提要

　　人的现代化是现代化进程在微观层面的反应，经典现代化理论家对这一问题的研究很有启发性，他们指出，锐意进取、开拓创新的企业家精神是现代人格的核心内涵，而现代化的制度环境则是现代性人格形成的前提条件。但是，经典现代化理论的局限性在于过于强调现代人格中工具理性的因素，而忽略了价值理性的成分，可能导致现代人格的失衡；同时，由于缺乏客观、全面的历史研究，其结论对于发展中国家人的现代化问题有所局限，需要我们有选择的加以吸收、借鉴。

关键词 现代人 分化 整合 工具理性 价值理性

　　从15、16世纪起，历史进入了由传统社会向现代社会转变的现代化阶段。个人作为社会有机体的基本单位，成为这一宏观过程的微观载体，人的现代化成为现代化整体进程中的关键一环。本世纪五六十年代在美国兴起的经典现代化理论，从宏观微观等各个层面展开了有关人的现代化的研究，其中，以英克尔斯（Alex.Inkeles）为代表的社会心理学派从微观层面入手，以社会系统中的普通个人为主要研究对象，将有关现代人格特征的研究进行的最为直接充分。而Talcott Parsons, Neil J.Smelser, Samuel Huntington, Cyril.Black等人的理论研究，其本身虽不是专门针对现代人问题进行的，却分别从社会学、政治学历史学等角度伟人的现代化研究提供了宏观视角和分析框架。

一对现代人格现象的考察

　　社会的现代化与人的现代化相互促进，通过“现代人”的研究，积极培养现代性人格，最终促进社会的现代化进程，这是经典现代化理论家研究的全部出发点与最终归宿。从这一基本信念出发，Inkeles以现代化过程中的普通个人为主要研究对象，以社会过程中人的心理体验和人格特征为研究内容。在研究方法上运用模型分析、专题考察、抽样调查等方式。从研究对象到研究方法都严守“价值中立”的原则，力图“避免抽象的列出各种价值观念，而是提出一份现代品质的清单，这些现代品质满足了管理工厂的要求或需要。” 这明白显示了其理论研究的隐含范围和价值尺度：不但研究者本人力图在研究态度上保持价值中立，而且研究本身也尽量剔除价值理性的因素，以客观标准来界定现代性人格特征。

　　Inkeles将现代化的内涵有宏观层次引导微观层次“社会心理学的方法主要把现代化当作认知、表达和评价方法的变化过程来考虑，现代化于是就被定义成一种个人的反映模式，是一整套以某种方式行动的意向。”而且现代化是一种精神，即马克思?韦伯所说的“资本主义精神” 。因此,inkeles的“现代人”理论在渊源上可以追述到Max Weber那里。

　　Weber可以说是对现代性人格进行研究的第一人。它所处的时代，正是资本主义的生命力由一批意气风发的缔造者所体现并最大限度的迸发的时代，是现代人格与现代社会在互动中发展、定型的时代。他认为：资本主义精神对整个资本主义制度体系，尤其是资本主义经济制度的启动、运行起着决定性的作用，而具有资本主义精神的请教徒则是推动资本主义经济体系运行的主要社会力量，是典型意义上的现代人。现代人格的外在表现形式是，追求财富的功利主义倾向，忘我奋斗克己禁欲的严谨生活作风，精打细算，科学经营的理性行为方式。而这种带有强烈工具理性色彩的外在人格特征，却是以一种典型的宗教情节为内在精神支点的。

　　在weber之后，经典现代化理论家们大多侧重社会现代化进程的研究，但仍可以从中窥见“现代人”理论的一斑。

　　较早的帕森斯在社会学研究中，创造性的总结了区别现代社会与传统社会的五对变项。由于社会是个人的集合体，社会行动系统的特征在很大程度上正是个体行为特征的集中表现。因此这五对变量也可以被视为现代人的人格特征。Huntington从政治学角度出发， 论述了在政治现代化过程中体现出来的个体人格的现代性特征；Black在历史分析中，描述了现代人的先驱----现代领导者的人格特征；最后inkeles系统的实证性研究，总结出一套现代人格的固定模式，纵观各家观点，可以从三方面勾勒出“现代人”的大体轮廓。

　　1对待个人事务的态度：遵循个人利益取向的价值标准，并不强调“无私”和团体取向；具有参与意识，讲求效率；遵循理性化标准，将一切纳入科学合理的计划性轨道；思路灵活，乐于接受并能够很快适应新的生活经验，思想观念和行为方式。

