.1] elites seek to inculcate specific political attitudes and dispositions through the medium of educational instructions. The general expectations from education with re- :3 gards to the recruitment to the ranks of political elites i are still higher, if not totally justified. The leadership in many developing societies has been provided by a small class of the Western educated people who had been able to exert influence upon the masses by virtue of their educa- tion. These leaders are under constant pressure to re- cruit new political elites from the younger, better edu- cated groups. If we have a broad definition of the political elites so as to include bureaucrats and civil servants, we can easily grasp the contribution of educa- tion in this regard. Thus we find that there has been a tremendous change in our approach toward education. It is no longer simply considered as a culture-preserving and culture- transmitting institution. It is also being looked upon as an initiator of social change. There is no dearth of studies that link education with political development or economic growth. In fact, the whole field is illuminated by the impressive contributions of a number of social scientists who have done intensive cross-cultural research. The focus of our study is limited; we do not ex- plore the relationship between education and modernization at the societal level. Our objective is to study the [7 effects of modern education on those values, attitudes and ways of acting which are usually associated with individual modernity. Thus we address ourselves to the seemingly BJ simplistic question whether education is a crucial modernizing agent in the individual lives of the people in developing societies. Education and Individual Modernity Let us briefly discuss the various ways in which education can promote individual modernity. The educational curriculum in a formal school setting is bound to promote new mental orientations and attitudes. Scientific knowledge and training at every level--primary, secondary and university--helps to gener- ate qualities associated with the modern man. Education shatters age-old beliefs, superstitions and myths. Even the rudimentary familiarity with physical sciences like chemistry, biology or physics may result in significant changes in the perceptions and perspectives of the people, eSpecially in traditional societies where extreme ignorance prevails. The mere knowledge that diseases are not caused by gods but by germs, is suffi- cient to make a crucial difference in the psychic environ- ment of a village boy; his faith in the wisdom of elders is shaken if not destroyed. Sociologists have argued that the real contribu- / tion of education lies not in the direct instruction but in school as a social experience; the formal organization of the school profoundly affects the personality of the pupil, and enables him to internalize values and orienta- tions necessary to function in the modern, complex, industrial societies. The school is the first formal organization with which a child comes into contact, and its social structure sharply differs from that of the family. The child is forced to shoulder some responsibili- ties in the school; he is accountable for his performance. His grades depend upon his own work. He has to compete with his fellow students both in classrooms and extra- curricular activities. Such conditions generate self- autonomy and achievement motivation. The formal structur- ing of the school, and emphasis on the reciprocity of rights and obligations may also be related to the capacity to empathize; the child learns to empathize about the role of others. The school is also supposed to imprint the need for universalistic standards by treating all students in a class equally; a teacher is not supposed to show any favoritism in the classroom. In a remarkable study, Dreeban (1968) has suggested that the norms of achieve- ment, universalism and specificity are internalized by children in the formal social structure of the school. It has been suggested that the contribution of school as a formal organization is likely to be greater in developing nations where the environment of the school contrasts sharply with the outside life. Often the school is the only formal organization in a village community, and hence its impact becomes more critical. Inkeles (1969, p. 213) has observed: If attending school brings about such substantial changes in these fundamental personal orientations, the school must be teaching a good deal more than is apparent in its syllabus on reading, writing, arithmetic, and even geography. The school is evi- dently also an important training ground for incul- cating values._ It teaches ways of orienting oneself towards others, and of conducting oneself, which would have important bearing on the perform- ance of one's adult roles in the structure of the modern society. These effects of the school, . . . reside not mainly in its formal, explicit, self- conscious pedagogic activity, but rather are in- herent in the school as an organization. The modernizing effects follow not from the school's curriculum, but rather from its informal, impli- cit, and often unconscious program for dealing with its young charges. We would however like to caution that both the curriculum and the organization of the school in traditional social systems may reflect and articulate the traditional norms and values, and under such conditions the modernizing effects of schooling would be little, if any. Education also provides us with certain skills which in turn make us more susceptible to modernizing influences. As a result of education, one comes into con- tact with newspapers, journals and books which diffuse new ideas and innovations. He is also in a better position to communicate with the people of modern aptitudes and orien- tations. In social systems where programs of planned social change are being carried out, the change agent tries to reach the educated segment first and then only the general pepulace. By Virtue of his education, a villager is able to visit urban areas and is thus further exposed to the urban influences. Thus education facili- tates physical and psychological mobility which in turn promote adoption of modern life-styles. Thus we find that education is closely related to individual modernity. There are a few studies which have examined this relationship and we prepose to briefly review them here. A Review of the Current Research The studies which have related education to demo- cratic values may be regarded as the forerunners of the present research works. One can cite a number of investi- gations like Janowitz and Marvic (1954), McClosky (1958), Campbell et;alt (1960) and White and Lippett (1960) in this regard. The focus of the investigations was not on the modernity but democratic values. But even then their indirect influence on the field and research methodology has been profound. So far as we know, Lerner (1958) was the first to articulate a model of modernization and explain the role of literacy in it. Although the concept of literacy is not identical with that of education, and his focus was H—E more on the society than the individual, he deserves the A full credit to put the problem in its proper perspective. Lerner views the secular evolution of the partici- j . . . . . iv pant soc1ety as 1nvolV1ng three distinct phases. The first is urbanization; the growth of modern cities, he argues, is imperative for the evolution of modern indus- trial societies. Then come literacy and mass media. Literacy provides necessary skills to the people to per- form the tasks required in the modern life. Literacy contributes to mass media which in turn accelerates it. And out of the interaction of literacy and mass media develOp institutions of participation which underlie the modern society. To quote him (1958, p. 61): Only cities require a largely literate population to function properly--for the organization of urban life assumes enough literacy to read labels, sign checks, ride subways. A population of illit- erate might learn that they are not to smoke and spit in the subway, or that the express trains run on the local tracks between 5 and 7 p.m. But the trial and error can be a wasteful societal pro- cedure. The primitive social function of literacy, as of all skills, is to train the skilled labor force with which the cities develop the industrial complex that produces commodities for cash custom— ers, including newspapers and radios and movies for mass consumers. . . . To spread consumption of urban products beyond the city limits, literacy is an efficient instrument. Lerner has also argued that literacy is more than mere skill fer reading and writing; it also enables one to engage in vicarious thinking. As a result of literacy, a person is able to re-think his role. Thus it is closely related to empathy which Lerner regards as the basic pre- disposition towards modernization on the individual level. Rogers' (1969) study of Colombian peasants has LJ been influenced by Lerner. As his data relate to the social and psychological characteristics of peasants and their innovative behavior, Rogers was in a position to examine the relationship between the functional literacy and other indicators of modernity like empathy, achieve- ment motivation, mass media exposure, cosmopoliteness, political knowledge, leadership and innovativeness. He noted a positive relationship, although it does not appear to be strong. He also compared his findings with a similar study in India, and found similarities in the results. It is important to observe that Rogers found significant variations on the effects of functional literacy on modernization variables in the various vil- lages he studied. As he (1969, pp. 93-92) observes: 10 Evidently the patterns of relationships of func- tional literacy to its correlates, although gener4 ally in a similar direction (either positive or negative), are subject to rather wide intercommunity variation. This point is an argument also, of course, for the priority of the extensive replica- tion of the present study in other underdeveloped nations (as was done in India) before its conclu- sions can be considered definitive. Nevertheless, the present work clearly indicates the importance of literacy as a variable in explaining many facets of modernization. One gains the general impression that literacy is of considerable importance in F? relation to other modernization variables. Rogers relied mainly on simple zero-order correlations. In spite of the fact that simple correlational matrix can L be misleading, his findings throw significant light on the k; contribution of literacy to modernity. Rogers has also emphasized that the modernity variables might have feed- back effects on functional literacy. In his monumental study of individual modernity, Inkeles (1969) found education to be the most significant influence which takes men away from traditionalism to modernity. It was more important than factory experience and urban environment as a modernizing force. Inkeles (1969, p. 212) observes: Both in zero-order correlations and in the more complex multivariate regression analysis, the amount of the formal schooling a man has had emerges as the single most powerful variable in determining his score on our measure. On the average, for every additional year a man spent in school he gains somewhere between two and three additional points on a scale of modernity scored from zero to 100. 11 Inkeles does not mention his findings in detail. In a footnote he only adds that the correlations between education and the over-all measure of modernity ranges from 0.34 in Pakistan to 0.65 in India. The size of these coefficients has been substantially affected by the spread of education in the sample. However, one point is obvious; there is a great deal of variation in the relationship between individual modernity and educational attainment from country to country. This fact suggests that the relationship between the two variables is mediated by a J! number of ecological, structural and economic factors in the social system. There is no uniform relationship which is valid for all societies. Nevertheless, Inkeles' find- ings serve to stress the role of education in promoting individual modernity. His has been the first study which analyzed this relationship not in terms of the different indicators of modernity but on the basis of an over-all scale of individual modernity; this gives his findings a decisive importance and weight in any discussion on the subject. The data collected by Inkeles and his associates for Pakistan.wereanalyzed by Schuman et a1. (1967) with a View to study the social psychological effects and non-effects of literacy. One feature of this study is that it also seeks to take into consideration two other variables, i.e. occupations and occupational setting. 