Don Libby wrote: > "modernization theory identified traditional, "pre-modern" cultural values > guiding action as the crucial barrier to entering the stage of a developed > society (Inkeles and Smith 1974; Lerner 1958; Lerner 1968; Rostow 1960). > Development action based on modernization theory envisioned the diffusion of > modern values through education and technology transfers to non-western > elites (Leys 1996)." > > http://www.cultureandpublicaction.org/conference/s_o_d_modernizationtheory.htm > http://www.cultureandpublicaction.org/conference/s_o_d__references.htm > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernization_theory
Thanks, let me read them ... is this theory still being applied to policy formulation? For instance, how does it help in formulating policies to attain the UN Millennium Development Goals? > The last French anthropologist that I read was Levi-Strauss. I was not > aware of Girard until I saw your newsletter. I take it that his work is all > about religious violence. Actually, his theory is that all forms of violence ultimately have a religious root. This does not mean that he is anti-religion. In fact, he is a devout Roman Catholic. This is the main website: http://theol.uibk.ac.at/cover/index.html According to Girard, the Christian gospels are the only sacred books that propose radical non-violence ... something that many Christian churches have yet to understand. The following website contains a series of reflections in which biblical texts are interpreted in light of mimetic theory: http://www.girardianlectionary.net/ > Is there any indication in his work of the connection between religion, > violence, and global change - or does it simply boil down to "violence is > bad"? He provides plenty of evidence about the links between religion, violence, and both individual and collective human behavior; and then the link to global change becomes clearly visible. > I think we can agree that violence is bad, and after some further researches > find there are forms of violence rooted in religion, but I don't think we > will agree that therefore some religious institutions should be taxed > because they subscribe to "bad" dogma X, while others not taxed because they > subscribe to "good" dogma Y. Historically, religious persecution and unfair > taxation are the stuff war and rebellion are made of. The only real solution is an internal (from within) reformation of religious institutions to renounce violence. Taxation of religious institutions would be a form of "financial violence" from the outside, but sometimes even Jesus had to temper his non-violence with a good dosage of tough love (Matthew 7:6, 21:12-13). The distinction between good and bad doctrines may be tricky, but eventually must be resolved by a non-violent political process. Personally, I don't like to see my tax dollars go to any institution (religious or secular) who practices any form of apartheid. Luis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
