Wallerstein (2004) - World Systems Flashcards
(20 cards)
Which two themes are considered to dominate the last decades of 20th century and what are problematic aspects of this?
1) Globalisation, 2) Terrorism
The two phenomena only portray a partial picture of the present.
The failure to address meaning, origins, larger trajectory and history has resulted in a failure to make obvious long-term predictions (such as 9/11)
Part of the problem - we have studied phenomena in separate boxes (politics, economics, sociology etc), when these boxes are creations of our imaginations, not reality. (Wolf - same argument with reification)
Three (left out) points to explain our modern world-system
1) 16th century emergence of capitalism
2) French Revolution (1789) explaining the resulting two centuries of geoculture for the modern world-system dominated by centrist liberalism
3) World Revolution (1968) warned of terminal phase of our world system that undermined central liberalist geoculture which held the world-system together.
¡Disclaimer! (skada bam bam rehab)
Reader ought to “unthink” much what they have learned from elementary school on, which is reinforced in mass media daily, to understand world-systems analysis.
Historical origins of world-systems analysis
- World-systems originated as a theory in 1970s as a new perspective on social reality
- Traces history from 1750s, the establishment of capitalism and enlightenment era
Recap enlightenment era I
- Move from religious truths of knowledge to secular ways of reasoning through empiricism
- Knowledge was a unitary field (eg Kant), including philosophy and science
- The two divorced in the 1750s as empiricism (induction) could not accept metaphysics (deduction) as valid knowledge
- Around the same time was modern universities born.
The creation of science and humanities
- Faculty of philosophy was divided into two sub-faculties (or cultures) - sciences and humanities - who were at war with each other, insisting one was better than the other. The main dispute was between empiricism and hermeneutic understanding.
- Science became an umbrella term for the search of “truth” and as value-neutral.
- Humanities was considered the search for the “good” and “beautiful” (art, literature etc)
The emergence of social sciences
- In the 19th centuries, science and humanities were differentiated further
- Was placed in between sciences and humanities
- French Revolution in 1789 made it clear that social sciences must exist to explain nature of reason, pace of change and how people arrive at decisions they take.
The emergence of history
- Became a humanity due to its focus on human will in particular instances (not creating general laws)
- Mostly British, French, American and from the areas that would later become Germany and Italy
- They looked at history within the borders of 19th cent, which was supported by govt as it reinforced nationalism
- However, history did not study the present, which there was a need for in the emergence of modernity and massive changes.
The emergence of political science, sociology and economics
- Three main features of modernity or a modern state was the presence of a state, a civil society and a market. The three studies were dedicated to make sense of these areas.
-These were all considered “nomothetic disciplines” (disciplines in search of scientific laws) - All of these were studied in their own countries / comparatively amongst the five countries
The emergence of anthropology
- When the European expansion took off, it seemed inappropriate to study “non-Western” places in a “modern” discipline because the colonised countries seemed so different from them
- Studied people under actual or virtual colonial rule
- Since people were “so different”, anthros used participant observation to learn their cultural ways
- Assumption that people had no “history” other than the one following the imposition of rule which created cultural change (reflects Wolf)
- Useful to colonial rulers by offering information
“High civilizations”
- Encompassed China, India, Persia, Arab world
- Had a common language, religion and customs stemming from world-empires
- Not as strong militarily/technologically, hence deemed not “modern” - yet not “primitive” either
The emergence of oriental studies
- Orientalists assigned the job to acquire skills to learn about the East (high civilizations)
- Argued that their culture had “frozen” in track. which prevented them to reach “modernity”.
- Result: They required European help!
1945-Configuration of social science
1) USbecame a hegemonic power of the world-system
2) Third-world countries were locus of political turbulence and geo-political self-assertion
3) Combination of democratising and the expansion of the world economy = expansion of world university system
This resulted in CHAOS to the neat structure of knowledge that had evolved the last 100-150 years
What was the result of USbecoming hegemonic power and third world countries reaching indepedence?
An American need to study the rise of nationalist movements to stall impact on US power (which anthropologists and orientalists were not specialised in)-
Led to a reconcilement of idiographic disciplines (eg geography and culture) AND nomothetic (economic, sociology, poli-sci, etc) into AREA studies which who created the concept of DEVELOPMENT
Development studies
- Theory of stages
- Assume all national societies develop in the same way (nomothetic) but at distinct paces
- Soviet Union also adopted this rhetoric but themselves as the model state for high development
The impact of area studies and university expansion
- Increased search for originality in research and more political suspicion towards anthros/orientalists (by non-westerners) = modern and non-modern zones were disintegrating and discipline distinctions became vaguer
Four debates between 1945-1970 that led to World-Systems theory
1) Core-periphery, articulated by UNEconomic Commission for Latin America (ECLA)and the dependency theory
2) Marx’ Asiatic mode of production
3) Discussion of transition between feudalism and capitalism
4) “Total history” debate in France
Core-periphery
- Developed by ECLA
- Core countries = wealthy capitalist countries, military and colonial power
- Periphery countries = poor, “exploitable” resources (thats crazy), unstable government
The model says that core countries are able to trade on terms of creating a surplus value from periphery countries, often called “unequal exchange” (or you can just call it exploitation and oppression like it is)
Dependency theory
- Andre Gunder Frank fundamental to the creation of this theory
- Realised that the Europeans did not aim to modernise/industrialise colonised states, but it was a “development of underdevelopment”. Hence places underdevelopment as a result of historical capitalism.
- Critique of Latin American communists who saw society as feudal not capitalist (they saw it as necessary to reach capitalism because only through capitalism could one achieve communism if follwoing Marx)
Asiatic mode of production
- Marx, found it difficult to place on the ladder
- Large, bureaucratic and autocratic empires (high civilisations)
- Stalin banned term in 1930s