12 Thus it compares the effects of literacy on cultivators and factory workers; the former live in villages while the latter in urban surroundings. The findings unmistakenly show that literacy is not related to all modern orienta- tions. It was found to be positively related to national identity, aspirations for education and innovativeness but ' rah it had no perceptible effects on the orientation to physi- i cal mobility, awareness of the differences in opionins and the belief that one's productivity would benefit oneself. i Again it showed some favorable influence on radio" a; listening, belief in the efficacy of science and the knowledge of the modern innovations but had no effects on the attitude towards family planning, and worldly renuncia- tion. One interesting finding was that more illiterates than literates thought that the possession of material goods made one happier; this applied both to cultivators and industrial workers. The study also revealed the influence of the working environment on the attitudes and orientations of the people. Schuman et a1. (1967, p. 11) explain their findings in the following way: Since literacy specifically, and education more generally, open a man's mind to new ideas, they can change those of his attitudes which are little dependent on his concrete social situation. Where the social setting itself is changing, the more literate man will be quicker to perceive the change and will find it easier to redefine his belief in ways that fit his new needs and interests. But important as literacy is as a variable, it does not enter into every instance of systematic psy- chological variation. 13 In the above mentioned study, "literacy and education were more or less interchangeable,‘ and in that sense the above findings relate not only to literacy but also to formal education. Thus we can also say that formal education is related to certain correlates of modernity and not related to others. One hypothesis which has been forcefully suggested by Inkeles (1969) and Schuman et al. (1967), and supported by Waisanen (1971) is that the school plays a critical role in modernization not merely in terms of the contents of the educational curriculum but also as a social experience. However, none of these studies provided any direct evidence for this assertion in terms of their concrete findings. It was left to Armer and Youtz (1971) to test the hypothesis in their study of the impact of Western education on modern attitudes and orientations among Nigerian youth. They com- pared the students in Western secular schools and Koranic schools on a scale of modernity; the curriculum contents of the former reflected modern knowledge and values while of the latter traditional wisdom and religious beliefs. Their basic argument was that if the structural effects of the school were more important than the curriculum con- tents, then the modern attitudes and orientations would also result from the formal education in the non-modern schools; on the other hand, if the curriculum were important, there would be differences in the 14 student—products of these two types of educational insti- tutions. The findings showed marked differences; while the relationship between education and modernity was posi- tive and linear in the case of modern schools, a tendency was found for education to be negatively related to modernity at the secondary levels in Koranic schools. A further test of the curriculum effects was made by comparing the degree of modernity among students from different types of schools: (1) Secondary Grammar schools, (2) Teachers-Training colleges, and (3) vocational schools including technical and agricultural institutions. The social organization of these schools is identical but there exist great variations in the curriculum—content. The results again illustrate the importance of the cur- riculum. Armer and Youtz (1971, p. 621) noted signifi- cant differences in the relative proportions of the more mrdern respondents in these schools. "96.7 percent of those with secondary grammar school education score high on modernity, compared with approximately 79.2 percent of those with teachers-training experience and 64.3 percent of those with other types of secondary—level education." They con- clude: Of course, this evidence is far from definitive because of the possibility of the selective recruitment to the different types of schools. But taken in combination with the previous re- sults, these data offer consistent, preliminary support for the suggestion that the curriculum may be more effective in producing differences 15 in psychological modernity than is the formal organization of the school (1971, p. 621). To be sure, this does not refute Inkeles' thesis. Neither Inkeles nor Waisanen denies the importance of the cur— riculum. However, this study does show that curriculum- contents may be crucial as far as the impact of education on modernity is concerned. Other findings of Armer and Youtz go to support Schuman's (1967) conclusion that the effect of education is selective. It had definite effects on independence from the family, empiricism and futurism but its impact on secularism, women's equality and receptivity to change was irregular and negligible. One of the most comprehensive cross-cultural research on the effects of formal education on the various indicators of modernity has been undertaken by Waisanen and Kumata (l972). This study utilizes data from five nations which rank at various points on the national modernity continuum. The findings are significant, if not spectacular. In practically all the nations, the six indicators of individual modernity (satisfaction, innova- tiveness, efficacy, magazine reading, authoritarianism and organizational membership) were found to be positively related to education; however, this relationship is not monotonic. It is curvilinear in the sense that a take-off stage can be discerned in the case of each indicator of 16 modernity for all the countries in the sample. Yet this take-off point is not the same for all indicators of modernity; it shows considerable variation. On the whole, findings lend considerable support to the notion of the curvillinearity of relationship between education and modernity. Even more crucial is the finding which shows that TIE "as the level of socio-economic development increases, i the point of rapid acceleration in the relational curve occurs later in the formal educational experience." In .-V other words, the study shows that education is more effec- EJ tive in generating modernity configurations in less developed nations than in the developed ones. One simple explanation which occurs to us is that in more modernized societies, a child is exposed to a wide variety of modernizing influences. Mass media and community organi- zations assume significant responsibilities in inculcating modern values and norms; this does not happen in tradi- tional societies. Besides, the structure of the family also differs between traditional and modern societies. Our explanation of course is at best speculative and needs to be tested on the basis of more comprehensive data and more elaborate research designs. There are a number of studies that have specifi- cally examined the relationship between educational I attainment and the various indicators of individual 17 modernity like innovativeness, achievement motivation and political attitudes. As the number of such studies is very large, it remains out of the pale of practical politics to discuss them here. We can draw certain tentative conclusions from the above review of the literature. We find that all the studies have reported some relationship between education fr? and individual modernity. It has been noted when the dif- ferent indicators of modernity were analyzed separately as well as when a total index was constructed. One can ‘ .3 even generalize on the basis of these studies and investi- i gations that education contributes to the individual modernity. However, the relationship is not uniform as regards all the indicators of the modernity. Some vari- ables seem to be more closely related to educational attainment than others. This raises some critical issues. One can ask the question: If education is related to only a few indicators and has no effects on others, is it reasonable to say that the education is related to the modernity syndrome as a whole? Thus if education is related to A, B, C, and D and not with E, F, G, and H, and all these variables are the components of the modernity syndrome, are we justified in saying that edu- cation contributes to individual modernity in a signifi- cant way? The second issue relates to why education 18 makes impact on certain orientations and not on others. These issues are indeed difficult to resolve, and we can only hepe that rigorous theoretical exploration and empirical research may provide meaningful answers to them. The effect of education seems to vary from region to region and country to country. There is nothing sur- prising about this finding, for we can reasonably assume that the impact of education would be dependent upon a number of factors present in the social system. And yet, it advises us to be a little more cautious in our general- izations; these studies stress at least the importance of conducting many more research investigations in different social settings and countries. One serious limitation of these studies needs to be noted; they were not conducted within a viable theo- retical framework. Except for Waisanen (1969), none has bothered to find out if the effects of education are direct or are mediated by some variables. There is every reason to believe that the effects of educational attainment in the case of adult population may be indirect. For example, in a develOping society where change agent contact plays an important role in the diffusion of innovations, it is quite likely that the educated segment would be benefited more than the non-educated one for the simple reason that the change agent finds it more convenient to approach it. Under these circumstances, the educated group may adopt 19 modern innovations which in turn affect its attitudes and orientations. If this is the case, then we have every justification to treat change agent contact as the inter— vening variable in our scheme. The other example can be given of the physical mobility. Because an educated person is in a better position to visit urban areas, he may internalize some of the attitudes and values associated with the modernity syndrome. What we wish to suggest is that we cannot postulate a simple and direct relationship in all the cases; it is necessary to take into considera- tion some intervening variables which may affect it. The Objective of the Study The proposed study would be an attempt in the direction of exploring the complex relationship between education and individual modernity. The setting of the study is India which is on the threshold of an agricultural revolution and also indigenous industrialization. The study would be confined to the agricultural sector of the rural India. There are various reasons for our preference. In the first place, about 80 per cent of the Indian population lives in villages, and the majority of them depend upon agriculture as a means of their live- lihood. Thus the place of agriculturists in Indian life is pivotal. Most of them are the subsistence farmers and the future of modernization depends upon their responses 20 to the challenge of development. The Government has also introduced programs of the planned social change in these villages to facilitate the adoption of innovations and diffusion of modern ideas. Second, in urban areas, there are a variety of modernizing influences including the factory experience, modern communication system and organized political