{"id":184,"date":"2026-05-22T21:02:58","date_gmt":"2026-05-22T21:02:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/western-african-perspectives\/?post_type=chapter&p=184"},"modified":"2026-07-08T13:51:36","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T13:51:36","slug":"19-the-impact-of-modernization-and-traditional-values-on-kano-youth","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/western-african-perspectives\/chapter\/19-the-impact-of-modernization-and-traditional-values-on-kano-youth\/","title":{"rendered":"19. The Impact of Modernization and Traditional Values on Kano Youth"},"content":{"raw":"

Samantha Smith<\/h4>\r\nA persistent issue in macro sociology is the relationship between culture and social change.\u00a0 After decades of research on socioeconomic development, and much theoretical debate, two major contending schools of thought regarding patterns of mass cultural change remain.\u00a0 The first school largely contends that traditional and modern beliefs exist on a zero-sum continuum.\u00a0 That is to say, modernizing forces proliferate the replacement<\/em> of traditional values with more \u201cmodern\u201d (rational) values and beliefs. Consequently, this school suggests that values will converge<\/em> cross-nationally as a result of societal level modernization (i.e., progressive societal development embodying industrialization, urbanization, bureaucratization and scientific discovery).\r\n\r\nAlternatively, the second major school of thought regarding mass value change contends that convergence is unlikely.\u00a0 This school emphasizes the persistence <\/em>of traditional values despite structural development.\u00a0 Under this paradigm traditional values are expected to persist<\/em> regardless of societal and individual level socioeconomic change and continue to maintain an independent influence on cultural values.\r\n\r\nClearly these two paradigms are at odds with each other, yet both schools are backed by dense bodies of research.\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad In this paper I report a longitudinal case study of a single society to compare the two paradigms.\u00a0 I use survey data collected from West African area youth samples in 1965, 1979, and 2007.\r\n

Convergence vs. Persistence<\/h2>\r\nAlthough theories regarding modernization have been developing for over a century, three major studies (Inkeles, 1960, Kahl, 1968, and Inkeles and Smith, 1974) appear to have established the roots of the convergence paradigm. Collectively these studies empirically identified a distinct (cross-cultural) value shift (from traditional to modern) linked to socioeconomic development.\r\n\r\nAlex Inkeles\u2019 (1960) exploratory study titled Industrial Man<\/em> was perhaps the first empirical research to investigate the psychological effects of modern industrial environments cross-nationally.\u00a0 Relying on past survey data from a group of industrialized countries, Inkeles investigated the relationship between occupational status (or individual roles in the industrial system) and attitudes and beliefs. His findings were both diverse and revealing.\u00a0 First, he found that differing occupational positions mediated job satisfaction values (across societies lower status workers more often equated job satisfaction with pay while higher status workers cared more about doing work they found to be interesting).\u00a0 Second, he saw that occupational status also mediated general life satisfaction (lower status workers were more likely to be unhappy and dissatisfied with life compared to higher status workers).\u00a0 Third, probing the extent to which industrial position influences values, he found both child-rearing values (regarding occupational recommendations) and values regarding ambition, obedience, optimism, and trust (which he termed \u201chuman nature\u201d) to vary by occupational status.\r\n\r\nThus, Inkeles (1960) concluded that large scale industrial patterns of societies influenced individual values across nations somewhat systemically<\/em>. This finding (that societal level structural development fuels systematic value change\u2014the core of modernization theory) inspired two major studies that tested empirically the claim in less developed (more traditional) nations. (If similar value shifts were evident in diverse societies global value convergence was probable).\r\n\r\nKahl (1968) first explored the validity of a unidimensional measure of value change in the developing world.\u00a0\u00a0 In what was at the time a quite novel construction, Kahl developed an empirical \u201cmeasure of modernism\u201d consisting of 14 attitudinal scales exploring\/measuring hypothesized \u201cmodern\u201d views of work and life.[footnote]\u00a0\u00a0 Kahl\u2019s hypotheses regarding modern values were derived from preliminary interviews in Brazil, from which he constructed \u201cideal types\u201d of \u201ctraditional\u201d and \u201cmodern\u201d man.\u00a0[\/footnote]\u00a0 After factor analyzing the resulting data from some 1,300 men in Brazil and Mexico, Kahl identified seven value orientations representing the so-called \u201ccore\u201d components of modernism: 1) activism, 2) low integration with relatives, 3) preference for urban life, 4) individualism, 5) low community stratification, 6) mass-media participation, and 7) low stratification of life chances.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, and perhaps more importantly, Kahl identified clear patterns (remarkably similar findings in Brazil and Mexico) regarding these core traits and place of residence (e.g., provinces, metropolises) and socioeconomic status, finding \u201cmodern\u201d values to be more prominent among city dwellers, higher status workers and the more educated in both societies.\u00a0 Consequently, Kahl supported Inkeles (1960) position that industrial development (or immersion in industrial society) proliferated somewhat predictable \u201ctraditional\u201d to \u201cmodern\u201d value transitions across diverse (both industrial and industrializing) societies.