　　2对待他人的态度：尊重他人的劳动和尊严，具有宽容精神；根据普遍性的客观标准评价他人，排除个人主观随意性；按照实际成就而非先天禀赋（如出身、地位等）进行角色评价，并以专业技术水平和劳动熟练程度作为领取报酬的基础。总之，现代人之间的人际关系带有强烈的“非人格化”特征

　　3对周围环境的看法：高度的自我意识和极强的主宰能力。这种精神在主观上来自于自身利益的觉醒，在客观上来自于人类对外部环境控制潜力的增强。对外部环境的积极扩张精神又表现为一方面对客观世界，社会抱有较大信心，采取开放、信任与合作态度。另一方面，表现为在对待传统与权威方面，表现出强烈的自信与挑战精神。

　　可见，经典现代化理论家们所说的现代化与weber所描述的“资本主义精神”有很大程度的契合，两者都体现出一种赋予创新、积极进取、独立自主的人格气质，一种平等主义、个人主义、理性主义的价值观念，以及一种开放灵活、讲求实效的思维方式。但是inkeles等人所界定的现代性人格特征属于不带价值色彩的社会心理学范畴，这一点正是他与理论先驱WEBER分道扬镳之处：用适应并服务于现代社会发展的，为经济理性所控制的现实的个人取代WEBER所描述的以新教伦理为其外部行为提供心理基础和精神支持的超越性个人。

二 现代人格的形成原因和条件

　　对现代人格进行现象性的考察与描述是理论研究的第一步。对现代人格形成的原因和条件的分析才更具有现实意义。INKELES认为工业化的主要方面，工厂制度是现代经济制度的主要形式，因此工厂制度对于现代人格的形成具有决定性的意义。另外，现代学校的正规教育也是培育现代人的摇篮

　　inkeles力图在现代社会的制度环境中寻求现代人格形成的条件，为问题提供了部分答案。但是由于它以人的外部行为和中性的思想态度为考察对象，所以“对于解释和预测人的行为来说，作用并不大，因为它无力深入到人格的内在状况中去进行测量和分析。”

　　对此，昆克尔提出了“行为调适理论”加以补充。他认为：人的行为与价值观念之间存在一种互动关系；个人行为模式又构成了国家行为模式，并受到社会系统操作制约程序的决定性影响。对于现代人格形成的决定性原因，与inkeles将之归结于个别制度和实体机构不同昆克尔突出了整个社会中的强化机制对于个体人格的影响，使个人的发展获得了较为广阔的社会背景。

　　与INKELES昆尔克等人相比，帕森斯则从宏观高度，在更广阔的社会背景下，采用社会学的视角和方法研究问题，将“现代人”形成原因引到一个更为深入的层次上。

　　帕森斯创立了著名的结构功能主义系统论，它将“系统‘作为社会现实的抽象，以一个高度抽象的大系统来统摄物质世界与精神现象，用“结构”、“功能”来描述个系统内部组成部分的存在状态，用“分化”“整合”描述其运作情况。帕森斯所说的社会行为系统实际上是一种“集体人格”是现代个体人格的集中体现，因此，可以将这一理论成果用于现代人的研究中。

　　社会系统的机制包括社会化机制与社会控制机制，而个体人格的形成首先是一个社会化的过程，即个人被整合进社会中、社会价值观念内化为个体独立人格的过程。这种内化早期阶段在家庭中以”认同’方式进行，此后在社会化机构（如学校）中以社会学习的方式继续进行。早期内化价值是一般性的，形成基本的个性结构；成年后的内化价值则带有特殊性，形成各种各样的人格结果。应用这一理论模型，帕森斯解释了现代人格的最主要特征-----经济理性主义的形成过程：经济理性主义不仅仅是一种独立固有的人性，其中也有后天因素，后天因素产生于经济子系统与社会子系统相互调节的互动作用中。在经济过程中被凝固与各种经济制度中；而个体在担当经济代理人角色时，经济制度不断作用于个人，无形中将“经济理性主义”价值观传递给个人，个体价值观念发生内部转化，“经济理性”才成为现代人的部分人格特征。

　　在帕森斯之后，SMELSER等人发展了“分化-----整合”这一特定概念，用以描述现代化的社会变迁过程。“发展的过程是分化和整合之间对位性相互作用的过程。”分化“是一个具有多种功能的角色结构变为几个功能更专一的结构” 　　他在结构上表现为原始大集团的解体和现代小集团的形成，在功能上表现为泛能型集团的消失和单一职能集团的产生。其实质是随着科技的发展、生产能力的提高而发生的劳动分工的加深与扩大，直接后果是职能的单一性和专业化水平的提高。整合是“协调和改善代表各种利益的个人之间的互动机制‘她在结构上是新的利益集团的重组，在功能上是职能集团在更大范围内的依存关系。整合的实质是以社会化大生产为标志的各分化组织之间更大的相互依赖。而其直接后果是个系统之间更大的功能性联合，既由传统社会中各系统的结构性混合状态，过渡到现代社会中各系统之间的功能性联合状态。