activity. But this is not so in the rural areas. And hence, it is more likely, as the find- ings of Waisanen and Kumata (1972) indirectly indicate, the effect of education on modernity would be greater and more meaningful. Third, while we have some data from Inkeles (1969) about the relationship between education and individual modernity for a cross-section of the popu- lation, we did not find any research on the impact of education on the modernization of farmers. Our present data relate to 675 respondents in eight villages of India. These villages were scattered in three important states. / // " There are certain specific features of our study which distinguish it from the earlier researches in this field, and deserve to be mentioned here. In the first place, we propose to explore the relationship between education and individual modernity within a theoretical framework. We shall present a con- ceptual model for the hypothesized relationship, and test it on the basis of the data. 21 Second, we shall be constructing a scale of modernity, and prepose to study the effects of education on the basis of one's performance on this scale. In this respect, our study would have more in common with Inkeles (1969) and Armer and Youtz (1971) than with the rest of the researchers cited earlier. This does not exclude the possibility of analyzing the different components of modernity separately for further elaboration and clarifi- cation. Third, and importantly, we shall make a broad dis- tinction between behavioral and attitudinal modernity. This distinction is significant because we believe that education as a facility would be more related to inno- vative behavior, while the education as a generator of the modern attitudes and orientations would likely show greater impact on psychological modernity. In other words, we wish to test the hypothesis if education equally affects both the dimensions of individual modernity. The remainder of this dissertation is organized as follows. The second chapter is devoted to the explana- tion of the concept of individual modernity and its various social and psychological correlates. The hypoth- esized model about the relationship between education and modernity along with its rationale will be presented in the third chapter. The fourth chapter deals with the research methodology for this study. Our findings are 22 presented in the fifth chapter. The sixth chapter examines some theoretical implications of our findings in the area of modernization. Then the last chapter presents a brief summary of the dissertation. CHAPTER II THE MEANING OF INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY The concept of individual modernity continues to bristle with controversies. In spite of the impressive cross-cultural research transcending disciplinary bound- aries, no social scientist can claim that the concept is totally free from the ethnocentric biases and that its underlying assumptions are not questionable. However, for our present purposes, we shall avoid any critical reference to it, and shall be content with a brief pre- sentation of the dominant VieWpoint. The Modern Society and Psychological - OrIEntations The contemporary industrial society can be viewed as a distinctive epoch in human civilization. It displays a number of attributes and structures which are unique to it. One also discerns some "universals" among the dif- ferent industrial nations irrespective of their political ideologies and social systems. The distinctive feature of the modern society is the application of science and technology to the produc— tive processes which has generated far reaching changes in its structure and functioning. Technology has 23 24 contributed to the emergence of large scale economic organ- izations. The family no longer remains a unit for economic activity in the industrialized nations of the world. The growth of large scale productive units has necessitated the concentration of the working population in large towns and cities. In fact, the rapid advances in communication and transport systems continue to erode the crucial differences between the rural and urban life styles. The anonymity of the city life leads to the breakdown of the traditional means of social control and their substitution by formal ones. The state has also emerged as a vast monolithic bureaucratic structure commanding universal loyalty and obedience within its territory. It has assumed the power to influence almost every arena of human life. There is a proliferation of political organizations and institutions. One distinct consequence of this development has been the increased participation and involvement of the citizen in political processes. The nature of this participation may vary from society to society, but its presence cannot be denied. One witnesses increased political mobility and the erosion of ascriptive status and privileges. The industrial society needs a wide variety of skills and levels of performance. As a result, there is a continual expansion of educational opportunities. The distribution of prestige, of income, and of power become 25 more egalitarian and just. Mass media cater to the bulk of the population and shape their thinking. The modern society also proVides a high standard of living to its population. Social scientists believe that these "universals" or "commonalities" of the modern society are associated with the values, attitudes and behaviors of the people living in them. Since there is a constant interplay between the personality system and social system, one can reasonably speak of mental orientations and behavioral styles which are common to the inhabitants of the modern society and which distinguish a modern man from a tradi— tional one. The concept of individual modernity has been designed to sensitize the common psychological traits and attributes of the peeple living in modern, industrial societies. The Concept of Modernity Syndrome On the basisaof the above discussion, we can define individual modernity as a complex, personality syndrome embracing a wide gamut of attitudes, values and ways of acting which are related to the functioning of a modern, industrial society. There are a number of studies that have contributed to the development and refinement of the notions of modernity and modern man. Lerner (1958), Inkeles (1960, 1966, 1967), Smith and Inkeles (1966), 26 Dawson (1967), Kahl (1968), Rogers (1969), Doob (1967) and Waisanen (1969) are a few studies that deserve to be mentioned here. Most of them have not only developed ideas conceptually but have also validated them on the /. basis of empirical research. //// There seems to exist a great deal of unanimity among the social scientists about the specific contents of the modernity syndrome. Even though they have used different words to sensitize the same concepts, a number of commonly used variables can be easily specified. In his study of the Middle East Lerner (1958) used empathy as the most crucial variable underlying modernization process. Kahl (1968) has included activism, low integra- tion with relatives, preference for urban life, individ- ualism, low community stratification, mass media partici- pation and low stratification of life chances as the core values of modernism syndrome. Rogers (1969) has employed nine variables to study modernization among the Colombian peasants; these are literacy, mass media exposure, cosmopoliteness, empathy, achievement motivation, fatalism, innovativeness, political knowledge, and aspirations. On the basis of his cross-cultural study, Inkeles (1969, p. 210) regards the following personal qualities as central to the theoretical conception of the modern man: (1) Openness to new experience, . . . (2) the assertion of increasing independence from the authority of the traditional figures like parents and priests and a shift of allegiance to the 27 leaders of the government, public figures, trade unions, cooperatives, and the like; (3) belief in the efficacy of the science and medicine, and a general abandonment of the passivity and fatalism in the face of life's difficulties; and (4) ambition for oneself and one's children to achieve higher occupational and educational goals. Men who mani- fest these characteristics (5) like people to be on time and show an interest in carefully planning their affairs in advance. This is also a part of this syndrome to (6) show strong interest and take an active part in civic and community affairs and local politics; and (7) to strive energetically to keep up with the news, and within their efforts to prefer news of national and international importance over items dealing with sports, religion, or purely local affairs. The above variables are not treated as separate but as interrelated and interdependent variables in the J current literature and research. In fact, the very con- cept of the modernity syndrome rests on the assumption that the variables show an organic relationship as to constitute a syndrome. Social scientists have made this assumption quite explicit. Inkeles (1967), for example, observes: "It is one of the fundamental assumptions of our research that these qualities indeed cohere, that they are a syndrome and that people who have one trait will also manifest others." He insists that his findings have justified this assumption; the modern man is not a mere theoretical con— struct but also an empirical reality. Rogers (1969) also implies a close interdependence of what he calls "moderni- zation variables." His notion of modernity is based on his conceptualizations about the subculture of peasantry 28 and this makes his position unambiguous in this regard. Kahl (1968) is also positive that a person who scores high on some values of modernism will also score high on the others, although there is some scope for variation. Components of the Modernity Syndrome Let us discuss rather briefly some of the com- ponents of the modernity syndrome here. The first is innovativeness which has been defined by Rogers (1969, p. 294) as "the degree to which an indi- vidual is ready to adopt new ideas, relative to others in his social system." Thus a modern man is innovative, and is willing to change his beliefs, attitudes and ways of acting in response to new challenges and developments. Innovativeness, it has been argued, has contributed to the change in material conditions in the developed nations, and still continues to raise their‘standard of life and performance. The readiness to change on the part of the modern man is not confined to one area but extends to his entire life; he prefers change in home, work and even leisure. Empathy has been closely associated with innova- tiveness. It refers to the actor's capacity to adjust his self-system to the changing environment. An empathic w—‘q. a 29 person is able to project himself in many roles. Thus man's receptivity to new ideas depends upon one's capacity to empathize. Lerner (1958, pp. 49—50) who deserves the credit for popularizing the concept, explains: We are interested in empathy as inner mechanism which enables newly mobile persons to operate efficiently in a changing world. Empathy, to simplify the matter, is the capacity to see one- self in the other fellow's situation. This is an indispensable skill for people moving out of traditional settings. Inkeles (1966) has suggested that empathy contri— butes to the willingness to form or hold opinions on a variety of issues. The traditional man, he thinks, takes interest in fewer things, mainly those which touch him immediately and directly. But not the modern man. As a result of his capacity to empathize, he shows a great awareness of the diversitycfifopinions and attitudes around him. Lerger (1958) in Middle East, Eister (1962) in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh),Frey (1964) in Turkey, Rao (1963) in India, Whiting (1967) in Brazil and Rogers (1969) in Colombia have found empathy related to certain aspects of individual modernity. The self perceived autonomy has been also regarded as an attribute of the modern man. The modern man does not regard himself as the slave of his environment. He believes that he can manipulate it to suit his purposes and goals. As a result, he evinces faith in the capacity of science 2 ins-131' 30 and technology. The less modern man is fatalistic. The literature on peasantry provides enough evidence