\r\n\r\nInkeles and Smith\u2019s (1974) large-scale (landmark) study of individual modernization involving six different developing nations (Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, Nigeria, and Bangladesh) further supported these findings.\u00a0 Using a complex (and rather comprehensive) summary measure (the OM scale) that combined twenty-four themes derived from groupings of differing analytical, topical, and behavioral perspectives on social change, Inkeles and Smith examined \u201cmodernity\u201d as a cross-cultural psychosocial attribute.\r\n\r\nThe resulting survey data from some 6,000 industrial and non-industrial workers revealed clear patterns of characteristics which, according to Inkeles and Smith, represented a cross-cultural \u201csyndrome\u201d of modernity.\u00a0 \u201cModern values,\u201d according to their findings, included increasing individualism and openness to new experiences, stronger beliefs in the efficacy of science, increasing ambition and valuation in planning, and greater awareness and interest in civic affairs, politics, and national and international issues.\u00a0 Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, Inkeles and Smith identified three modern institutions that primarily facilitated this \u201csyndrome\u201d: the factory, mass media, and (most strongly) secular education.\u00a0 Thus, Inkeles and Smith, in line with Kahl (1968) and Inkeles (1960), found that modern institutions proliferated predictable value transformations (i.e., a shift from \u201ctraditional\u201d to \u201cmodern\u201d values) across diverse societies and argued that global value convergence was likely on the horizon.\r\n\r\nIn short, these findings supported the convergence model of social change, providing a strong platform for modernization theory (or the theory that societal development is linked to predictable value shifts).\u00a0 Their findings (along with countless others that followed) consistently supported the notion that individual values, even among diverse nations, converge to a remarkable degree during the process of economic development, inevitably giving rise to a single \u201cmodern man.\u201d\r\n\r\nModernization theory, however, was not without its critics.\u00a0 Starting in the late 1970\u2019s social theorists began contesting the convergence model, highlighting the weaknesses and failures of the modernization approach.\u00a0 Dependency-oriented scholars and world systems theorists dismissed modernization theory as ideological.\u00a0 Wallerstein (1976) went so far as to pronounce it dead.\u00a0 Even Portes (1979), a modernization theorist, while supporting the meaningfulness of the internal structure of \u201cmodernity\u201d (i.e., subjacent set of sub-dimensions), criticized the model\u2019s assumption that modern orientations were positively linked to societal development (as did Delacroix & Ragin, 1984).\r\n\r\nConsequently, the convergence model came to be viewed by many at best as too simplistic while at worst as convoluted, idealist and self-serving.\u00a0 The concept of an emerging universal \u201cindustrial\u201d or \u201cmodern\u201d man became heavily criticized as researchers began pointing to customs and beliefs that continued to differentiate societies rather than to new value sets that seemed to connect them.\u00a0 Edward Shils (1981), in his book titled Tradition<\/em>, devoted some 300 pages solely to defining and describing the resounding influence of tradition (and immutability of traditions) over time.\u00a0 Later Hamilton, an economic theorist (among many others), argued that modern values were incapable of replacing culture:\r\n\r\n\u201cThe organizational structure of rationalism and capitalism is deeply imbedded in Western life.\u00a0 Their diffusion to another civilization arena, even by force, is not to transmit the whole, but only the effects of that life, the artifacts, so to speak.\u00a0 Rationalism, as a mode of scientific thinking, and capitalism, as a way of doing business, enter other civilizations as inventions, albeit very important ones.\u00a0 They enter as alien fragments into a complete way of life that has no holes, no institutional niches left unoccupied.\u00a0 For this reason\u2026 a complete replacement of one worldview by another is impossible\u201d (1994: 197).\r\n\r\nThus, the persistence paradigm (refuting value convergence) had taken shape.\r\n\r\nSamuel Huntington\u2019s (1993, 1996) \u201cclash of civilizations\u201d thesis, which projected dismal global relations, represented one of the most profound (and controversial) works supporting the persistence model.\u00a0 His \u201cclash\u201d thesis reminded readers that contemporary values in different societies (which he grouped into eight major civilizations or \u201ccultural zones\u201d) reflect long-standing cultural legacies relating to national history, language, customs, and (most importantly) religion.\u00a0 Further, citing a series of conflicts between Western and Islamic civilizations (among others), he proclaimed that these distinct cultural differences, specifically related to political values, would become the major source of conflict in the modern world.\r\n\r\nThus, in Huntington\u2019s mind the pervasive impact of tradition and religion in different \u201ccivilizations\u201d (and the persistence of these traditions) had led and would continue to lead to serious \u201cethno-religious clashes\u201d in the increasingly globalized world.\u00a0 In his eyes (and many other persistence-oriented theorists\u2019) peoples of the world would remain culturally distinct for better or for worse.\r\n\r\nDespite such widespread skepticism, modernization theory seems to withstand the test of time, at least in some form.\u00a0 Contemporary theorists continue to offer new evidence and insights regarding universal rationalization of attitudes and behaviors (Ritzer\u2019s (2000) McDonaldlization argument is one such example).\u00a0 Thus, the debate between cultural convergence and cultural persistence continues.\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n

