1

Summary of “An Outline of a

revisionist theory of Modernity”
The theories of Modernity or western social theory focused on broad changes in the
Europe. However, in an attempt to homogenize historical changes, it led to a parochial
theory of Modernity, which faces serious challenges in analyzing non-European
societies.
In the paper, Kaviraj attempts to provide alternative to the orthodox understanding of
Modernity in the Institutional history framework and highlights inherent problems in
Methodological analysis of the Homogenizing, universal theories of Modernity.
Outline of a theory that needs revision:
The western social theory witnessed the rise of Modernization theory, in order to
understand the progress of European history.
These Modernization theories underwent two extensions:
a) To analyze history in extensions of western world which included US, Canada,
Australia. Eisenstadt highlighted even American modernity was quite different
from Europe with respect to colonialism.
. Endemic violence between natives and colonizers which itself signifies need for
theorizing multiple maternities.
b) The second extension came with application to non-European societies post
decolonization in the form of “Theories of Transition”
. Sociological theories of Modernization
. Political theories of Political development
. Economic theories of growth
All these theories, basically showed to nonwestern societies, “what their future would
be like”
Need for revision: uniformly and variation in historical thinking
In the analysis of Indian history, early Marxist Scholars such as Dange tried to
compartmentalize history from primitive communism to slavery.
However critical analysis, by scholars later, led to questioning of application of
European principles of Feudalism to the Indian Societies (RS Sharma and Irfan Habib).
 2

Kaviraj highlights “Initial conditions” i.e. conditions of origin which precede

development of Modern Institutions and had significant effect on Modernization.
The plurality of Features:
Social scientists analyzing histories of contemporary non-European societies often
found.
a. No possible destination stage as predicted by modernization theories.
b. With respect to Indian history colonial state differed from Mughal Imperial State
significantly. However, bureaucracy of colonial state developed in an entirely
different Trajectory.
i. We nowhere find the ideal weberian rational legal bureaucracy.
ii. The binary exclusion of traditional modern does not explain coexistence of
many stages of historical development in non-European societies.
To overcome these challenges, group of scholars mainly recommends broadly 2
views.
1. Theoretical frameworks of Instead of modernity-Indigenism model “analysis by
internal concepts”
2. Explain historical changes through – “General theory of historical Change”
However, both views have serious problems:
a. Institutions do not develop completely out of internal factors especially in
societies effected by colonialism.
b. The General theory disable the analysis of peculiar development, that emerged
in the post enlightenment era.
Also, comparative framework of analysis
Disaggregating the General Theory of Modernity:
Although idea of modernity is found in many writings. Marx and Weber provide strong
theoretical underpinnings to their respective theories analyzing the change in
European societies.
At the abstract level, the common theory of modernity consist of two thesis of
history:
a. One highlighting the transformation of European societies and the newness of a
new kind.
It highlighted new social forms with respect to pre modern Europe.
 3

b. The second thesis developed first arguing inherent superiority of European

“civilization” (civilization – New sense).
The common theory in the backdrop of colonial power structure included 2 strands.
Western Social theory
1. Analyzing European history, Causes & factors of modernity, The Probable future
trends.
2. Talks about sup plantation and of non-western society by Western Modernity.
Second thesis as per Kaviraj should be displaced by “Differentiated theory in
modernity.
Two views of Western Modernity:
Theories of symmetry and sequence
1. The symmetrical view holds the functional inter dependence of the social
changes and emphasizes on symmetric and parallel development.
2. The sequential view highlights sequential development of European Modernity.
Unlike symmetrical view based on functional conception, sequential view shows
(which is dominant). How different set of Initial conditions create different sequences
which leads to different modernities.
Sudipta Kaviraj even highlights four reasons for historical differentiation and need
for revisionist theory of modernity:
1. Two meanings of Initial conditions
2. The translation of practices:
3. The second reason based on sequential view of modernity
4. The third reason for historical differentiation is based on practice of
Improvisation for development based on certain fundamental principles.
5. The fourth reason is Reflexivity.
Kaviraj emphasizing a role of reflexivity in critical reasoning, argues that it even
requires examining dominant view of western modernity (exterior point of view)
which would lead to improvisation further.
Conclusion:
The examination of Human societies from different dimensions, although may be
forced to fit into a preexisting the oriental structure.
 4

However, careful analysis would highlight deep complexities involved and broader
generalizations involved a theorizing society.
This even deprives the theory from fundamental Goal of explaining social
phenomenon.
Thus, development of different Trajectories of Modernity is a progressive
development in theorizing non-European societies.