for the widespread assertion that peasants do not show any aware- ness of their capacities to change their hostile environ- ment. Achievement motivation occupies a significant place in the modernity syndrome. It has been defined by McClelland (1966, p. 76) as "the desire to do well, not so much for the sake of social recognition or prestige, but to attain an inner feeling of accomplishment." To McClelland goes the full credit for explaining the rise and fall of empires or nations in terms of achievement motivation. A nation rises when its population possesses high achievement motivation. The traditional man is supposed to rank low on the scale of achievement; he is short of ambition to rise and succeed. This contributes to his poverty as well as the backwardness of his society. Achievement motivation is acquired as a result of child rearing practices. However, McClelland and Winter (1969) have recently noted that with proper training, the level of n ach can be raised among the adult population which may result in rapid economic development. Planning orientation is yet another attribute of the modern man. As Inkeles (1966, p. 143) puts it, "The more modern man is oriented toward and involved in planning 31 and organizing and believes in it as a way of handling life." He is also punctual, regular and orderly in organiz- ing his affairs. He is oriented towards the future rather than the past. Inkeles (1966) insists that the time-consciousness has not much to do with living in modern industrial socie- ties. Maya Indians had a better sense of time than their Spanish conquerors. People can live in traditional social systems, and show amazing capacity for purposeful planning. The modern man displays inter-personal trust. He believes that the persons and institutions around him can be relied on to fulfill their obligations. The life in modern societies is impossible without such an assumption. But the traditional man harbors an obsessive distrust of others; he is suspicious of their real intensions. Foster (1967, p. 91) observes with regard to the Mexican peasants, "So deep is the suspicion and mistrust of others it is difficult for peOple to believe that no hidden mean- ing underlies even the most casual acts." The modern man displays reasonable mass media credibility. He is exposed to mass media and forms his opinion on its basis. In fact, the exposure to mass media is regarded as a crucial factor in changing his traditional attitudes and orientations. The less modern man is often distrustful of an impersonal communication network and relies on the personal word. Communication experts often 32 categorize social systems as traditional and modern on the basis of the communication systems prevalent there. We would simply add that the mass media credibility is primarily a function of the media exposure. It need not be regarded as a basic psycholOgical orientation as some social scientists appear to do. Secular orientation can be regarded as the dis- tinctive trait of the modern man; all observers agree that his world view is relatively secular. He looks to this world and justifies his behavior with reference to it. Unlike the traditional man, his life is not governed by sacred beliefs, superstitions and irrational religious obligations. Crudely speaking, the march of the history has been from the sacred to the secular. No doubt, the modern man has his own superstitions and religious dogmas, but their role in his total life is limited. Often he rationalizes them in secular language. We view secular orientation as a distinct characteristic of the modernity syndrome. The above list is hardly exhaustive. Yet it explains all the important variables which are generally associated with the modernity syndrome. Rationale for the Selection of the ModernityfVariables It also needs to be mentioned here that the selec- tion of the specific variables constituting the modernity 33 syndrome is not arbitrary or casual. It is based on the supposed relationship of these variables with the moderniza- tion at the societal level. In the first place, those values, attitudes and orientations which have contributed to the emergence of modern society, are somehow included in the syndrome. A// number of social scientists contend that changes in values are preconditions for development. McClelland (1961) has argued that achievement motivation is the basic personality characteristic which sheds light on the rise and fall of nations. Economic development begins when people become achievement-oriented, as such people show their creative talents in business entrepreneurship. Hagen (1962) believes that modernization takes place as a result of the emergence of innovative personalities; when womenfolk of a social strata which has fallen from its earlier high social status begin to rear their male children with love, under- standing and ambitions, they help to nurture a new breed of innovative individuals who put their backward societies on the path of progress and prosperity. There are several other conceptualizations and studies that can be mentioned here. However, the main point to note is that several variables like achievement motivation, innovativeness or efficacy are generally included in the modernity syndrome in pursuance of this line of reasoning. 34 In the second place, some social—psychological orientations are regarded as a consequence of one's par- ticipation in the modern industrial society and are there- fore included as components of the individual modernity. The mere functioning in a modern society generates a new set of attitudes, values and orientations which are at variance from those prevailing in non—industrial socie- ties. Science and technology contribute to the seculari- zation of the individual life. Interpersonal relations and social mobiltiy are likely to make one prone to change. EXposure to mass media affects one's capacity to empathize. Thus those values, and psychological orientations which are regarded as the product of social modernization, are in- cluded under the general name of "individual modernity." It may be of interest to note here that Inkeles (1967) developed his list of modern values and attitudes with reference to the demands or requirements of running a factory. His reasoning is as follows: Factory is the most distinctive feature of a modern society. Industrial- ization is the cherished goal of all nations irrespective of their ideological commitments. Therefore, if one selects variables with reference to the modern factory life, one cannot be accused of any ethnocentricism. He therefore classified those qualities which are likely to be inculcated by participation in a modern factory or which may be required in the staff if it is to function 35 effectively and efficiently, as the modern ones. All the initial themes included in his questionnaire were supposed to fulfill this criterion. This brings to an end our discussion of individual modernity. We shall be treating individual modernity as a syndrome and shall be using most of the variables men— tioned above in the construction of the scale of modernity. CHAPTER III EDUCATION AND MODERNITY: THE HYPOTHESIZED MODEL The main objective of the present chapter is to explain the hypothesized model concerning the relationship between education and individual modernity, and state its rationale. The Components of the Model The model has five components which show direct and indirect relationship between education and modernity. The first component is the educational attainment of the individual which has been treated as an independent variable. The second and third components are psychic mobility and physical mobility. The model postulates that education is directly related to them, and this rela- tionship is unidirectional. The two types of mobility also affect each other. Innovative behavior is the fourth component. The model stipulates both a direct and indirect relationship between education and innovative behavior. Psychic 36 37 .HmUOE Ummflmmnuomwn one umpflcumpoa Ucm coflpMOSoMII.H musmflm MBHQHmOE .N:& a z wBHzme021A AWMOH>OZZHAH 7 é -wquHmo: .wmm ZOHBuwcum©oz mcoflum>occH mcoflum>occH muflaflnoz muflawnoz 5mm: 30A swam 30A nmflm 30A .wpflcumoOE cam uofl>mnmn m>flpm>occfi .mvflaflnos cam ucmfiswmupm Hm:0flumosow cwaumn mflcmcofiamamm!lflm mamda 61 . .41.th m. WW" o.H suncumeoz ma. o.H .cmm .ccH om. om. o.H .boz .snm mm. as. am. o.H .noz .smm ma. mm. mm. Nv. o.H coflpmospm muflcumcoz .me .ccH .Qoz .%3m .30: .wmm coflumosom .mQHQmHHM> #CMNVQHOH 05¢ fiQQkfivGQ mCOflfiwHOHHOU HOUHO OHONII.NIm M‘Hmdfi 62 correlation between education and psychological mobility is higher as compared to between education and innovative behavior. However, the findings in Table 5-2 do not seem to be in full accord with those of Table 5-1; the correla- tion matrix suggests that education has closer assOciation with innovativeness as compared to modernity while Chi Square data indicate just the opposite sequence. The third set of findings come as a near disaster; they tell us a totally different story. Table 5-3 pre- sents three sets of regressions and partial correlations. fl The first set shows that the psychological mobility, physical mobility and innovative behavior have no relation- ship with modernity; even the relationship between education. and modernity becomes extremely weak having no predictive value. The second set also suggests that education, physical mobility and modernity do not contribute to innovative behavior in any meaningful way, although a close relationship does exist between psychological mobility and innovative behavior. The last set removes any lingering doubt about any association between innovative behavior and individual modernity. Thus the multiple regression shows that the association between the different variables was spurious, and the hypothesized model has little or no scientific validity. 63 TABLE 5-3.--Mu1ti—variate repressions and partial correlations. Variable Beta Weight Part. Corr. Sig. 1. Linear Regression treating Modernity as dependent variable and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Innovative Behavior as independent variables. Education .1075 .1000 .009 FRI Psy. Mob. .0769 .0590 .121 Phy. Mob. .0990 .0858 .024 a Inn. Beh. .0927 .0842 .027 5 . 2. Linear Regression Treating Innovative Behavior as LJ dependent and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Modernity as independent variables. Education .0585 .0601 .114 Psy. Mob. .4035 .3409 .0005 Phy. Mob. .0517 .0493 .197 Modernity .0769 .0842 .027 3. Linear Regression treating Innovative Behavior as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility and Physical Mobility as independent variables. A Education .0672 .0691 .069 Psy. Mob. .4123 .3477 .0005 Phy. Mob. .0597 .0569 .135 64 Under these circumstances, we thought it to be desirable to treat the different components of our index of modernity individually and then explore the relationship. Table 5-4 presents a zero order correlations between the different components of the model when we substitute a defining concept for the scale of modernity. Tables 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 present two sets of regres- h1 sions and partial correlations between the four components of the model and secular orientation, self-autonomy, achievement motivation, deferred gratification, inter- :3 personal trust and empathy. As is evident, this did not clear the picture. Thus the findings provide no support to the hypothesized model. The model was based on the assumption that close association existed between education and modernity, and it attempted to identify the direct and indirect paths. Since this assumption was not met in the case of our data, the model makes no sense. Discussion of the Findings How can we explain the results? We have no precise ' answer. Besides, all explanations at this stage are bound to be speculative; we cannot provide empirical support from the data in their favor. However, we think that there TABLE 5-4.--Correlations: 65 education, psychological mobility, physical mobility, innovative behavior and the individual modernity variables. 1 2 3 4 (1) Education - - - — (2) Psychological Mobility .42 - - - (3) Physical Mobility .28 .54 - - (4) Innovative Behavior .26 .47 .30 — (5a) Secular Orientation .21 .26 .15 .26 (5b) Self-Autonomy .10 .09 .01 .12 (5c) Achievement Motivation -.06 .02 .ll .01 (5d) Deferred Gratification .06 .00 .06 -.03 (5e) Interpersonal Trust .00 .02 .04 .03 (5f) Empathy .20 .20 .20 .07 66 TABLE 5-5.