Abstract:
The paper examines the relationship between traditions and "modern' enterprises on the basis of the empirical data. It argues that traditions should not be understood as a binary opposite of modern enterprises. This issue is not concerned with the emphasis on local instead of universal as presented in the postmodemist discourse. Historically, the fact that some societies, mainly the western, developed very fast when they changed from feudal organization of work to capitalist enterprise in comparison with the Asian society. This gave rise to the question of what distinct features of the western civilization facilitated this development. Max Weber argued that the Protestant ethic was the basis of the emergence of capitalism in Europe. In his separate studies he demonstrated that capitalism could not develop in India and China because their religions were contrary to its spirit. Following the Weberian perspective functionalist school provided the perspective according to which the modes of orientation of actors were based on the values which consequently were posed as dualisms. Thus actor could either act according to the particularistic values or universal values. As a consequence of such formulation, the sociological explanation aimed at categorizing societies as traditional and modem. The 'modern' implied developed societies whereas the economically backward societies were considered traditional. Same thing happened to the social processes in the comparative context.