“生活经验使人们转向现代化” 　　在全社会空前变动的现代化进程中，人的现代化随之展开，应用结构功能主义的理论模型，可以在社会中找到现代人格的生长点。

　　首先，经济系统的分化发展带来了现代经济的高速发展，为其它系统及个人的发展提供了丰厚的物质基础。更为重要的是现代经济制度得建立体现的文化内涵和精神本质是weber所说的工具理性主义，其主要制度表现形式是：现代企业制度，现代市场体系，市场经济的法律体系等。在商品化的现代经济体系中，个人经济利益逐渐觉醒，经济理性主义，个人主体意识和理性思维方式由此确立，现代人格发展、成熟起来。

　　其次，社会分化—整合带来职业分化与身份分层，进而造成个人思想观念与行为取向上的变化。可以看出，个人角色的单一化使其行为具有情感无涉性和普遍性的倾向；个人摆脱了对集体和家族的依附，独立追求个人利益和成就；各系统专业化水平的提高带来人的综合素质的整体提升，造就了知识丰富、独立自信的现代人。

　　最后，分化-整合过程是一个动态的过程，更是一个冲突、动荡的过程。新旧观念、行为模式的碰撞都反映在个体人格中，促成了现代人开放灵活包容的思维方式。现代性人格就是在这充满了冲突与痛苦的现代化过程中锻炼而成的。

　　与结构功能主义学派的抽象思辨风格不同，BLACK从历史角度出发，以较为现实的人际关系的变化来解释社会分化-整合过程。随着传统农业与现代工业、服务业的分离和农业人口的大迁移，个人与传统农业社会中的地方性的联系同时削弱，从原始社会集团中分化出来，“相对分离”的个人组成“原子化了的，高度分散的社会”

三、理论的局限

　　经典现代化理论中的社会心理学派的主要贡献是提供了现代人格的衡量标准与尺度，而已结构功能主义学派为代表的大部分派别则从宏观层次上提供了抽象的理论模型。二者合一，构成颇具启发性的“现代人理论”。但是由于经典现代化理论自身的局限，其“现代人”理论也体现出很大的局限性。

　　首先，现代人理论的局限性在于现代人模型本身的局限-----将价值理性与工具理性对立，并力图在模型中剔除价值因素。经典现代化理论家自称本着“价值中立的研究态度‘，但其主张却体现了这样一种倾向：价值理性属于传统社会的范畴，工具理性才是现代社会的特征，现代人首先要具有工具理性。这种认识本身就带有西方中心论的价值色彩。诚然传统社会的一个主要特征在于工具理性不足，而对人的发展来说，现代化社会的进步性就在于通过一系列制度变迁，确立个人主体意识、承认个体经济利益、实现对人性的一定解放。认识到这一点正是经典现代化理论中现代人理论的价值所在。

　　但是，不能忽视问题的另一方面，WEBER的理论中隐含着一个重要的前提:工具理性与价值理性总是二位一体的统一于个体人格中，他们本身并不是传统社会与现代社会价值系统的根本区别（传统社会也有工具理性，现代社会也有价值理性），二者之间的关系（二这各自适用的范围与程度、二者相互排斥还是相互支持）才是传统与现代价值系统的根本区别。因此，weber并不排斥价值理性，而主张对传统的价值理性进行现代性改造，以新教伦理取代儒教伦理，用用能够支持工具理性的价值理性（道义的实现就体现在追求功利的过程中）取代排斥压抑工具理性的价值理性（道义的实现要以牺牲功利为前提），用经验主义的价值理性取代神秘主义的价值理性。构件一个健全完善的现代价值系统。而经典现代化理论家无视人的天性、人与社会发展的多样性与复杂性，以工具理性取代价值理性，或对人的价值理性持一种“开放式”的“宽容态度”不将其列入研究范围，这种善意的忽略同样具有误导性。

　　实际上，人的现代化既是社会现代化的起点，也是其终点，社会的现代化应该包括个人感情在内的人的全面发展为目标；抽取终极关怀与情感的人，只能是在工业化的漩涡中被异化了的个人；没有价值理性加以平衡的工具理性常常会走向自身的反面，这也许就是西方“现代人‘产生焦虑感、弃绝感，进而导致西方“资本主义精神”衰落的内在原因之一。此外，具有丰富情感的个人毕竟不同于没有独立情感体验的社会。个体之间往往会比社会体之间呈现更大的差异性，现代人与传统人之间并不存在现代社会与传统社会之间那样明显的界限，相反，传统社会中个人身上可能呈现许多现代人的特征，而即使在现代化程度最高的国家中，人口中最明显的反现代特征也可能以与现代向性标准相矛盾的伪科学的形式出现。

