9_Law and State_Volume 17

46 Johann Hellwege
a theory claiming total explainability. Meanwhile, on the other hand,
theories of modernization have been further developed, expecially in the
discipline of historiography, and at the same time relativized. Precisely
the experience of the dubious nature of the so-called “western model”
has broken the arrogant back of the universal claim to validity made by
individual theorems from the complex of inconsistent descriptive theories
of modernization. Particularly in view of the fact that the actual historical
phenomenon of Latin America’s dependence upon the western
industrialized countries can in no way be denied, it seems to be time to
reconsider the explanatory value of the two theory complexes which have
been in part artificially contrasted against each other.
Here it is useful to recall the conditions under which dependentismo
originated. For these conditions are partially able to explain weaknesses
and particular qualities of the various dependencia theories, which in the
following, for obvious reasons, must be treated essentially in a form which
reduces them to important assumptions rather than in their individual
variations. Similar considerations apply to the concept of “dependencia”
itself, whose substance is by no means clearly and unambiguously defined
in the literature. The first decade of development had been ushered in
with great expectations. When it came to an end, the concepts of a universal,
linear developmental process from “traditional” into “modem”
society seemed an utter failure. These concepts, which essentially had been
advocated by North American social scientists, were ultimately ahistorical
and involved industrial-capitalist and liberal-democratic societies, especially
those of an Anglo-American type. In their practical application, they
acquired the form of development policy or concrete development programmes
promoted by the nation-state. It was primarily Latin-American
social scientists who in the mid-1960’s attacked the crude, dualistic,
ichotomous social model of early theories of modernization. Quite ostracized
by their defensive opponents, they designed a counter-concept which
rep aced the dualism with a monism and the dichotomy “traditional v.
modern” with another one, viz. “capitalist development v. underdevelopment
. Modernization theories were inverted, and underdevelopment in
t e ird World was no longer defined as a preliminary and transitory
stage toward development, but as a consequence of and precondition for
j e , urt er development of the industrial-capitalist, western world. Une.r,
f Ve °Pment ar>d development were conceived as necessary components
11 !T « C j COPe a s*ngle, world-wide process. The existence of so-
“tucf • •tl° em sectors” *n developing societies, usually in the shape of
f nm^ Sr°^Ps drawn from a middle class previously highly valued
ns o evelopment strategy, henceforth was no longer an opti­