--Regressions and partial correlations. Variable Beta Weights Part. Corr. Sig. l. Secular orientation as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Innovative Behavior as independent variables. Education .1086 .1027 .007 Psy. Mob. .1333 .1034 .007 Phy. Mob. -.0087 -.0077 .131 Inn. Beh. .1744 .1593 .0005 2. Innovative Behavior as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility, and Secular orientation as independent variables. Education .0497 .0515 .178 Psy. Mob. .3824 .3250 .0005 Phy. Mob. .0595 .0574 .131 Sec-Orien. .1455 .1593 .0005 rag-5' 67 TABLE 5-6.--Regressions and partial correlations. Variable Beta Weights Part. Corr. Sig. l. Self-Autonomy as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility, and Innovative Behavior as independent variables. Education .0733 .0668 .079 [7‘ Psy. Mob. .0507 .0379 .326 Phy. Mob. -.0696 -.0588 .122 Inn. Beh. .1075 .0951 .013 i- 2. Innovative Behavior as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility, and Self— Autonomy as independent variables. Education .0604 .0623 .102 Psy. Mob. .4043 .3423 .0005 Phy. Mob. .0650 .0622 .102 Self-Auto. .0841 .0941 .013 68 TABLE 5-7.--Regressions and partial correlations. Variable Beta Weights Par. Corr. Sig. 1. Achievement Motivation as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Innovative Behavior as independent variables. Education -.0939 -.0852 .025 Psy. Mob. -.0212 -.0157 .685 Phy. Mob. .1423 .1195 .002 Inn. Beh. .0047 .0042 .878 2. Innovative Behavior as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Achievement Motivation as independent variables. Education .0676 .0692 .069 Psy. Mob. .4124 .3478 .0005 Phy. Mob. .0592 .0560 .141 Ach. Mot. .0037 .0042 .878 69 TABLE 5-8.-—Regressions and partial correlations. Variable Beta Weights Part. Corr. Sig. 1. Deferred Gratification as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility, and Innovative Behavior as independent variables. Education .0728 .0658 .083 Psy. Mob. -.0531 -.0395 .306 Phy. Mob. .0871 .0730 .055 Inn. Beh. -.0492 —.0434 .259 2. Innovative Behavior as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Deferred Gratification as independent variables. Education .0699 .0717 .059 Psy. Mob. .4095 .3453 .0005 Phy. Mob. .0629 .0599 .115 Def. Gra. -.0382 -.0434 .259 70 TABLE 5-9.-—Regressions and partial correlations. Variable Beta Weights Part. Corr. Sig. l. Interpersonal Trust as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Innovative Behavior as independent variables. Education -.0069 -.0062 .845 Psy. Mob. -.0185 -.0137 .720 Phy. Mob. .0418 .0350 .367 Inn. Beh. .0330 .0290 .454 2. Innovative Behavior as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Inter- personal Trust as independent variables. Education .0673 .0692 .068 Psy. Mob. .4124 .3480 .0005 Phy. Mob. .0586 .0559 .143 Interp. Trust .0254 .0290 .454 71 TABLE 5-10.--Regressions and partial correlations. Variable Beta Weights Part. Corr. Sig. l. Empathy as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Innovative Behavior as independent variables. Education .1363 .1265 .001 Psy. Mob. .0917 .0702 .065 Phy. Mob. .1370 .1181 .002 Inn. Beh. ' -.0510 -.0463 .227 2. Innovative Behavior as dependent, and Education, Psychological Mobility, Physical Mobility and Empathy as independent variables. Education .0728 .0743 .051 Psy. Mob. .4153 .3498 .0005 Phy. Mob. .0654 .0619 .103 Empathy -.0421 -.0463 .227 72 have been a few factors which collectively shed some light on the unexpected findings. First, this study dealt with the heads of house- holds, and not the young population. A perusal of the data showed that about 72 per cent of our respondents were more than 30 years old, and another 18 per cent were between 25 to 30 years. Thus it follows that the most of our respondents went to school fifteen to twenty years ago. One would then have to look at then prevailing state of affairs of education, especially at the elementary and secondary levels, to interpret our findings in their proper perspective. All observers agree that the primary and secondary education is in a highly unsatisfactory state in India. The conditions were definitely worse in the past. The lack of resources, nonavailability of trained teachers, indif- ference of the local authorities and the general poverty of the masses contributed to the prevalence of a highly ineffective and inefficient educational system. Let us describe a typical village school as it used to function in most of the villages. Often, it consisted of a teacher and forty to fifty students of diverse back- grounds. Most of the schools had only one large room and were not in a position to provide facilities for recreation and games. The teacher had little formal education and practically no training. The lack of space and the paucity 73 of teaching staff prevented any rational organization of classes. Since the teacher was unable to cope with all the work, the senior students would teach the junior ones. The school discipline was maintained on the threat and use of corporal punishment. There were no well defined criteria for evaluation and performance; it was left to the arbitrary judgment of the teacher to promote a student from one class to another. The attendance in these schools was hardly regular. The general atmosphere being far from pleasant, the student would utilize every opportunity to avoid it. And when the family required an extra hand at the farm or home, school attendance was the first casuality. The curriculum contents of these schools did not necessarily articulate modern values and norms. Good text books were generally scarce, and there was a great emphasis on memorizing at the primary school level. Often the teacher himself reflected the traditional values and age-old prejudices of a peasant society; the difference was at best marginal between him and the proverbial peasant. The above description should not give the impression that all the schools were functioning on this pattern. The conditions were definitely better in the middle and high schools. Urban schools had more access to the physical and human resources. Since our respondents have come from the ‘m.‘ 74 villages, and most of them did not go to post-primary schools, we have every reason to assume that they were the products of typical village schools as described above. Under these circumstances, the modernizing effects of formal education are bound to be extremely limited. Neither the school organization nor the curriculum content promoted modern values and attitudes. These schools were unsuitable for such pruposes. We would suspect that if we had used data from urban areas to test the model, the findings might have been different.* The second factor which might have affected our findings is the long time interval between the formal education and the interviews. While we have no direct data, we can infer from the age of our respondents and the level of their educational attainment that most of them left schools at least fifteen to twenty years ago. This long interval might have eroded some modernizing effects of formal education. The respondents have been living in the village environment since their birth, and therefore we can well visualize as how it would have affected their attitudes and values learned in the school. Schuman et a1. (1967) also realized the effect of this factor in their study. They observe: * Inkeles (1969) studied relatively younger pOpula- tions and his data were drawn from both rural and urban areas. This may perhaps account for the difference between the findings. 75 Our results suggest that early education as such may play a small role, especially since the primary schooling of most of the men studied were restricted in amount and occurred some ten to fifteen years previous to the interviewing. There is reason to believe that unless the norms and attitudes learned in the school are reinforced in one's occupational and community environment, they would be gradually lost. The third factor which we would like to mention is the low percentage of those who had relatively high levels of education. Our data suggests that only 13 per cent in our sample have had more than eight years of education, and 58 per cent had less than eight years of education. This fact is understandable since we have been dealing with the rural pOpulation in an underdeveloped country. The general level of education being low, our data were the best we could expect in Indian society. But it might have affected the correlational and regression tables. We were aware of this unavoidable methodological limitation and therefore calculated cross-tables to compare our results. In fact, the cross-tables show closer relation- ship between education and modernity than do the coeffi- cients of correlations and multivariate regressions. The above factors, we believe, partly go to explain our findings in this study. 76 However, we confess that our assumptions concerning the relationships between the various variables were rather simplistic and shaky. We took many hypotheses suggested by earlier researchers as proved facts. We did not doubt the validity of the generalizations put forward by the diffusion experts. We also overlooked a number of research findings which went to prove to the contrary.* A more careful analysis showed that not only a number of researchers did not note the hypothesized relationship but also that even in the cases where it was regarded as * There are a number of studies that can be cited in this regard. We shall mention a few by way of illustra— tion. Ross (1968) in his study of Turkey concluded that education has very slow effects on change in one's attitudes and orientations. Gouveia (1967) found that the level of education did not show significant effects on the religious orientations of the school teachers in Brazil. Two experi- mental studies of the effects of literacy training on social psychological correlates of modernity, one in Brazil by Herzog (1967) and the other in India by Kivlin et a1. (1968) did not find significant difference in the psychological traits of the respondents. Several studies in India like Barnabas (1957), Dasgupta (1966), Jain (1963), Junghare and Rao (1963), Rao (1966), Reddy and Kivlin (1968), Singh and Pardasani (1967), and Verma (1966) did not note any relationship between educational attainment and the adoption of innovations. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) who have content analyzed 203 studies have noted that about 36 per cent of them do not give support to the hypothesis of the relationship between education and adoption innovations. Fett (1971) found that education has little or no effect on radio listening. Frey (1966) found that the mass media had greater effects on the illiterate than literate male listeners in Turkey. Fliegel (1966) found that neither literacy nor education was related to farm education pro- grams among the Brazilian peasants. Brown (1968) found that the knowledge gain was higher for illiterates than for the literate farmers. Illiterates often made others read to them from information circulars. Salazar (1970) has also noted the similar phenomenon. 