Tradition vs. Modernization (and Post Modernization)<\/h2>\r\nTo this author\u2019s knowledge, Ronald Inglehart and Wayne Baker\u2019s recent publication, Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values <\/em>(2000),<\/em> based on data from the World Value Surveys, is the first major empirical attempt to compare the two change paradigms.[footnote] The World Value Surveys, beginning in the last decade (spawning from the European Value Study), seem to have finally provided a forum for the investigation of broad socio-cultural change, offering representative data regarding attitudes, values and beliefs from some 65 societies (representing more than 75 percent of the world\u2019s population).\u00a0 See World Values Survey<\/a> site [http:\/\/www.worldvaluessurvey.org] for more information.[\/footnote]In their study, Inglehart and Baker tested modernization theory\u2019s main premise\u00a0 (that economic development is linked with systematic changes in basic values) by comparing value orientations\/tendencies between countries at different levels of development.\u00a0 Furthermore, to incorporate the persistence perspective, Inglehart and Baker employed Huntington\u2019s (1993, 1996) \u201ccultural zone\u201d premise by dividing the nations into eight \u201ccivilizations\u201d (or groups) according to their prominent religious traditions, said to be the preeminent source of values that persist despite modernizing forces (according to the persistence model).[footnote]Inglehart and Baker\u2019s eight cultural zones [based on Huntington\u2019s [1993, 1996] cultural divisions] were 1) Western Christianity, 2) Orthodox, 3) Islamic, 4) Confucian, 5) Japanese, 6) Hindu, 7) Latin American, and 8) African. [\/footnote]\r\n\r\nTheir measure of traditional vs. modern values was derived from Inglehart\u2019s prior assessment of transforming values and beliefs (1997, also using WVS data) in which he identified two<\/em> global systematic change patterns (based on factor scores of 22 WVS variables).\u00a0 The first of these was said to reflect the cross-national polarization between traditional and modern (secular-rational) orientations towards authority (more specifically the differing belief structures of pre-industrial and industrial societies). \u00a0The second was thought to capture the newly emerging shift towards postmodern values linked to economic security (i.e., materialistic survival values to post-materialistic self-expression values) evident in advanced industrialized societies.[footnote] The concept of a new \u201cpostmodern\u201d type of society is a subject of much interest and debate among contemporary social theorists and philosophers (see Gergen, 1991 for a particularly interesting social perspective).\u00a0 However Inglehart\u2019s (1997) perspective of postmodernity (and post-materialism) is largely supported by (and seemingly draws from) Bell\u2019s (1973) conception\/prediction of an emerging post-industrial society.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nAlthough Inglehart and Baker\u2019s (2000) findings supported the theory of systematic change (massive systematic cultural change was readily apparent on both dimensional scales), they also suggested that historical cultural traditions (the \u201czones\u201d) maintained a significant, independent influence on values.\u00a0 Thus, Inglehart and Baker deemed cultural change to be path dependent (in line with the persistence model), and offered a series of revisions to modernization theory (including the argument that modernization is probabilistic rather than deterministic).\r\n

Exploring Social Change in the Developing World<\/h2>\r\nOne weakness of Inglehart and Baker\u2019s (2000) study (and the WVS data thus far) is that the least developed nations, particularly African nations, are underrepresented.\u00a0 Although Inglehart and Baker\u2019s dimensions of change (both modernization and post modernization) appeared valid across most nations (particularly advanced nations), their African zone included only three nations.\u00a0 Further, the \u201cculture\u201d of these nations seemed to be an anomaly to their cultural-influence (i.e., persistence) perspective (see Table 4 pg. 33 in Inglehart & Baker 2000).\u00a0 Thus the relationship between modernizing institutions, tradition, and social change in these nations, which due to years of Western colonization are perhaps the world\u2019s most traditional and underdeveloped societies, remains somewhat unclear.\r\n\r\nThis paper reports the results of a case study that retests and evaluates Inglehart and Baker\u2019s (2000) perspectives on social change (both their general conclusions and their two-dimensional model) by focusing at the individual level on a city in Africa.\u00a0 One critical methodological issue in testing the persistence model is whether units of analysis can be defined by modern, nation-state boundaries.\u00a0 Traditions may persist within boundaries and, in some cases, across boundaries, which is particularly likely in Africa, especially West Africa.\u00a0 The Northern region of Nigeria has a recorded continuous cultural tradition dating back to the 15th century and, at the same time, is a central player in the modern economy of the nation.\u00a0 It is, therefore, an appropriate site for examining these two theories in that arbitrary national boundaries should not bias the findings.\r\n\r\nA past study focusing on the region, which used the earliest wave of the data used here, provided some support for the convergence model, specifically noting a strong relationship between modern secular education and modern value orientations (Armer & Youtz 1971).\u00a0 Using two new waves of data, this study takes a second look at the modernizing power of secular education across time on young people.\u00a0 In addition, to simultaneously evaluate the validity of the persistence model, the current study investigates the effect of traditional Islamic schooling on values.\u00a0 The Qur\u2019anic<\/em> teachings in these schools exemplify a sustaining traditional force in society.\r\n\r\nThe main hypotheses of this project are:\r\n