　　因此经典现代化理论家对于现代人标准的界定在复杂多样的个性人格面前显得过于僵化，绝对。
　　其次，现代人的理论局限性还存在于对现代人形成原因、条件的认识和研究方法中。Inkeles的研究范围与方法局限于一种微观静态的研究框架内，仅仅“着重于讨论人格结构的外部表现，例如态度和观念等等。” 　　并将这种人格的形成简单归结为个别的、静态的制度作用的结果，而没有结合社会结构和制度体系动态变迁过程，认真考虑过人的行为的变化方向，因而得出“任何一种促成现代化的机构组织均能单独的培养个人现代性，不必非同其他环境结合不可”的结论，与许多发展中国家的历史以及现实不符。

　　昆克尔仍未突破微观研究的框架，而结构功能主义理论家虽然使理论研究上升到宏观、动态的高度，但只是停留在一般抽象的研究上，在如何培养现代人格等现实问题上，无法提供切实可行的行动方案；black从历史角度进行的研究，在一定程度上拉进了理论与现实的距离，但在认识与解释第三世界国家人的现代化问题上仍有不足。之所以如此，是因为他们以西方发达国家的历史与现实为研究的起点，创建理论模型，而对后发国家的经济体制、政治体制、社会结构，文化历史背景等缺乏直观全面的了解，造成理论模型与应用对象之间某种程度上的错位，限制了理论的现实性、全面性。

四、对中国的启示

　　其实，结合中国的情况，可以看到发展中国家人的现代化来得更慢、更困难，这是各种历史因素综合作用的结果。西方中世纪的社会以封建制庄园经济为基础，封建主与诸侯、皇权与教权四种力量的对峙为个人的自由、工具理性、保留了一定的生存空间、积极支持着封建经济危机中体制内部现代性因素的萌发，最终完成了个体人格的现代性转换。

　　而中国古代的情况是，封建小农经济土壤身后，生长出强固的封建官僚制、君主专制、伦理本位的统治局面绵延两千余年，个人的独立空间被剥夺殆尽，专制皇权下的意识形态长期禁锢着人的思想，人的自由观念、工具理性遭到戮害。观念的惯性、心理的定势决不是靠个别人、个别组织或制度所能改变的，只有在经济现代化的进程中，通过建立规范市场机制推进政治、社会结构、文化观念、的整体现代化，营造一种能够包容诱发现代性生长的社会环境，才能逐渐培养起锐意进取的企业家精神。形成人权意识、法制观念，在社会的现代化中培养现代人，在现代人的支持下深化社会的现代化。否则，不是现代化的工厂制度重塑传统人格，而是传统力量同化、扭曲包括工厂制度在内的现代制度。中国晚清洋务运动开办的旧官僚控制的“现代工场”就是个别现代制度在传统社会大环境中遭到扭曲、失败的典型例证；改革开放以前，我国商品经济的发展始终受到抑制，高度集中的计划体制，严密的行政控制体系和僵化的社会分层结构中残存着传统体制的某些特征，压抑着以经济理性、商业精神为支柱的工具理性，积极进取、开拓创新、自由平等的现代人格并未正常发展起来。事实表明：不进行整体的社会结构和制度环境的根本变革，只是简单建立个别制度、机构，不但无助于现代人的产生，而且连现代制度本身也难免变形走样。

　　人的发展是一个古老而常新的课题，“如果一个国家的人民缺乏能够赋予先进制度以生命力的广泛的现代的心理基础，如果掌握和运用先进制度的人本身在心理、思想、态度和行为上还没有经历一场现代性的转变，那么失败和畸形发展就是不可避免的” 　　经典性代化理论中的现代人理论开创性的探讨了“现代人”的人格特征及其形成原因和条件，虽然这一理论有许多不完善之处，但他指出了现代人对现代化的决定性作用，引起各国，尤其是发展中国家对人的现代化问题的普遍重视。同时，这一理论对人的现代化发展指明了大体方向和前提条件对广大发展中国家突破传统社会机制，改造落后传统人格提供了一种方向性选择，值得我们对其进行更为广泛深入的研究，以求对实践有所补益。

Abstract

The people’s modernization is the microscopic reaction of modernization process. In this respect, we can gain enlightenment from classical modernization theorists who point out that the new entrepreneur’s spirit of enterprising, innovative and pioneering is the core connotation of personality of modernists, whereas the institutional environmental of modernization is the prerequisite of the forming of modernist’s personality. However, classical theory about modernization is too limited as it overemphasizes the significance of tool reason in modernist’s personality and ignores value reason, which may result in the unbalance of modernist’s personality; on the other hand, the conclusion is drawn from the problems arising from people’s modernization in developing country because it lacks objective and complete historical research. Thus, we can only use it for reference on selective base.