77 as positive and strong, the association was actually weak and insignificant. We shall conclude this chapter by saying that our findings should not be regarded as definitive. The poor quality of schools, the long interval between formal education and data collection and the rather small per- centage of respondents having high education might have affected our findings. Therefore the study cannot be taken to prove that formal education has no effect on individual modernity. However, our findings in conjunc- tion with a few other researches in this field go to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the relationship between education is affected by a variety of factors present in the social system, and unless these variables are specified within a prOper theoretical framework, much of the present types of investigations would be of little theoretical import. CHAPTER VI SOME RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS One negative findings appear to have some interest- ing implications in this field of study. They, at least, force us to question some of the basic assumptions and hypotheses which are often treated as established facts. Therefore we propose to briefly examine their implications with regards to (a) the concept of modernity, (b) the relationship between value orientations and economic behavior, and (c) the impact of formal education on individual modernity. The Concept of Modernity Individual modernity has been defined as a complex personality syndrome embracing a wide gamut of psychologi- cal orientations and ways of acting which are related to the functioning of the modern, industrial society. Social scientists have specified the contents of the modernity syndrome. In fact, our index for individual modernity was based on six variables which are generally regarded as its components. It may also be mentioned here that these mental traits and qualities are not viewed as distinct 78 79 or isolated variables but as the different dimensions of modernity. Thus they are supposed to be interrelated and interdependent. The findings of this study do not support such a conceptualization. The different variables on which our index of modernity is based are found to be unrelated. No association is suggested by the zero order correlations as is evident from Table 6-1. The data presented in the earlier chapter, also show that innovative behavior which is an important component of the modernity syndrome, is also not correlated with the other modernity variables. Under these circumstances, the notion of the modernity syndrome becomes a suspect. We do not believe that our findings can be attributed to the limitations of the measuring instru- ments. We selected operational definitions and scales from a number of studies undertaken in India and abroad. Thus our measurement instruments do not significantly differ from the studies which have noted close relation- ship between the components of the modernity syndrome. Besides, there is some reason to believe that the empirical relationship noted in the studies of Kahl (1968), Inkeles (1969) and Doob (1967) may be partly due to the methodological strategies they have adopted. By subjecting their original themes and topics to intensive 80 ha. 0H. 50. mo.I 0H. mnummem I Ho. No. m0. m0. coflumoHMMumuo pounmmwo I I mo.I OH.I HH. :oflum>fluoz unme>mfl£o¢ I I I ma. ma. coflumucmfluo Moasomm I I I I No. umsue HMQOmHmmumucH I I I I I meocousdlmamm coflumoflmeumnw :oflum>flpoz coflumucmwuo umsue zeocousd counommo ucoEm>mfl£o< Hoasowm HMQOmMomuwucH Imamm .mcoflumamuuoo HmUHOIoumN moancfium> m80u©¢%m muflcuooofi ecu cmczumn mooHDMHmHHooIHmchII.HIw mqmfie 81 Guttman scaling and similar devices, they discarded some of the items which did not show the hypothesized associa- tion. This may partly account for the close association between the modernity variables suggested by their findings. One can perhaps argue that even if we fail to establish close association between the different com- ponents of modernity, the concept of modernity can still serve as a useful theoretical construct. Modernity then becomes a collective name for a group of specified qualities associated with the modern man. We can call a person modern if he scores high on variables a, b, c, d, e, f, ... n; otherwise we cannot categorize him as modern. The main trouble with such a View is that the concept of modernity becomes a tautology. Therefore its value in any theoretical or empirical exploration is bound to be limited. Besides, such an approach also raises a number of conceptual and methodological issues, some of which are as follows: a. What kind of variables will be selected? b. What should be the criteria underlying the selection process? Should they be regarded as the cause or consequence or both of the growth of complex, industrial societies. c. If the relationship between the selected variables and the society is not direct and is mediated 82 by other variables, how the mediating variables are to be incorporated in the conceptual framework. d. What general assumptions such a conceptualiza- tion involves about the structure and functioning of the complex, industrial societies and its effects on the individual personality, and f. Whether the assumed relationship between the selected variables and the complex, industrial society is universal, or is affected by the cultural and temporal factors and forces. These issues have not been satisfactorily resolved in the current literature and research. Often the investi- gators make some general assumptions and do not care to test them. There have been unavoidable ethnocentric biases in the selection process; the variables selected have been basically those to be found in the countries of Western Europe and North America. One often suspects that sociologists have unconsciously attributed all the qualities associated with the modern man to the people living in these countries. Nor the analysis and identification of the traditional value orientations and attitudes has been quite satisfactory. Social scientists have largely relied on the insights and researches of anthropologists for their image of the traditional man. The latter studied small, isolated, social systems in non-industrial societies. 83 There is nothing wrong with such a reliance except that much of these conceptualizations have become obsolete in the changed conditions of today; during the last two decades, rapid changes have taken place which have affected the urges, aspirations and attitudes of the people living in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Critics have also pointed out that sociologists have too readily assumed the relationship between people's values and attitudes and the social and economic develop- ment. Industrialization need not generate the same personality characteristics among the people all over the world. Not all the similarities in the attitudes, life styles and general orientations of the people living in highly industrialized societies can be accounted by the process of economic development; we cannot overlook the fact that these nations share a common historical heritage and traditions. On the other hand, one can note some significant differences between Japan and other industrialized nations. Probably China, Cuba or Viet Nam may be successful in inculcating slightly different atti- tudes and values among their populace. To recognize that the effects of industrialization upon the personality structures would be tempered by the cultural specifics and the nature of the political order, is not to deny what 84 Inkeles calls 'the psychic unity of mankind.‘ The very notion of the unidimensional nature of social moderniza- tion is being increasingly questioned by a number of social scientists (see Bendix, 1967; Blumer, 1964; Gusfield, 1967; Illich, 1969; and Frank, 1969). Thus we can say that the concept of modernity, as is commonly used, needs further conceptual refinement and elaboration on the basis of research findings in different societies. There are various issues that need to be settled before some definitive propositions and statements can be put forward. To be sure, our findings have been neither the first nor the foremost in sensitizing con- ceptual limitations. Modern Values and Economic Behavior Our findings concerning the relationship between modernity and the innovative behavior have been quite * revealing. Both in the zero order correlations as well * So far we have failed to locate studies in which a comprehensive scale of modernity was constructed and then related to the adoption of innovations. However there are many studies that have found no positive correlation between some modernity variables and the innovative behavior. We shall mention their content analyses done by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971). Empathy: Out of the 14 studies content analyzed by Rogers and Shoemaker, 5 did not report any relationship between empathy and innovations. These are Herzog (1967), Narang (1966), Reddy and Kivlin (1968), Rogers and Ramos (1965), and Yaukey et a1. (1967). Achievement Motivation: Out of 23 studies content analyzed by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), 9 did not report any relationship. These are Beal et al. (1967), Beal and 85 as in the multivariate regressions, we find that modernity does not seem to make any noticeable contribution toward the adoption of innovations. This has been also the case when the modernity variables were individually analyzed. If one regards modernity as an indicator of modern values and innovative behavior of the rational economic behavior, then one can suggest that values do not affect economic behavior in a developing society. These simple findings assume special significance in the context of India. Since Max Weber propounded his famous thesis on the Protestant ethic and the emergence of capitalism, and compared Christianity with the religions of Asia, it has become fashionable among a section of social scientists to attribute people's poverty and backwardness to their religious orientations and values. In fact, the original thesis of Weber is often misconstrued by zealous admirers. While Weber himself was aware of the pitfalls of his thesis and often qualified it while dealing with Sibley (1966), Morrison (1964), Neill and Rogers (1963), Pitzer (1959), Rogers (1964), Roy et a1. (1968), Smith (1966), and Spencer (1958). ! Self-Autonomy: Out of the 14 studies, at least i three did not report any association. These are Cohen (1961), Goldsen and Ralis (1957), and Smith (1966). Dogmatism: Our concept of secular orientation is rather close to that of dogmatism. Rogers and Shoe- maker (1971) report that almost 53 per cent of the studies did not find any relationship. Some of the studies that can be cited about India are Bhasin (1966), Chattopad- hayaya (1967), Chattopadhyaya and Pareek (1967), Kivlin (1968), and Mulay and Ray (1965). 86 India, some social scientists do not show such inhibitions. A number of studies like Taylor (1948), McClelland (1961), Nair (1964), and Myrdal (1968) have repeated the theme, often without sound empirical research data. Our findings go to challenge such simplistic assertions and hypotheses which are often taken to be granted as established truths. They show that innovative behavior is not the function of values and attitudes associated with the subsistence farmers in India. We think that these findings suggest that the relationship between psychological orientations like achievement motivation, empathy, secular orientation, deferred gratification, etc., is not direct and simple. It is mediated and affected by a variety of the variables yet to be specified, and unless some way is found to incorporate them in our conceptual scheme, no reliable results can be secured. We cannot make any reasonable predictions about one's economic behavior on the basis of his psychological attributes and orientations. In other words, we may suggest that the effects of one's value orientations and personality traits on his economic behavior should be looked at in the context of his total milieu, the constraints of his situation and the real choices open to him. Thus the effects of achieve- ment motivation may be different in the case of two 87 individuals in a social system or even the same person in two social situations. The drive for success may lead a well-to-do farmer to adopt modern innovations for increasing his total produce. However, the same drive is unlikely to make any difference in the condition of a landless laborer in India; it may even pose some problems for him in his community. The same individual can be planning oriented in an urban environment and behave in a different way in his village. The point we wish to emphasize is that a methodological way should be found to study some of the concepts associated with modernity syndrome in the situa- tional context of the individual behavior. Then probably we would be able to make some generalizations predicting one's economic behavior on the basis of his social psycho- logical orientations. Education and Individual Modernity The implications of the findings do not appear to be significant with regards to our main problem, i.e., the impact of educational attainment on the modernity. A variety of variables, which have been specified in the earlier chapter, might have affected the findings in this regard. Therefore we are not in a position to derive unqualified conclusions. However, we can say that the findings, in conjunc- tion with some of the earlier findings in this area, 88 suggest that the impact of education is neither uniform on all the modernity variables nor universal. One discerns significant variations. Inkeles%5(l969) and this study were conducted in India. But while Inkeles noted close correlation between education and over-all modernity, we did not find such relationship. Schuman (1967) and Armer and Young (1971) have also found that the effects of Fa] education or literacy were selective in nature; certain I variables were affected and the others not. This fact underscores the need for more research and analysis. ’ There is also some weak evidence in our data to ”J indicate that mobility experience can be regarded as an intervening variable between education and modernity. The zero order correlations for innovative behavior and modern- ity sharply decline and become insignificant, the moment the mobility variables are controlled. There is also enough empirical evidence in other studies which give support to this hypothesis. The weak relationship between education and innova- tiveness and the absence of such relationship between modernity and education, may possibly suggest the import- ance of the role of education as a facility. One can speculate that educational attainment could slightly affect innovative behavior and not the modernity for the simple reason that it provided some skills and advantages to the farmer which were not available to the uneducated ones. 89 However, the above mentioned implications are not fully justified in view of the extremely weak nature of the relationship between the relevant variables. Fe'aih. