「로스토우」 史觀의 批判

A Critique to Rostow's View of History

I. Problems in Methodology 1. Rostow's Point of View Rostow's The Stages of Economic Growth is not very different from the theories of history of the other authors such as Marx or Sombart in generalizing the trend of history, moulding a theoretical model and applying it to the modern history. But other historians, in generalizing the process of development of capitalism, disregarded the difference in theory and policy between various economies, that is, the peculiarity and originality of each country. While, Rostow understood the modern history, not as simply "the stages of growth" but "a set of stages-of-growth" consisted of various countries lying in various stages of economic progress. Thus he could make clear not only the historical relativity of theory and policy in the process of modernization but the peculiarity and originality, say, the spatial relativity. Set aside the validity of his explanation, it is highly appreciated that he contributed much to the methodology of history in this respect. Rostow, applying the spatial relativity to the consideration of the stage of preconditions for the take-off, that is, "the transitional era when a society prepares itself for sustained growth," distinguished into two cases. One is what might be called the general case in which the traditional culture hindering modernization exists. Therefore in this case the creation of the preconditions for take-off requires "fundamental changes which touched and substantially altered the social structure and political system as well as techniques of production." This case covers most of Europe, the greater part of Asia and Africa. The other comprises those nations who have not traditional culture but, in a sense, being 'born free', and hence "physical settings-of wild but abundant land and other natural resources-discouraged the maintenance of such elements in the traditional structure as were transplanted, and accelerated the transitional process by offering extremely attractive incentives to get on with economic growth." This case covers a small group of nations: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. 2. Distorted View of Nationalism Rostow, without any touch on the economic pressure of the advanced economy exerted on backward economy, especially on the various effects of colonial powers hindering the modernization of underdeveloped economy, sophisticates for the interests of advanced economy. We need to examine these in two ways. Firstly, he presents the following three factors concerning the stages of preconditions for modernization: some external intrusion by more advanced societies which not only shocked the traditional society and began or hastened its undoing, but set in motion ideas and sentiments which initiated the process by which a modern alternative to the traditional society was constructed out of the old culture; these ideas and opportunity for education, for some at least, which makes new types of enterprising men come forward, who are willing to mobilize savings and to take risks in pursuit of profit or modernization; a new nationalism which, in opposition to the traditional landed regional interests, the colonial power, or both, was a decisive aspect of the preconditions period and almost universally a necessary condition for take-off. Secondly, he, admitting the historical fact that a reactive nationalism has been a most important and powerful motive force in the transition from the traditional to modern societies, at least as important as the profit motive, distinguished the xenophobic nationalism from the peculiar form of it which developed in colonial areas. First, he says, xenophobic nationalism of an independent state has led to modernization in some nations such as Germany, Japan and post-1861 Russia, but in some other nations as in case of China failed m modernization. Second, about the nationalism peculiar to colonial areas, he, also assumed the same circumstances as the xenophobic n