Key Words: Modernist Differentiation Integration Tool reason Value reason

Ever since the fifteenth and sixteenth century, the history enters the modernization period from traditional society to modern society. As the basic unit of social organism, individual becomes the microscopic carrier of this macroscopic process, and people’s modernization becomes a key of the whole modernization process. The classical theory of modernization that was first introduced in USA in the fifties and sixties of the 20th century studied people’s modernization from all aspects both macroscopically and microscopically. For example, social psychology school with Alex Inkeles as the typical representative took common individuals in social system as the main object of study and made a profound microscopic study on the characteristics of modernist’s personality. In the theoretical research of Talcott Parsons, Neil J.Smelser, Samuel Huntington and Cyril.Black, although they did not specialize in the issues on modernist, they provided a microscopic view and analysis framework of the study on people’s modernization from the aspect of sociology, political science and history.

I. Investigation on Phenomenon of Modernist’s Personality

The modernization of society and the modernization of human being are interdependent and mutually promotive. Actively cultivating modernist’s personality through the study on “modernist” and finally promoting the modernization process of the society are the jumping-off point and end-result of the study on classical modernization theorists. Inkeles regarded the common individuals in the modernization process as the main object of study and people’s psychological change and the characteristics of personality as the main content of study based on this. He applied multiple research approaches, including model analysis, investigation on special topic, sample survey and so on. It strictly complied with the principle of “value neutralism” either for the object of study or the research approach. It tried to “avoid abstract theory about the values, but provide a detailed list of the characteristics of modernization that meet the requirement or demand to manage the factory” . It indicated the implied range and the standard of value of Inkeles’s theoretical study: it not only required that the investigator must keep the attitude of value neutralism in study, but also eliminate rational factory about the values and define the characteristics of modernist’s personality more objectively.

Inkeles also made a microscopic study on the connotation of modernization. He pointed out “social psychology considers modernization as the change process of recognition, expression and assessment method, thus modernization is defined as a reaction mode the individuals and an action intent in certain mode.” What’s more, modernization represents for a spirit, namely “spirit of capitalism”2 as mentioned by Max Weber. Therefore, Inkeles’s theory of “modernist” can be traced back to Max Weber.

Weber was the first person who made a profound study on modernist’s personality. He lived in the times when the life force of capitalism was thoroughly embodied in all aspects by some high-spirited and vigorous founders. It was the times when modernist’s personality and modern society developed and finalized in the process of interaction. In his opinion, the spirit of capitalism determined the whole capitalist regime especially the initialization and implementation of capitalist economic system; puritan was the major social force that promoted the development of capitalist economic system and the typical modernist. The external manifestation of modernist’s personality was inclined to pursuing utilitarianism as well as self-disciplined, selfless and abstinent lifestyle and strict budgeting, scientific management mode of conduct. But the external manifestation of personality with strong sense of tool reason regarded typical religious plot as internal spiritual backing2. The transcendental religion in inner heart integrated with external rational faculty and the utilitarian mode of conduct, which were the characteristics of modernist’s personality. Judging from external behavioral characteristic, puritan described by Max Weber was close to the modernist mentioned by Inkeles, whereas the tool reason in the spirit of capitalism was the theoretical foundation of Inkeles’s theory about modernist’s personality.

After Max Weber most of classical modernization theorists focused on the study on the modernization process of society, but we can still obtain inspiration from the theory of “modernist”.

In the earlier times, Parsons creatively summarized five couples of variables differentiating modern society and traditional society in sociological study. As society is the complex of individuals, the feature of social behavior system is the centralized manifestation of individual’s behavior feature to some extent. Therefore, these five couples of variables can be regarded as the characteristics of modernist’s personality. Judging from political science, Huntington illustrated the feature of individual’s personality in the process of political modernization; Black described the personality feature of modern leaders namely modernist’s forerunner in his historical analysis; Inkeles’s systematic empirical research demonstrated a fixed mode of modernist’s personality. It summarized the others’ opinions and drew the general outline of “modernist” from three aspects.

1. Attitude toward individual’s affairs: Follow the criteria of value of personal interest orientation and deemphasize “selflessness” and group’s interest orientation; have strong sense of participation and seek for high efficiency; comply with rational standard and arrange everything in a scientific, planned and orderly way; have some good ideas, willing to accept and able to adapt to new living environment, new ideas and new mode of conduct quickly.