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The main objective of the present study was to eXplore the relationship between formal education and individual modernity in develOping societies. More spe- cifically, the study was designed to focus on three crucial but interrelated questions: (1) whether formal 5 J education contributed significantly to individual modernity; (2) whether the impact was direct or indirect or both; and (3) whether formal education had more or less similar effects on the attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of modernity. We developed a conceptual model concerning the relationship between education and modernity. The model has five components. The first is the educational achieve- ment of the individual, which has been treated as an independent variable. The second and third components are psychic mobility and physical mobility. The model postu- lates that education is directly related to them, and this relationship is unidirectional. The two types of mobility also affect each other. Innovative behavior is the fourth component. The model stipulates both a direct and 90 91 indirect relationship between education and innovative behavior. Psychic mobility and physical mobility serve as the intervening variables. The last component is individual modernity. Education has both direct and indirect impact on it. The mobility experience and inno- vative behavior serve as intervening variables. We also assert a direct, reciprocal relationship between individual {—3 modernity and innovative behavior. The above model marks a significant departure from the earlier conceptualizations in at least two respects. First, all the reported empirical studies (Inkeles, .13 1969; Schuman et_al., 1967; Rogers, 1969; Armer and Youtz, 1971) havehypothesized a direct relationship between the two variables. None of these studies was designed to incorporate some intervening variables in the conceptual scheme. The model develOped by us regards mobility experience as the crucial variable intervening between education and individual modernity. Second, the earlier studies did not distinguish between the psychological and behavioral dimensions of modernity. It has been assumed that psychological modernity precedes behavioral modernity. Thus education generates modern orientations which in turn facilitate the adoption of innovations. This assumption is not fully justified in our view. While the whole controversy about attitude versus behavior is at par with that of chicken 92 versus egg, one can reasonably suggest just an Opposite path. Educated people, by virtue of their skills, are able to adopt innovations which bring out changes in their attitudes and values. After all, it is reasonable to believe that education may be more effective in facili- tating adoption of innovations which bestow tangible benefits than in eradicating age-old prejudices and beliefs. The hypothesized model, we insisted, is not uni- versally applicable. It is based on certain assumptions which are highly restrictive. The model assumed (1) that the universe to be studied or explained is composed of the adult population who have finished their formal educa- tion, (2) that population is engaged in self-employed occupations where there remains a significant scope for the adoption of innovations, and (3) the social system is underdeveloped and the programs of the planned social change are being undertaken in it. We utilized data from India to test the above model. We studied agricultural population from eight villages in three different states. Several considerations affected our choice. First, India is the second largest country, and is on the threshold of modernization. It has already achieved an agricultural revolution. Green revolution has already become a reality there. Second, all the specified assumptions of the model were met in this 93 case. Last, our own familiarity with the Indian village life was a decisive factor in the choice. We had 679 respondents, although we could use data for only 675 in this particular study. A scale of psychological modernity was constructed by taking into consideration the following six variables: secular-orientation, self-autonomy, achievement motivation, inter-personal trust, deferred gratification and empathy. All these variables have been regarded as components of the modernity syndrome. Obviously, the scale did not include all the variables emphasized by Inkeles (1969), Rogers (1969), or Kahl (1968). However, we may note here that a separate scale was constructed for innovative behavior. Besides, mass media participation which is generally regarded as a component of the modernity syndrome, was included in the index for psychic mobility. We confess that we did not test the consistency of the different items in our scale of modernity. This was a deliberate omission which ultimately proved to be a blessing. The main reason for not testing the consistency of the different items in the scale was that all the major research enterprises (Inkeles, 1969; Kahl, 1968; Doob, 1967; and Rogers, 1969) have stressed the close, unidirec- tional relationship between these variables. Besides, our measurement instrument was such that the consistency or 94 inconsistency of the items did not make any difference as far as the total score of a person was concerned. The index for innovative behavior was based on the innovations which are useful in agricultural operations. Originally, twelve items were selected and subjected to Guttman scaling. The scale retained ten items. Formal education was measured by the number of years spent at the school. We used three methodological strategies to test the model. First, we constructed cross tables. Respondents were classified under three broad heads: illiterate, low education and high education. All the other variables were dichotomized as high and low, and their relationship was studied. Second, we tested the conceptual proximity of the variables on the basis of the strength of their correlations. Finally, we used multi—variate regression, treating (l) modernity as dependent, and the remaining four variables as independent variables, (2) modernity as dependent, and education as an independent variable, (3) innovative behavior as dependent, and the remaining four variables as independent ones, (4) innovative behavior as dependent and education as an independent variable, and (5) innovative behavior as dependent, and psychic mobility, physical mobility and modernity as independent variables. The same regressions were also calculated for each of the may” 95 six components of the modernity syndrome, by regarding each of them as a separate indicator of modernity. The findings came as a total surprise. The data did not show any strong relationship between the different components of the model. With the simple exception of the association between psychic mobility and innovative behavior, all other relationships were found to be very weak to be of any predictive value. Educational attainment had little effect on innovative behavior and negligible effects on the modernity syndrome. Again, contrary to our expecta- tions, mobility did not have close association with modernity. Finally, the association between innovative behavior and modernity syndrome was found to be rather weak. Thus the data did not support our conceptual model. However, the findings cannot be taken at their face value; great deal of caution is required in interpreting our results. Several factors might have affected our findings. The extremely poor quality of formal education in village India, which was available in the past, the long interval between the completion of formal education and the time for interview, and finally the relatively small per- centage of the educated people in our sample, are some of the factors which deserve to be mentioned in this regard. Some allowance needs also be made of the limitation of the operational definitions. Therefore we do not regard our findings as definitive. And yet they are sufficient to 96 generate some scepticism about the relationship between educational attainment and individual modernity on the one hand, and innovative behavior and modernity on the other. There are a number of implications of our negative findings which deserve to be mentioned here. First, the very notion of individual modernity becomes a suspect. No positive association was noted between the various components of the modernity syndrome. This raises crucial issues about the validity as well as the usefulness of the concept in the research enterprise. Second, we also need to reconsider the assumed relationship between psychological orientations and innova- tive behavior. Our findings do show that the various qualities associated with the modern man make little con- tribution to the adoption of innovations. Third, the role of education as a generator of new attitudes and orientations needs further analysis and research. Our findings seem to indicate that its effects may be conditioned by a variety of variables which need to be specified and incorporated in the conceptual scheme. In this connection, the hypothesis of Briones and Waisanen (1966) and Waisanen and Kumata (1972) becomes a path- setter. Fourth, we believe that our findings can be taken to underscore the role of education as a facility in the 97 modernization process. The very fact that education has a closer relationship with innovative behavior than with the modernity syndrome, provides some support to this assertion. We shall conclude by saying that the importance of our study lies not in exploring some new dimensions of the intricate relationship between individual modernity and formal education but in questioning some of the hypotheses and assumptions which often pass as established truths in the discipline. Our negative findings force us to have a second look at them. And there lies the main contribution of this study. REFERENCES 98 REFERENCES Armer, Michael, and Schnaiberg, Allan 1971 "Measuring Modernity: Myth or Reality?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Denver, Colorado. ETBI and Youtz, Robert 1 1971 "Formal Education and Individual Modernity in an African Society." American Journal of Sociology, 76:4. Barnabas, A. P. E “ 1957 "Who are the Village Leaders?" Kurukshetra. ; J Delhi . 1': Beal, George M. et al. 1967 Emerging Patterns of Commercial Farming in a Subsistence Farm Economy: An Analysis of Indian Farmers in Guatemala. Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Rural Sociology Report 68. and Sibley, Donald N. 1966 "Adoption of Agricultural Technology among the Indians of Guatemala." Paper presented at the Rural Sociology Society, Miami Beach. Bendix, Reinhard 1967 "Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered." Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9:292-346. Bhasin, H. S. 1966 "An Investigation into Some Factors Influencing the Low Adoption of Selected Farm Practices in Samana Block, Patiala, Punjab," In Aditya N. Shukla and Iqbal Singh Grewal (eds), Summaries of Extension by Post-Graduate Students. Ludhiana, India: Punjab Agricultural University. Blalock, Hubert M. 1964 Causal Inference in Non-Experimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 99 100 Blumer, Herbert 1964 "Industrialization and the Traditional Order.‘ Sociology and Social Research, 48:29-138. Briones, Guillermo and Waisanen, F. B 1967 "Educational ASpirations, Modernization and Urban Integration." America Latina, 10:4. Brown, Lawrence A. 1968 Diffusion Processes and Location. Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pa. Campbell, Angus; Converse, Philip E.; Miller, Warren E.; and Stokes, Donald E. 1960 The American Voter. New York, John Wiley and Sons. Chattopadhayaya, S. N. 1967 "Psychological Correlates and Adoption of Innovations," in T. P. S. Chawdhari (eds), Selected Readings on Community Development. Hyderabad, India: National Institute of Community DevelOpment. ChattOpadhyaya, S. N., and Pareek, Udai 1967 "Prediction of Multi-Practice Adoption Behavior from Some Psychological Variables,” Rural Sociology, 32:324-333. Cohen, Ronald 1961 "The Success that Failed: An Experiment in Culture Change in Africa." Anthropologica, 3:21—36. Dawson, J. L. M. 1967 "Traditional versus Western Attitudes in Africa; The Construction, Validation and Application of a Measuring Device." British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology: 6(2):81-96. Deutschmann, Paul J. 1963 "The Mass Media in an Underdeveloped Village." Journalism Quarterly, 40(Winter):27-35. Doob, L. W. 1967 "Scale for Assaying Psychological Modernization in Africa." Public Opinion Quarterly, 31:414-421. Dreeban, R. 1968 On What is Learned in School. Mass.: Addison- Wesley. 101 Duncan, Otis D. 1966 "Path Analysis: Sociological Example." American Journal of Sociology, 72(July):l-l6. Eister, Allan Wardell 1962 "Critical Factors in the Modernization Process in West Pakistan." Yearbook of the American Philosophical Society, 362-365. Fett, John H. 1971 "Education, Literacy, Mass Media Exposure, and Farm Practice Adoption in Southern Brazil." f Rural Sociology, 36:3. Fliegel, F. C. 1966 "Literacy and Exposure to Instrumental Information among Farmers in Southern Brazil." Rural Sociology, 31:15—28. Foster, George M. 1967 Tzintzuntzan: Mexican Peasants in a Changing World. Boston: Little, Brown. Frank, Andre G. 1967 "Sociology of DevelOpment and Underdevelopment of Sociology." Catalyst, 5:20-73. Frey, Frederick 1966 "Literacy and Exposure to Instrumental Information among Farmers in Southern Brazil." Rural Sociology, 31(March):15-28. 1964 "The Mass Media and the Peasant." Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism, Austin, Texas. Gouveia, Aparecida J. 1967 "Education and Development; Opinions of Secondary School Teachers," in Seymour Martin Lipset and Aldo Solari (eds), Elites in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press. Goldsen, Rose K., and Ralis, Max 1957 Factors Related to Acceptance of Innovations in Bang Chan, Thailand. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program, Data Paper 25. Gusfield, Joseph R. 1967 "Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change." American Journal of Sociology, 72(January):531-562. 102 Hagen, Everett E. 1962 On the Theory of Social Change; How Economic Growth Beglns. Homewood: The Dorsey Press, Inc. Herzog, William A. 1967 Literacy Training and Modernization: A Field Experiment. East Lansing: Michigan State Univer- sity, Department of Communication, Technical Report 3. 1967 "Mass Media Credibility, Exposure, and Moderniza- tion in Rural Brazil." Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism, Boulder, Colorado. Hiese, David R. 1969 "Problems in Path Analysis and Causal Inference," pp. 38-73 in Edgar F. Borgatta (ed.), Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Illich, Ivan 1969 "Outwitting the 'Developed' Countries." New York Review of Books, 6(November):20-24. Inkeles, Alex 1960 "Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to Experience, Perception, and Value." American Journal of Sociology, 66(Ju1y):l-3l. 1966 "The Modernization of Man," pp. 138-150 in Myron Weiner (ed), Modernization: The Dynamics of Growth. New York: Basic Books. 1967 "Becoming Modern." Paper presented for an inter- departmental symposium on "Problems of Cross- Cultural Research in Developing Areas, Michigan State University. 1969 "Making Men Modern." American Journal of Sociology, 75(September):208-225. Jain, Nemi C. 1963 "A Study of Relative Effectiveness of Extension Methods in Adoption of Improved Agricultural Practices in DevelOpment Block Amraudha, District Kanpur." M.S. thesis, Kanpur, India: Agra University. 103 Janowitz, Morris, and Marvick, Dwaine 1954 "Authoritarianism and the Political Behavior." Public Opinion Quarterly, 17(Summer):185-201. Junghare, Y. N., and Roy, Prodipto 1963 "The Relation of Health—Practice Innovations to Social Background Characteristics and Attitudes." Rural Sociology, 28:394—400. Kahl, J. A.- 1968 The Measurement of Modernism; A Study of Values in Brazil and Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press. Keith, Robert P.; Yadav, Dharam P.; and Ascroft, Joseph R. 1968 "Mass Media Exposure and Modernization Among Villagers in Three Developing Countries: Toward Cross-Cultural Generalizations," in Mass Communi- cation and the DeveloEment of Nations. Michigan State University, International Communication Institute. Kivlin, Joseph E., et a1. 1968 Correlates of Family Planning in Eight Indian Villages. East Lansing: Michigan State Univer— sity Diffusion of Innovations Research Report 18. Kumata, Kideya, and Waisanen, Frederick B. 1969 "Personality, Mass Media and Development." Papers in International and World Affairs, International Programs, Michigan State University series (April):51-72. Lerner, Daniel 1958 The Passing of Traditional Society; Modernizing the Middle East. New York: Free Press. McClelland, D. C. 1961 The Achieving Sociegy. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Norstand Co. 1963 "National Character and Economic Growth in Turkey and Iran," in Lucian W. Pye (ed.), Communications and Political Development. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1966 "The Impulse to Modernization,’ in M. Weiner (ed.), Modernization. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. 104 McClelland, D. C., and Winter, D. G. 1969 Motivating Economic DevelOpment. New York: Free Press. McClosky, Herbert 1958 "Conservatism and Personality." American Political Science Review, (March):27-45. Morrison, Denton E. 1964 "Achievement Motivation of Farm Operators: A Measurement Study." Rural Sociology, 29:367-384. Mulay, Sumati, and Ray, G. L. 1965 "Caste and Adoption of Improved Farm Practices." Indian Journal of Extension Education, 1:106-111. Murphy. G. 1955 In the Minds of Man. New York: Basic Books. Myrdal, Gunnar 1968 Asian Drama; An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. Vol. 3, New York: The Twentieth Century Fund. Nair, Kusum 1964 Blossoms in the Dust. New York: Frederic A. Praeger. Narung, Swarn 1966 "A Study on the Identification and Characteristics of Rural Women Leaders in a Selected Village." M.S. thesis. India: University of Delhi. Neil, Ralph E., and Rogers, Everett M. 1963 Measuring Achievement Motivation among Farmers. Columbus: Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Department Series AE 346. Pitzer, Ronald L. 1959 "The Influence of Social Values on the Acceptance of Vertical Integration by Broiler Growers." M.S. thesis. Columbus: Ohio State University. Rao, Y. V. Lakshmana 1963 "Communication and Development: A Study of Two Indian Villages." Ph.D. thesis. University of Minnesota. Reddy, S. K., and Kivlin, J. E. 1968 Adoption of High Yielding Varieties of Three Indian Villages. Hyderabad, India: National Institute of Commercial Development Research Report 19. 105 Rogers, Everett M. 1964 "Achievement Motivation and the AdOption of Farm Innovations in Colombia." Paper presented at the Society for Applied AnthrOpology, San Juan, P.R. 1969 Modernization among Peasants; The Impact of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Rogers, Everett M., and Ramos, E. B. de 1965 "Prediction of the Adoption of Innovations: A Progress Report." Paper presented at the Rural Sociology Society, Chicago. Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker, F. F. 1971 Communication of Innovations—-a Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: The Free Press; London: Collier-MacMillan Ltd. Ross, John 1966 "Prediction of the AdOption of Family Planning." Studies in Family Planning, 9:8-12. Roy, Prodipto; Waisanen, F. B.; and Rogers, Everett M. 1968 The Impact of Communication on Rural Development: an InvestigatiOn in India and Costa Rica. Hyderabad, India: National Institute of Development. Paris: UNESCO. ' Salazar, Arturo Vasquez 1970 "La Carta Circular Como un Medio para la Inzenanza de Nueva Tecnologia Agricola:" M.S. thesis. Chapingo, Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Agricultura. Schnaiberg, Allan 1970 "Measuring Modernism: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations." American Journal of Sociology, 76:399—425. Schuman, Howard; Inkeles, Alex; and Smith, David H. 1967 "Some Social Psychological Effect and Noneffects of Literacy in a New Nation. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 16(1). Singer, Milton 1966 "The Modernization of Religious Beliefs,‘ in M. Weiner (ed.), Modernization. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. 106 Singh, K. K., and Pardasani, H. B. 1967 "Effectiveness of Short-Duration Contacts in Popularising Family Planning in Rural India." Behavioral Science and Community Development, 1:135-149. Smith, David H. '1966 "A Psychological Model of Individual Participation in Formal Voluntary Organizations: Application to Some Chilean Data." American Journal of Sociology: 72:249-266. Smlth, David H., and Inkeles, Alex 1966 "The OM Scale; A Comparative Social—Psychological Measure of Individual Modernity." Sociometry, 29(December):153-377. Spencer, George E. 1958 "Value Orientations and the Adoption of Farm Practices." Ph.D. thesis. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Srinivas, S. N. 1956 "A Note on Sanskritization and Westernization." The Far Eastern Quarterly, August. Stephenson, John B. 1968 "Is Everyone Going Modern? A Critique and a Suggestion for Measuring Modernity." American Journal of Sociology, 74(November):265—275. Taylor, W. S. 1948 "Basic Personality in Orthodox Hindu Culture Patterns." The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholpgy, 43:3-12. Verma, Ladu Ram 1966 "Study of Some Factors Influencing AdOption of Poultry Farming in Selected Panchayat Samitis (C.D. Bocks) of Jaipur District, Rajasthan," in A. N. Shukla and I. S. Grewal (eds.), Summaries of Extension by Post—Graduate Students. Ludhiana, India: Punjab Agricultural University. Waisanen, Frederick B. 1963 "Stability, Alienation, and Change." The Sociological Quarterly, 4(Winter):18-31. 1964 "Educational Aspirations, Modernization and Urban Integration." Translated from America Latina 10(4):3-21. 1969 1971 107 "Actors, Social Systems, and the Modernization Process." Bloomington: Carnegie Seminar, Department of Government, Indiana University; and Guillermo Briones. "Education and Participation in Development." Acta Sociologica 14:183-192. Waisanen, Frederick E., and Kumata, H. 1972 "Education, Functional Literacy and Participation in DevelOpment." Forthcoming in the lnternational Journal of Comparative Sociology. White, Ralph K., and Lippitt 1960 Whiting, 1967 Anthropology and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers. Gordon C. "Empathy, Mass Media, and Modernization: A Study of Rural Brazil." Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State University. Yaukey, David, et a1. 1967 "Couple Concurrence and Empathy on Birth Control Motivation in Dacca, East Pakistan." American Journal of Sociology, 32:716—726.