Deconstructing a Bhutanese of understanding of Modernisation and Westernisation
Following an observation of blurriness of understanding between modernisation and westernisation among Bhutanese, here is an attempt to deconstruct the meaning of the two terms and weigh on the implications thereof of treating the two as synonyms.
First, I borrow the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition to understand the literal meaning of the two terms. Modernisation is a ‘process of starting to use the most recent methods, ideas, equipment, etc…’. And westernisation ‘is a process of influencing ideas or ways of life that are common in North America and western Europe to be more used and accepted.’ The literal interpretation of the two definitions is distinctly different both in terms of semantics and syntax.
The question arises as to where the blurriness arises from. Modernisation theory between the 1950s and the 1970s partly explains a lack of distinct understanding between the two. Modernisation theory is a framework that considers development as a uniform evolutionary process through which all societies progress from traditional agricultural structures to post-industrial, modern forms. By this understanding, modernisation is linear, singular and universal – there is just one evolutionary process. From this perspective, such an understanding of modernisation can be found in arrays of socioeconomic and development fields, inter alia, education, economy, political system and structures.
Perhaps an insight into the locus of global power and the political climate of the international politics of that time would shed some light into development, development understood in terms of modernisation. After the second world war, the vision of a ‘Pax Americana’ and the ‘American Century’ grew, arguably reaching its climax with the Soviet breakdown in 1990, and the subsequent publicity of the ‘Unipolar moment’. ‘Pax Britannica’ preceded ‘Pax Americana’. Within that context of international political order and global power dynamics, the public discourse in developing societies and countries is such that ‘societies can be fast-tracked to modernization by ‘importing’ Western technical capital, forms of organization, and science and technology’. Following the preceding arguments and analysis, ‘to modernise is to westernise,’ hence the blurriness of understanding between modernisation and westernisation.
The impact and implications in transmission of values and outlook through the discourse of ‘modernisation’ have been real and enduring across different tiers of society and spectrums of thoughts. At the systemic and structural level, laws and policies in Bhutan are also remnants of such a discourse affecting, inter alia, resource allocation. As I interpret it, the 2009 Local Government Act of Bhutan and the 2011 Thromde Rules are a couple of examples, predicated on the notion of ‘uniform evolutionary process’ of development/modernisation.
To give a personal touch, perhaps very relatable and visible examples, drinking coke and wearing jeans make one feel fashionable, maybe, modern. At Sherubtse, as a student back then, an acquaintance passed a comment, ‘you are good in studies, you will get a foreigner wife’ [nan pe cha se na, may waktsa phi ling pe nyong pay]. Following lexical semantics, the choice of the verb, ‘get’ [nyong pay] captures ideological underpinnings surrounding the standard of civilization. Today and now, as the Bhutanese exodus continues, almost every VISA grant is celebrated, and onboarding a flight at Paro takes one closer to success and progress, interpreted as synonymous to modernisation. Would it be too naive to suggest that the general assumption and unexamined outlook among Bhutanese is such that ‘to be modern(progressive) should come about by associating with something western/foreign’? And expatriates in Bhutan continue to be paid much higher than the Bhutanese counterparts amid some arguments that skills and competencies are not world apart.
The preceding contextual analysis does not suggest distaste for western approach to growth and development. Indeed, I am doing this post from London. Ever since I considered my postgraduate studies, I only had one destination in my mind, the United Kingdom. At the broader societal level, western science and education have helped address some of the pressing challenges improving the lives across the world, albeit at different pace. For example, the understanding of germ theory of disease has a transformational impact in reducing mortality rates. Yet modernisation continues to face criticism on the grounds of Western bias (eurocentrism), capitalist ideological underpinnings and the logic of the survival of the fittest best explained in social science by the phrase ‘social Darwinism’.