2. Attitude toward the others: Respect the others and respect other’s labor and be tolerant to others; appraise others with common objective criterion and eliminate personal subjectivity; carry out role assessment according to actual achievements, not innate factors (such as birth, social position and so on), and take professional technical skill and the skill of labor as the basis of reward. To sum up, the human relation among modernists is provided with strong “impersonalization” feature.

3. Attitude toward surrounding environment: have self-awareness and strong dominating power. Subjectively speaking, it comes from the awareness of personal interest; objectively speaking, it comes from human’s strong control potential of external environment. On the one hand, the active expansion of external environment shows people’s confidence in objective world and society and the people’s open, trust and cooperative attitude; on the other hand, it shows people’s self-confidence and spirit of challenge towards tradition and authority.

From this we can see that the modernization in classical theorist’s eyes tallies with Weber’s “spirit of capitalism”. Both embody the personality of creative, enterprising and independent, the values of equality, individualism and rationalism and the thinking way of open, smart and actual effect. However, the characteristics of modernist’s personality defined by Inkeles et al pertain to the range of social psychology without the flavor of values, which differentiates it from Weber’s opinion. It replaces the transcendental individuals with Protestant ethics as the psychological foundation and spiritual support of their external behavior as what Weber described by the individuals in real society that adapt to and serve modern society and are controlled by economic reason.

II. Reasons & Conditions for the Forming of Modernist’s Personality

The phenomenal investigation and description of modernist’s personality is the first step of theoretical research. The analysis on the reasons and conditions for the forming of modernist’s personality is provided with practical significance. Inkeles considered that the main content of industrialization namely factory system was the principal mode of modern economic system, thus factory system was determinative for the forming of modernist’s personality. What’s more, he believed that the formal education of modern schools was the cradle of modernist2.

Inkeles endeavored to find out the conditions for the forming of modernist’s personality in the institutional environment of modern society. He has provided the answer worthy of thinking. However, as it took human’s external behavior and neutral thinking attitude as the investigated object, “it is of minor significance for explaining and forecasting human behavior because it does not make a profound study on the internal connotation of personality”2.

For this, Kunkel brought forward the “theory of behavior adjustment” as a supplementary. In his opinion, human behavior and values were interactive; individual behavior mode was a part of national behavior mode and affected by the limitation of social system. Inkeles considered the difference between individual system and practical institution was the determinative reason for the forming of modernist’s personality. Kunkel laid special stress on the influence of compulsive mechanism on individual’s personality in the whole society, thus the development of individuals gained a broader social background.

Compared with Inkeles and Kunkel, Parsons studied problems microscopically from the view of sociology with a broader social background. It made a profound study on the reasons for the appearance of “modernist”.

Parsons founded the well-known structural functionalism systematology, which took “system” as the abstract real society, used a highly abstract system to generalize material world and spiritual phenomenon, used “structure” and “function” to describe the existing status of the components in each subsystem and used “differentiation” and “integration” to describe the specific operation of it. In fact, the social behavior system in Parsons’s eyes was the “group’s personality” and the centralized manifestation of individual modernist’s personality. Therefore, it is applicable for the study on modernist.

Social system is composed of socialization mechanism and social control mechanism, whereas the forming o individual’s personality is a socialized process, which means that individuals are integrated with the whole society and the social values interiorizes as individual’s independent personality. In the initial stage, the interiorization exists in the form of “recognition”; after that, it proceeds in social institutions (such as schools) by means of study. The interiorization in the initial stage is provided with common values and it forms basic individuality structure; after entering adult stage, the interiorization is provided with particular values and it promotes the forming of different individualities. Parsons applied this theoretic model to explain the main feature of modernist’s personality----the forming process of economic rationalism: it is not only an independent and inborn personality, the posteriority factor is also included, which is produced in the interaction course of economic subsystem and social subsystem. Economic rationalism exists and develops in various economic systems; whereas when individuals play as the role of economic agent, the economic system continually works on individuals and transmits the value of “economic rationalism” to individuals, thus internal transformation happens in the individual’s values and “economic rationalism” becomes a part of the feature of modernist personality.

Right after Parsons, Smelser et al further studied on the special concept of “differentiation---integration” and illustrated the social transformation process of modernization in detail. “The development course is the interactional process of the contraposition of differentiation and integration.” Differentiation “is the process changing a multifunctional role structure into several structures with specialized functions”2. It is embodied by the disorganization of several big groups and the forming of modern small groups in structure and the disappearance of multifunctional groups and the appearance of the groups with single function in function. The essential of it is the specialized division of labor because of the development of science and technology and the improvement of production capacity. The direct result is the specialization of function and the improvement of professional skill. Integration is “an interactive mechanism coordinating and improving the relation among the individuals representing for the interest of different groups”. It is the reorganization of new interest group in structure and the dependence relation among functional groups in a larger range in function. The essential of integration is the interdependence among all specialized groups based on large-scale socialized production. The direct effect is the functional integration of each subsystems on a larger scale, which means to change from structural mixed state of all subsystems in traditional society to functional united state of all subsystems in modern society.

“Living experience promotes the modernization of human being” . In the modernization process with the unprecedented great changes of the whole society, human being becomes more modernized. The theoretical model of structural functionalism can be applied to find out the growth point of modernist’s personality in society.

Firstly, the individualization and development of economic system contributes to the high-speed development of modern economy and provides considerable material foundation for the development of other social systems and individuals. What is more important, modern economic system must be established on cultural and spiritual basis, namely tool reason as what Weber described before. The main institutional manifestation of it includes modern enterprise system, modern market system and the legal system of market economy, etc. In commercial modern economic system, personal economic benefit gradually rouses, thus the economic rationalism, individual’s subject consciousness and rational thinking gradually come into being and modernist’s personality achieves rapid development and becomes more mature.

Secondly, the social individualization and integration brings occupational differentiation and identity division, which results in the change of individual’s ideas and behavior orientation. The simplification of personal role provides behavior with irrelevancy of feelings and universalism; individuals shake off the fetters of the collectivity and family and pursue personal interest and achievements; the improvement of the professional skill of each system enhances the human’s comprehensive diathesis. Thus, independent modernists with self-confidence and rich knowledge emerge as the times require.

Thirdly, the social individualization and integration is a dynamic process and full of conflicts. The conflicts of new and old ideas and mode of conduct are reflected in individual’s personality, which contributes to the forming of open, smart and tolerant thinking mode of modernists. Modernist’s personality is formed in the modernization process full of conflicts and pains.

Different from the abstract thinking style of structural functionalism, Black examined the matter from the angle of history and explained the process of social individualization and integration with the change of human relation in reality. With the separation of traditional agriculture from modern industry and service industry and the transference of peasant population, individual’s affiliation with the endemicity of traditional agriculture society is weakened. “Comparatively independent” individuals constitute “atomized and highly decentralized society”.

Theoretical Limitation

The main contribution of the social psychology school on behalf of classical modernization theory is providing the standard and method to assess on modernist’s personality, whereas other academic schools represented by structural functionalism school provides an abstract theoretical model macroscopically. Both of them constitute the heuristic “theory of modernist”. However, limited by the theory of classical modernization, the “theory of modernist” is not a comprehensive and objective idea.

Firstly, the theory of modernist is only limited to the model of modernist---it sets up value reason against tool reason and endeavors to exclude the value reason in the model of modernist. The classical modernization theorists declared themselves to insist on “value-neutral research attitude”, but the following opinions were indicated according to their ideas: value reason was included in the range of traditional society, whereas tool reason was the mark of modern society; the modernist should set up tool reason at first. The idea is provided with the flavor of taste of western centralization theory. Indeed one of the main features of traditional society is lack of tool reason, but for the development of human being, the advance of modern society is to establish personal subject consciousness, recognize personal economic interest and liberate human nature to some extent through the reformation of series social systems, which is the theoretical value of modernists according to classical modernization theory.

However, it is undeniable that there is an important prerequisite in Weber’s theoretical research: both tool reason and value reason are always included in individual’s personality and they are not the big difference between the traditional modern value system (he neglects that tool reason also exists in traditional society and value reason also exists in modern society); the relation between tool reason and value reason (the scope of application, application degree, the interactive or inter-repellent relation) is the big difference between traditional and modern value system. Therefore, Weber did not exclude value reason and insisted on the modern transformation of traditional value reason. He aimed to replace Confucianism by Protestantism, replace the value reason that excluded tool reason (morality and justice was realized on the premise of the sacrifice of material gain) by the value reason that supported tool reason (morality and justice is realized in the course of pursuing material gain), and replace mysticism value reason by empirical value reason so as to form a perfect modern value system. However, classical modernization theorists ignored human’s nature and the diversity and complicacy of the development of human being and society. It either replaced value reason by tool reason or held an “open” and “tolerant attitude” toward human’s value reason and did not include it in research range. The kind ignorance misled their study.

In fact, the people’s modernization is not only starting point but also the terminal of the modernization of society, which should aim to achieve the overall development of human being, including personal feelings; the person with no affection or feelings to others can only be dissimilated individual in the swirl of industrialization; the tool reason without the balance of value reason often go in adverse direction. This may be one of the internal reasons to explain the phenomenon that “modernist ‘produces the sense of anxiety and frustration and results in the eclipse of ‘capitalism spirit’ in western countries”. In addition, the individuals with emotions are quite different from the society without independent emotional experience. There will be a bigger discrepancy among individuals than the discrepancy in society. There is no obvious difference between modern people and traditional people, but modern society is quite different from traditional society. On the contrary, the features of many modernists may be embodied in the individuals in traditional society. Even if in the countries with high degree of modernization, the most obvious anti-modern feature of human being may be indicated in the form of pseudoscience that is contrary with modern tropism criterion .

Therefore, the definition criterion of modernist by classical modernization theorists is too rigid and absolute for various sophisticated individuality.
Secondly, the theoretical limitation about modernist also exists in the recognition of the reasons and conditions for the forming of modernist and the research method. Inkeles’s study was only limited to a microscopic static research framework and it only “emphasized the external manifestation of personality structure such as attitude and opinion, etc” . It simply explained personality as the result of separate static system, and did not take the change of human behavior into consideration with a view to the dynamic transformation of social structure and social system. Thus, they drew a conclusion that “any kind of modern organization is able to independently develop individual’s modernization and it is unnecessary to combine it with the environment”. It does not conform to the historical and practical situation of many developing countries.

Kunkel did not break through the stereotypes of microscopic research. Although structural functionalism theorists heightened theoretical study to macroscopic dynamic study, it only stayed on common abstract study and could not provide feasible solution to establish modernist’s personality; although Black’s study shortened the distance between theory and reality to some extent from the angle of history, he did not have a correct and comprehensive recognition of the people’s modernization of the Third World countries. They usually started from the historical and reality study of developed western countries and established a theoretical model. As they did not have a visual and comprehensive understanding of the economic system, political system, social structure and historical background of underdeveloped countries, it resulted in the misplacement of theoretical model and application object. Thus, their theoretical study was too limited and unilateral.

IV. Enlightenment to China

As a matter of fact, the people’s modernization in developing countries is more difficult and it experiences a long course because of different historical reasons. The western mediaeval society regards feudal manorial economy as the foundation of the society. The confrontation among the lord, leud, imperial power and magisterium remains the living space of individual’s freedom and tool reason, actively supports the bourgeon of internal modernization factor of fuel economic system and finally finishes the modern conversion of individual’s personality.

In the ancient times in China, except for feudal small-scale peasant economy, the feudal bureaucratism, autocratic monarchy and feudal ethics also dominated for over 2,000 years. The individual’s independence space was deprived and the ideology under the domination of imperial power limited people’s thinking for a long time. People’s idea about freedom and liberty and the tool reason were snuffed out. Any individuals, individual organization or individual system could not change the inertia of idea and the psychological feature. The enterprising entrepreneurial mentality the consciousness of human rights and the sense of legal system can only form in the process of economic modernization and by establishing a standard market system to promote the overall modernization of politics, social structure and culture and creating a social environment that allows the survival and development of modernization. Modernist forms in modern society and the modernization of society requires the support of modernist. Otherwise, it is not the modern factory system that remolds traditional personality but the traditional strength that assimilates and distorts the modern system including factory system. The “modern factory” appearing in Westernization Movement in later Qing Dynasty under the control of old bureaucracy was a typical example that individual modern system was distorted and defeated in traditional big social environment; before the reform and open policy was implemented, Chinese commodity economy could not achieve a rapid development because of the traditional system remained in the highly centralized planned economic system, strict administrative control system and rigid social stratification, which restricted tool reason with the support of economic rationalism and commercialism. Thus, the active, enterprising, innovative and liberal modern personality was not really established at that time. The facts shows that if we do not carry out revolutionary reform of overall social structure and institutional environment and simply establish individual system or institution, it will be of no help of the appearance of modernist and may deform modern system.

The evolution of human being is an old topic worthy of study. “If the people lack a wide and modern psychological foundation that can endow advanced system with life force, if the people who master and apply advanced system have not experienced the modern transformation in psychology, idea, attitude and behavior, it is inevitable to be defeated or develop abnormally” . The classical modernization theorists innovatively discussed on the characteristics as well as the reasons and conditions for the forming of modernist. Although there are many defects, it points out modernist plays a determinative role in modernization, which has aroused all countries especially developing countries’ attention on the issue of modernization. What’s more, it illustrates the general orientation and prerequisite for the development of people’s modernization and provides a directional selection for developing countries to break through the stereotypes of traditional social system and change the backward traditional personality. It is worthy of study in a broad sense so that we can put theory into practice in a better way.